Jump to content

Talk:Julie Bindel/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Julie Bindel

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 18 February 2018 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Julie Bindel) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 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)

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:

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 IITalk 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."[1] 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[2][3]
  1. ^ "Feminist research fellow: Put all men 'in some kind of camp' - The College Fix". The College Fix. Retrieved 2016-04-25.
  2. ^ Teeman, Emily Shire|Tim. "LinkedIn Lawyers Both Losers in Absurd Sexy Picture Scandal". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2016-04-25.
  3. ^ editor, Robin McKie Science (2015-10-10). "Tim Hunt sexism row reignited after scientist quits writers' group". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2016-04-25. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)

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)

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:

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. RivertorchFIREWATER 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)
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)

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:

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julie_Bindel/Archive_6&oldid=826264044"