Talk:Julie Bindel/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Move for Deletion

This person is of no note. Also , the categories are in error. Neither Arts and Entertainment nor Feminism are appropriate. She is a radical feminist, not a feminist. :Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism She is TERF Trans-exclusionary radical feminist . There needs to be a section collecting her transphobic remarks of which there are masses . The article has been white washed. If the editors can not manage neutrality then they should be blocked from editing and less bias editors take over. I suggest complete deletion and a rewrite from the beginning. 24.24.142.155 (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep She is a significant writer and activist, and the controversial aspects of Bindel's career are not glossed over as the article has a section on Bindel's writing about transsexuals. Her critics are not unrepresented in the section either. Writers are included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment. Philip Cross (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Julie Bindel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081210094553/http://www.ldnfeministnetwork.ik.com:80/calendar/6161225152.ikml to http://www.ldnfeministnetwork.ik.com/calendar/6161225152.ikml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Factual errors about 'Big Brothel'.

From the Wikipedia page:

"The report found that unprotected anal sex was available from £10, and penetrative sex from £15, in over 900 brothels operating as legitimate business across every borough in London; many of the premises involved offered "very young girls", but denied any were under age, and many of the women were from Eastern Europe and South East Asia."

1. anal sex was available from £10 extra, up to £200 extra, according to the report, not 'from £10'. (page 6)

2. Penetrative sex was not available from £15 in over 900 brothels. From the report "Prices for full sex ranged from £15 to £250, with an average price of £61.923."(page 6). It should be clear in wikipedia that sex for £15 was not available in 900 brothels, but only in some of the 900 brothels investigated. It could only have been 1 single brothel offering sex for £15. The report does not specify.

3. the report does not say many premises offered 'very young girls'. This is a clear exageration. It only says 'a number' of premises offer 'very young girls'.(page 5)

The entire Big Brothel report is available online here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33738529/Big-Brothel-Poppy-Project, but is not referenced in wikipedia. 78.150.225.176 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2012‎ (UTC)

The above items have been included already. I have also added the fact that unprotected sex was "penetrative" (vaginal and anal), rather than just anal - the source does not make it clear how many offered one, the other or both, nor if there were price differentials. More importantly unprotected sex was only available at 2% of the establishments, (about 18) meaning there is little statistical value to the prices. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

Addition to lead

TJD2, please stop engaging in wholesale reverts. Disagreeing with one thing doesn't make it okay to revert other fixes.

The following is not appropriate for the lead or any other part of the article. The source for the first point isn't good, it contradicts itself (she created controversy but the media isn't concerned about it), and it contains original research:

"Recently, she has created controversy with her idea of putting all men in concentration camps, and eradicating heterosexuality as a whole." Despite this, she has not come under fire in the media, exemplifying a double standard in the way men and women are treated online, such as with men like Tim Hunt and lawyer Alexander Carter-Silk

SarahSV ^(talk) 05:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the material is not appropriate for the lead. The purpose of the lead should be to describe basic facts about Bindel and the key points of her career, and I doubt her comments about eradicating heterosexuality is one of them. I'm not sure why something about this matter would not belong elsewhere in the article, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, forget the last part of that. Having looked at the sources, I think you're completely right and that that content should not be in the article at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It should be in the article to maintain an objective POV with both positive and negative points. We can't focus on only the positive aspects, but then again looking at your profile FKC, you seem like an avid feminist so this would be a bit of a conflict of interest in your case. Please do not remove sourced material just because it disagrees with your views on feminism. TJD2 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That is a completely ridiculous comment. Nothing I've ever said on my user page or anywhere else would convince a neutral observer that I am an "avid feminist". I simply happen to agree with SlimVirgin that the sources are poor and that the importance of Blindel's comments has not been established. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversial statements / Criticism section

@DuranDurar: @Bbb23: This is about my reversion of DuranDurar's edit previously reverted by Bbb23; per WP:BRD, we should probably discuss rather than just revert each other. The content DuranDurar is trying to add is:

Bindel has been the subject of controversy for some of her past statements, and has been called a misandrist, radical feminist, and bigot by her critics. In 2015, during an interview with the group RadFem Collective, Bindel stated that she believed men should be put "in some sort of (internment) camp" where they would, among other things, be forbidden from fighting or viewing pornography. She added that "[w]omen who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back," and later commented that she hoped heterosexuality "did not survive." These statements received considerable backlash. (Beck, Chris. "U.K. Radical Lesbian Feminist Wants All Men in Concentration Camps". Splice Today. Retrieved 29 December 2016.) In 2016, after a back-and-forth exchange with some users on Twitter, Bindel published a tweet saying: "Dear misogynist trolls I'm going to make things easier for you - save u some time. All men are rapists and should be put in prison then shot." (Prestigiacomo, Amanda. "Feminist Journalist: 'All Men Are Rapists and Should Be Put in Prison Then Shot'". Daily Wire. Retrieved 29 December 2016.)

My reasoning for reversion is that these are highly controversial statements in a WP:BLP, so, per that linked policy, need to be treated with great care, and cited to highly reliable sources - which The Daily Wire and Splice Today just aren't. Per our article about them, they're opinion sites. We need to wait for more reliable sources to write about these statements before we can, to give them the proper importance and perspective. --GRuban (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• I thank you for wanting to handle this with civility, and I'm glad that makes two of us who don't want an edit war! I do retort, however, that many living persons from various ends of the political spectrum have commentary dedicated to controversy or criticism of them. This article in particular does not, instead offering nothing but glory and praise to the person in question. Regardless of personal belief, Wikipedia is a website dedicated to stating neutral, unbiased, factual statements free from personal skewing or opinion meddling with what is fact. The fact, therefore, is that her statements have been criticized, just as she has been, while the article paints her not in a neutral sense but almost an advertisement sense. Whomever edited this, I believe, was quite fond of her. As rewriting the whole article would be unnecessary, I feel that placing a criticism section, backed by sources and evidence, is the right step into making this article more neutral, rather than an author's praisepiece. To that end, I'd also like to say that the Daily Wire is used as a legitimate source on multiple other articles, including articles relating to criticism and commentary of living persons, so I'm not entirely sure why this article is exempt from that.

Going back through the edit history, it seems the most vocal opponents of editing the article to include critique are, as their profiles openly state, strong Marxists, Feminists, or Left-leaning philosophists. While I'm not here to argue one's beliefs or put in beliefs of my own, this to me seems to say that the article may have been the victim of biased editors, with their own political beliefs changing what they felt necessary to be shown here or not shown here in an article relating to a Left-leaning, self-proclaimed Marxist radical feminist. Again, politics have nothing to do with this, and they shouldn't, which is why I feel the edit is necessary. With glowing praise throughout the article, advertisement wording for her published works, and self-proclaimed Marxists involved in denying and reverting edits of any tone of criticism of the person in question, I can't help but admit that bias may be afoot. This bias is of course no way on your part, and I'm not accusing you of such. My concerns only lie with other people and what may be underlying problems with the article as a whole. I'm not convinced one way or the other, but if it looks like a duck... DuranDurar (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not available to paint political opponents with cherry-picked quotes that disparage a BLP subject. That approach is fine for your blog but "criticism" (see WP:CSECTION) at Wikipedia should be based on neutral secondary sources that attempt a balanced overview of a subject. Only trolls would propose that the quoted words were intended literally. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere did I state she intended them literally. I simply added what she said. And let's be reasonable: joke or not, it's worthy of criticism.DuranDurar (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

See, people write, say, and tweet, stupid things all the time. Only some of those things are worthy of being put into the Wikipedia articles about those people (if for no other reason than that we're not going to include a complete copy of the subject's Twitter feed!). The way we usually decide which are worthwhile is by seeing which ones reliable sources write about. That doesn't mean just picking the favorable ones, or just the ones that are about a political viewpoint; it includes Clinton's line about deplorables (hey, that one has a one word direct redirect!), and the Romney 47 percent comments, and Obama's "bitter, cling to guns and religion", and countless others, that, I'm quite sure, were not thoroughly thought out at the time they were said (or written, or tweeted) by their author, and the author really regrets saying them, but just happened to get picked up and made a big deal of by those reliable sources. If those reliable sources (which is not quite the same as the mainstream media, but it's a fair first approximation) pick up on these comments of Bindel, we will absolutely put them, and the reaction to them, in our article. Until then, we have to look at how contentious and controversial they are versus how much attention they've gotten. And in these cases, they're quite contentious and controversial, and they have gotten little or no attention by those reliable sources. So, per WP:BLP, its section WP:BLPSOURCES especially, we need to leave them out. --GRuban (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This article should state something similar to "Bindel said (insert controversial statement), for which she has been heavily criticised by (insert random group of critics)"? I'm probably not the only Norwegian currently trying to find some relatively neutral information on this person and her controversies, after she was recently no-platformed by Socialist Left Party. And I of course expected to find it on Wikipedia. Tannkrem (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You might like to look at the Working Class Movement Library (Their Facebook would be most current) and their LGBT History Month event. Bindel has been invited to speak at this event, despite being previously outspoken on trans- issues and hardly supportive to bisexuality either. There has been "a backlash", to say the least. The WCML have yet to comment in response. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julie Bindel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101116200722/http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/PRESSPACKgeneric12-06.pdf to http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/PRESSPACKgeneric12-06.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2017

Add Julie's official website in External Links - www.thejuliebindel.com 51.7.117.98 (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The link to an official website properly should go in the infobox (if an article has one), not in the External links section, so I've added it there instead. Feel free to reopen this request if that isn't acceptable, for some reason. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Revert of disputed material

I have removed a section added to this article which appears to be, at best, tendentiously worded, fails to attribute claims and uses sources which are sketchy at best (SpliceToday and DailyWire are no one's idea of mainstream sources.) In addition, this material has been previously discussed and rejected by consensus, as seen on Talk:Julie Bindel/Archive 6. I'm pinging those previously involved for more consensus - @SlimVirgin:, @Johnuniq:, @GRuban:, @FreeKnowledgeCreator:. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Support that action, as before in that talk archive. Basically, to my untutored gaze, in recommending that all men be incarcerated Bindel seems to be joking and/or using wild hyperbole, wild enough that it should be obvious as such to anyone who thinks she is at all sane. However it seems that group does not include the writers of Splice Today and the Daily Wire. I am reminded of We begin bombing in five minutes, in which someone on the other end of the US political spectrum made an outrageous statement, intended to be a joke, that was similarly taken way more seriously by his opponents. The difference is that Reagan was/is far more prominent than Bindel. Should Bindel's joke/rant get even half as much of that kind of reliable source coverage, we'll include it. Until then, we'll leave it out. --GRuban (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I also support the removal. As GRuban says, it's obvious hyperbole. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• I support including it. This isn't mere hyperbole when Bindel (or Valerie Solanas) suggests it, they're being serious. Look at her views on transgender women too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Solanas was an attempted murderer with paranoid schizophrenia who wrote first self-published, then for an intentionally controversial publisher; Bindel is an academic researcher who writes for universities and top shelf newspapers, and the only shooting she does is of herself, in the foot. But, yes, I see the group that doesn't necessarily consider Bindel sane includes some Wikipedia editors. Until that group includes Wikipedia:Reliable sources, though, we should keep such opinions to ourselves. --GRuban (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus to keep the material out for now. Further discussion about whether Bindel's comments were serious or not isn't going to serve a useful purpose. (Commenting because I have this talk page on my watchlist; the attempt to ping me was unsuccessful). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julie Bindel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006013803/http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTc3MTk3NDA1 to http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTc3MTk3NDA1
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-overview-of-sexual-offending-in-england-and-wales

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Bindel renounces TERF?

Re these two (undiscussed) [1] [2] removals of Bindel from the Trans-exclusionary radical feminists category. No doubt sourcing will be forthcoming for this remarkable volte face, but one can only congratulate her on abandoning her previous adamant exclusionary position.[3][4] Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That term is used as an insult, so the category should not be added per BLP. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two different categories involved. Both are obviously unacceptable and have been nominated for deletion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions are underway at WP:CfD to form a consensus on whether the categories should be deleted. Please do not prejudge the outcome of those discussions by depopulating the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

When editors genuinely believe that something is a BLP violation, the material should be left out until there is consensus. See WP:BLP. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As requested on my talk, @SarahSV: if it is genuinely not your intention to disrupt consensus-formation by removing from the category discussion the articles where other editors believe the categories are justified, then please list at the CfD discussions all the pages so removed.

If your claim of BLP is made in good faith, then I'm sure you will do this promptly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

In an interview with Radfemcollective.org in 2015, Bindel proposed that all men should be put in concentration camps: "I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back." She went on to say she hoped heterosexualism "doesn't survive". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seso101 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If you can check people out of it, it's not much of a concentration camp. Bindel herself seems dismissive of that characterization too:

"Last year I made a joke in an interview in response to the question, “What can we do to end male violence?”, a campaign I have been involved with since 1979. I replied, jokingly, that if men could not learn to behave themselves, it might be a good idea to put them into an enclosed space, modelled a bit like a holiday camp, with a choice of quad bikes, white vans or bicycles. Female partners, mothers and friends could visit, and take them out like a library book, returning them at the end of the day. This would continue, I suggested, until men could learn to behave better towards women.

"Within hours of the interview going online, men’s rights groups were accusing me of wanting to put men in “Nazi concentration camps”. And they say feminists are the ones with no sense of humour."

— Julie Bindel, "Now we can make sperm, is this the end of men?", The Guardian (February 26, 2016)

"Nazi concentration camps" is quite a hyperbolic exaggeration of her obviously facetious proposal. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

TERF inclusion

Checking the talk page archives, there was no firm consensus to avoid categorizing or naming Julie Bindel a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Recent sources include the Spectator which states "Reinforcements came in the form of Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy and British activist Julie Bindel, the Thelma and Louise of terfdom in the eyes of the trans movement – a ‘terf’ being a ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’" ([5]). If sources show that Bindel is a poster girl of "terfdom", then it seems bizarre to avoid inclusion. The previous claim was that the TERF category was a BLP violation. Any suggestions on how to make the article reflect what the sources actually say about this? @Andy Dingley: as having recently expressed a view. --Fæ (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to waste on WP articles like this, where accuracy or objectivity simply aren't part of the goals. If Bindel isn't described as a TERF already, that's a windmill of obvious bias bigger than I have any inclination to tilt at. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I removed Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism because the term was not mentioned in the body of the article (cf. WP:CATVER). My view on whether it's appropriate to mention the label in the article is that WP:RACIST is the most relevant guideline: Value-laden labels [...] may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. There's a sizeable discussion at Talk:Mermaids (charity) about whether/how to use the TERF label to describe Bindel and another person in that article (though that discussion also gets into the separate question of whether those people should be mentioned in the article at all, per WP:DUE weight). Colin M (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

When even the Spectator is using term to describe Bindel, and in Bindel's blog she recognizes that she is seen as a TERF [6], there is no good reason that these facts are not mentioned. --Fæ (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I have no objection to adding it as long as there are sources to back it up. I agree, the fact that she mentions being called a TERF in her own blog is good evidence that it's noteworthy. Colin M (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• This category very obviously belongs. Bindel is known for being a strident opponent of trans rights, describing trans women as "the man in the skirt" and such, and for her outspoken opposition to trans inclusion, all of which is documented in the section on trans activism in the article. If you want to rename the category to something like "anti-transgender activism" that is certainly defensible and but it's a differnet question. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2019

FROM "A visiting researcher at the University of Lincoln (2014–2017), and former assistant director of the Research Centre on" TO "A former visiting researcher ..." 212.219.220.105 (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done aboideau^talk 14:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Decision on: Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists

The RfC consensus is: we should generally provide in text attribution when using the term "TERF" in a BLP. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Pyxis SolitaryDo you have a better link than the one you posted. I clicked on it and it took me to BLP, but I can't find the decision? Thanks.Oldperson (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Archived. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 05:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

P-Wiijk

Correção na publicação, Julie bindel era uma feminista comum, não radical... O aspecto radical se deve na visão dos tempos atuais, mas naquela época ela era considerada uma feminista como qualquer outra, porém bem conhecida e com bastante influência P-Wiijk (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Remove the word TERF - this is a slur of a term with no neutral or fixed definition and not one which the subject would self-apply, therefore has no place in an encyclopaedia 217.137.42.195 (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The term can be used as long as it is attributed in text to who labeled the person. In this case there was no such sourcing so I removed it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Using the label TERF

I did not see any sources in the article referring to this person as a TERF, which then leads to not seeing any in-text attribution to the label. Additionally the placement would still be WP:UNDUE as one of her primary descriptors. Because of this I have removed the label. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"Gender, Bisexuality" heading incredibly vague

The heading "Gender, Bisexuality" is incredibly vague, and "gender" could be referring to nearly anything in the range of this BLP subject's interests. I proposed replacing "Gender," with "Criticism of Transsexuality", which happens to be the term used by the subject herself. For some reason I don't understand, this clarification was reverted. Please discuss. Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

None of the other headings say her opinion on the matter in question. That is not typically done and reads as unencyclopedic. The heading is not vague. Has she even commented on male bisexuality? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know that she has commented on male bisexuality, but her comments on female bisexuality are accurately described by RS as "criticism". And her discussion of "gender", according to the sources we cite (the subject and others) consist for the most part in what she herself describes as criticism of transsexuality. This isn't true of the other topics listed, except for "Men and hetrosexuality", which should probably be termed "Attitudes toward" or something (I'm actually not confident that that last section is DUE, since it is sourced to one interview with "secondary" coverage in a campus newspaper aggregator). Of course, the specificity of some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans is quite entertaining, but we aren't supposed to cultivate BLPs for their links to humorous content. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Since it's a subheading under Journalism it's safe to assume its referring to her journalism related to Gender and Bisexuality. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

In that case it is misleading, since most of what is referred to there isn't journalism (and none of the Men and heteosexuality material consists in her journalism, at all). Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

How about changing the main header to Journalism and Commentary, since it seems she does a fair amount of commentary and is often on panels for the purpose of her commentary? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no issues with your change to the main heading. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"Great" minds think alike: while you were typing here, I was composinh my rather similar change to the heading. I thought "interviews" was more inclusive of live appearances than "commentary", but I'm not wedded to one formulation. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

C L Minou’s opinion

The section Gender, Bisexuality starts: In an opinion piece in The Guardian C L Minou said that Julie Bindel had a "long record of public transphobia".

I know of no reason why Minou’s opinion is noteworthy, and it does not seem appropriate to start the section with Minou’s comment. Now there is a gathering of editors, I would be interested in your views on whether this should be moved further down the section, or deleted altogether, as I would prefer. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed one way or the other, but I think that piece is meant to be representative of the view in some circles that she is transphobic. Moving it down in the section probably makes more sense, so it starts with Bindel's commentary and then moves on the criticism of that commentary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I would concur with removing it altogether as I also don't see why Minou's opinion of Bindel should be considered noteworthy and I'm not sure we can use one person's opinion to represent views of 'some circles' in general. 17:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Lilipo25 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that the opinion is worth citing, but dies not deserve the pride of place it has in the section. Many others have said essentially the same, so it might be better to group similar evaluations. Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with others here that it doesn't seem appropriate to place it as the first sentence in the section. How about putting it at the start of the second paragraph? Also, @Lilipo25: I think you forgot to sign your comment above. Srey Sros^talk 23:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I did - thanks for the heads up. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If the sentence is to be retained, then I think that the beginning of the 3rd para is a more appropriate place for it, because that para is a collection of various mentions of opposition to her views. But as I said before, I would prefer the sentence to be removed entirely, because I don’t think Minou’s opinion is noteworthy. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

If there are no objections, then I intend to move the sentence to the beginning of the 3rd para, as this seems to me to be the best fit for the various views expressed above. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have now made the amendment. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Bindel vs. PinkNews

If someone in the UK can perform a web search for more sources that have covered the lawsuit brought against PinkNews in July 2020 and settled out of court in October 2021, it would be appreciated.
The following source was removed from the article: "Neutral Citation Number: 2021 EWHC 1868 (QB), Case No: QB-2020-002650, Royal Courts of Justice, 7 July 2021"; which included the following: "On 17 May 2020, an article was published on PinkNews under the headline: “The ‘gender critical’ feminist movement is a cult that grooms, controls and abuses, according to a lesbian who managed to escape” (“the Article”). It is not necessary, for the purposes of this judgment, to set out the text of the Article....The Claim Form was issued on 29 July 2020 with Particulars of Claim following on 13 August 2020. By consent, the Particulars of Claim were amended on 10 December 2020."

The joint statement announcing the out of court settlement between Bindel and PinkNews has been used in the article: "Joint statement: PinkNews and Julie Bindel", 25 October 2021. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: I don’t know why you want to add this to the article – it would just be giving more publicity to the defamatory material. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: I tried searching for a reliable source for this information before I removed it [7] but was unable to find any. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I was happy with the very brief mention of the dispute with PinkNews, which I think is noteworthy, and I am reinstating it. But I am opposed to giving more details about it, because I think this would in effect be repeating the libel. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Having had a quick search, there are no other reliable sources, UK or further afield that mention the case being settled. The only non-PinkNews sources that have covered it in any manner are unreliable per WP:RSN (Guido Fawkes/Order-order, The Critic, and Lesbian and Gay News). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Aspley Library

I think the recent changes to this improve the section.

However, the Council's statements should, in my view, be given a fuller quotation (in the format as released by the Council), to provide a wider context and make it more readable.

I would prefer to revert that. NoPolymath (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I support the use of the full quote.

On a separate point, the NottinghamshireLive source says that the talk went ahead outside the library. I think this should be mentioned in our article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea.

I just wanted to keep it as brief as possible, NoPolymath (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should remove the quote, keep the content to a couple sentences, and put it in §Gender, bisexuality. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Firefangledfeathers. I'm still not entirely convinced that this is due for inclusion as a whole, but I definitely think it isn't that impactful that it requires its own section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Good point, but I think it is topical and could be come a bigger issue, if she decides to sue, etc

That being the case, it would have to be added again, and readers might lose out on the context, etc

Why don't we just leave it there for a while and see what happens? NoPolymath (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The NPOV policy prevents us from giving undue weight to content, see WP:BALASP, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:BALANCE. As a matter of course, we don't write speculative content on the assumption of what may be. We write content on what has been, characterised and weighted by reliable secondary sources. If Bindel decides to sue, then in that event we can analyse those sources to figure out how much weight we should attribute to this. But as it currently stands, this is barely more than a footnote in terms of actual impact. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it has happened, been reported in several major newspapers, at least one local paper.

I can add more content from those sources, if that helps.?

But as I said I thought it best to keep it brief, say what happened, then give the Council statement. NoPolymath (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Bindel has now said she intends to sue.[8] So I think this is worth a section on its own. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Daily Mail columnist

Confusing that this article fails to mention the primary reason that Julie Bindel remains in the public eye, which is her regular writing for the Daily Mail. From searching the DM website she seems to have been writing quite regularly for the Mail since 2013, although I can't find a source for when she started. She announced her plan to sue a local library in a column for the Mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10955299/JULIE-BINDEL-says-going-sue-council-banned-giving-talk-library.html) and this incident is discussed in her wikipedia article without mentioning this key source. In fact there are no sources from the Mail listed as part of the article, which seems especially odd as this seems to be her main activity in recent years. Ruthrendellmysteries (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Please bear in mind WP:DAILYMAIL. If a third-party reliable source has mentioned Julie Bindel's articles for the Daily Mail, the connection can be mentioned, but otherwise they are not notable enough for inclusion in a Wikipedia articles. However, Julie Bindel's journalism has appeared in numerous publications over many years, so the exclusion of the her work for one outlet does not have particularly great significance. Philip Cross (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

There are many sources on Bindel's desire to sue Nottingham Council, I found 5 links on that topic without much effort.

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/author-julie-bindel-vows-sue-7258652

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/julie-bindel-to-sue-nottingham-council-after-aspley-library-talk-cancelled

https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-structure/julie-bindel-threatens-to-sue-city-over-cancelled-talk-27-06-2022/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-61948946

https://www.localgov.co.uk/Council-cancels-event-over-feminist-writers-views-on-trans-rights-/54431 NoPolymath (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)