Talk:Julie Bindel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Stonewall controversy

This article has been reverted several times over the last days. Information relating to the controversial side of the nomination has repeatedly been removed even though it is clear that the nomination was controversial at least to people in the trans community and so details of this should be included. ZoeL (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be a persistent problem with anonymous users deleting data on this entry. From the pattern of the vandalism it appears to be aimed at removing any data that these anonymous users may feel tends to show the articles subject in an unflattering light. The section in question appears to be properly (if rather extensively) footnoted and other than partisan rancor I can see no reason for its continued removal.

Everyone should keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia not an uncritical fan page. Unless it is being alleged that all the different references cited are somehow faked, I am unclear what legitimate reasons there are for the continued erasures. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection of the page to stop the anonymous edits. Zoeoconnell (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been requested and denied three times now. ZoeL (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The information relating to the trans protesting of Bindel's nomination distorts the fact that this was a small protest by the same persistent group that has been bullying this writer for a considerable time. The tone of the content I have removed was distinctly partisan and largely irrelevant to the subject of this page. As there are a significant number of trans, queer, and LGBT people SUPPORTING Julie Bindel, it is not reasonable to present opposition to her from within those identity communities as being substantial or uniform. It is neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.253.78 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This complaint seems quite disingenuous. It was a been a big enough deal that the subject of the article addressed the controversy herself in one of her columns that is already being used as an article reference. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The demo was actually the largest ever trans rights demo and was not organised by one particular group - several groups, none of whom had any previous engagement with Julie other than being in the audience of the "Hecklers" back in 2007 as far as I know, spontaneously and independently decided to stage a protest against the Stonewall awards. As for support - I've seen pretty much zero in the trans community. What debate there has been has focused on if the community should engage with Julie and talk to her vs. refusing to talk on the grounds that it's a lost cause and would give her extra publicity. Certainly one could argue that she has support from some portions of the LGBT community, but that would almost exclusively be made up of cissexual lesbians rather than any other group. Zoeoconnell (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above post. I think the fact that the nominated results in the largest ever trans rights demo not organized by a single group shows that it was a controversial nomination and so details of that should be included here. ZoeL (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am NOT in the Trans Community and do NOT live in the UK. I feel that there is a misunderstanding here as to the purpose of Wikipedia. That this happened is a fact as show in a variety of news sources (including photos) and should be reported. Furthermore the subject of the article has, in at least one documented interview candidly admitted that she is a writer who sparks (and perhaps even invites) a certain level of controversy.

Perhaps the people who keep stopping by and deleting the portions of this entry they feel is not flattering to this media star they follow should start something like a myspace fan page in her honor instead. But censorship by wholesale deletion is not an appropriate response. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have re-removed a paragraph from this section which was largely sourced to self-published sources. The best independent source offered, pinknews.com, was being highly selectively used to suggest wider support for the protest when the source article suggested the opposite. CIreland (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please improve by perhaps addid a contrasting view complete with appropriate references. Wholesale deletions are not improvements. Thank you CyntWorkStuff (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it again. This is a person's biography; we don't keep poorly sourced non-neutral material in a biography while we fix it. Alternatives can be worked out here. I'll post a suggestion in a minute or two. CIreland (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently there is a line that reads:

In 2008 Bindel was among those nominated for the Stonewall's 2008 awards which was eventually won by Dr Miriam Stoppard.

We could append some text to that:

In 2008 Bindel was among those nominated for the Stonewall's 2008 awards which was eventually won by Dr Miriam Stoppard. A small number of people at the ceremony protested Bindel's nomination for her "anti-trans opinions and writings" but the protest failed to receive support from the larger transexual organisations. (Sourced to pinknews.com)

The trouble is that this basically says "There was a protest; it wasn't very important." so I'd still be inclined to omit it entirely. CIreland (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Umm, could it be that the reason this would not really be acceptable is because making incidents that (while some might feel tend to reflect poorly on the subject of an article) actually happened "disappear" is not actually the purpose of Wikipedia?

If the subject of the article was sufficiently moved as to write a column published in The Guardian about the affair (unless the fact that the column was written by the subject of the article was what was meant by "self-published sources"? which is why it was just deleted) why don't we take HER word for the notability of the event and at least acknowledge that something happened?

As for the sourcing, I will admit that it is problematic. However I submit that the reason for that is NOT because "it wasn't very important" but because the doings of the Minority Community's referred to (lesbian feminists and transsexuals) are not customarily covered on the lead pages of The Sunday Times et. al. So therefore we must make a good-faith effort to go with what we do have as best we can. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above but we can't have situation where our main (and most objective) source is misrepresented. It is not censorship to insist that content reflects the sources used to support it. What do you think of the proposed alternate wording I suggested? It does recognise that "something" happened but also that it was not supported (by the protesters' own admission) by "the larger transexual organisations". CIreland (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Which source do you believe is being misrepresented? In terms of lack of support from larger organisations, that does not indicate a lack of support from the community - there is politics going on and it would not have been in the interests of at least one organisation to come out against Stonewall, despite the strong grass-roots support. This may in fact be the undoing of some such organisations, and as a result the protest is becoming a key debating point amongst the UK Trans community and arguably the most important event in the last few years in the development of UK Trans politics Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Again I do not live in the UK so it is difficult for me to accurately assess which of the many on-line sources catering to the LGBT Community can be said to be that much better. However as far as I can tell, as Bindel's own article in The Guardian (listed in wikipedia as a "[newspaper of record") would actually be the most reliable source.

In that article she clearly states that there is a protest movement and that is has so much support that SHE feels it will deprive her of the award, etc. Additionally Bindel take the occasion to further validate her stance as an anti-trans campaigner and then goes on to advance her theories that she does not consider anyone other than people who self-identify as "Gay Men" or "Lesbian Women" to be part of the variously named LGBT, Queer, or Homosexual Community. In particular singles out Bisexual and Transgender people as those who "do not belong" in LGBT. IMHO the fact that Bindel herself was sufficiently upset to write the article, then given her (*ahem*) novel declarations in said article not to mention the 370 plus mostly extremely negative comments attached this is something that can reasonably be mentioned under a sub-heading entitled "Controversy".

I also note a pro-forma protest of her statements by Bialogue a known advocacy group for theBisexual Community, so I am unclear why that too shouldn't simply be referenced for completeness.

Next after looking at it's wikipedia article I am a little mystified as to why Pink News is being touted as higher-up the food-chain than anything else mentioned, but forging gamely ahead I find two (2) articles about the controversy and in neither of them do I see the words "There was a protest; it wasn't very important."

However I do see the quotes "The decision to nominate Guardian journalist Julie Bindel for a Stonewall Award has angered some in the trans community, and a picket of tonight's ceremony has been widely trailed on the internet as a wider protest against "LGB transphobia.", "Organisers said it was the largest trans rights demo in the UK, with 150 protesters" which when further teamed with the quote that "It was great to see so many people turn up to this event, particularly when the larger transsexual organisations have refused to support us or give us any publicity" makes it VERY interesting as it suggests a grass-roots reaction rather than a some made-to-order for the TV Camera PR type event, which (again IMHO) IS important. So again I'd say that should be included, especially as it relates to the above.

Next I see that the entire affair has been written about by another Guardian contributor Dr. Petra Boynton, who is also used as a source in a number of other Wikipedia Articles, so I would propose that gives her some standing, Her articles also goes on to say that the affair both took place and was important as it may "have done us a favour in shining a light under a rock where a rather unpleasant issue still resides". Additionally she goes on to discuss further unfortunate allegations of "unethical, poorly conducted and badly managed research" against Bindel which were not included in the article, but perhaps they should be?

The other supporting documents are taken directly from those that Pink News links to and include pictures of both the (unless someone alleges it was trick photography) larger demo and smaller counter-demo. So if they are considered a Pink News underlying source and it are an acceptable wikipedia source why can't we also accept them here as secondary sources to give depth to our primaries? Respectfully CyntWorkStuff (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I put a little less faith in the piece by Bindel about the protests because of its rhetorical-editorial nature. The pinknews piece has lot more background detail - actual numbers of protestors, the small counter protest, the reaction of related groups. Can I ask again, since you didn't address it, whether you approve or not of:

In 2008 Bindel was among those nominated for Stonewall's 2008 awards which was eventually won by Dr Miriam Stoppard. A small number of people at the ceremony protested Bindel's nomination for her "anti-trans opinions and writings" but the protest failed to receive support from the larger transexual organisations. (Sourced to pinknews.com and the Guardian ed piece)

Alternatively, we could add a little more:

In 2008 Bindel was among those nominated for Stonewall's 2008 awards which was eventually won by Dr Miriam Stoppard. A small number of people at the ceremony protested Bindel's nomination for her "anti-trans opinions and writings" but the protest failed to receive support from the larger transexual organisations. Bindel later wrote an editorial about the incident.

Or, being more specific:

In 2008 Bindel was among those nominated for Stonewall's 2008 awards which was eventually won by Dr Miriam Stoppard. 150 protestors attended the ceremony to object to Bindel's nomination for her "anti-trans opinions and writings" but the protest failed to receive support from the larger transexual organisations. Bindel later wrote an editorial about the incident.

Please suggest a version if none of these suit. CIreland (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

With greatest respect I feel you may have misunderstood that is going on here.

These presented versions completely miss the point of why all this is relevant to this particular article. The point was never were there 100 or was it 150 people on one side and were there 12 or maybe only 6 on the other. It was that there was a public airing of an ongoing conflict between radical fringe elements of the Lesbian Community which in turn set off some militant elements of the Transgender Community (and to a lesser extent the Bisexual Community). And the subject of the article, Ms. Bindel publicly and vehemently stirred the pot and allied herself with one of these opposing camps at what was supposed to be a politely event to celebrate the accomplishments of a united community.

The bisexual community wasn't involved in the initial protest particularly - they've been dragged in following Bindel's follow-up column in the Guardian. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

While the bare facts may or may not be more or less true, in some ways it seems to me it is as thought someone wrote that, "On the evening of 31 August 1997 a black 1994 Mercedes-Benz S280 crashed into a pillar of the Pont de l'Alma road tunnel in Paris and three of the four occupants in the vehicle died." and never explained who the occupants were, what they were doing there, other events surrounding the crash, etc.

I hope this make it all a bit clearer. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The question is not "What happened?" or "What is our interpretation of what happened?", the question is "What do the sources say?" I'm not trying to push an agenda here, I simply want to be able to look at what we say and then look at the (reliable) sources and find that they say the same thing. In this version our text does not reflect the sources. Please suggest a version which you would like that does. CIreland (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse my exceedingly clumsy wording. I in no way meant to imply that you were in any way attempting to put forth any particular viewpoint. Accept my apology if it seemed that way at all.

Of course it can only be "what do the sources say".

However one person might (for example) point out theses quotes from source "The decision to nominate Guardian journalist Julie Bindel for a Stonewall Award has angered some in the trans community, and a picket of tonight's ceremony has been widely trailed on the internet as a wider protest against "LGB transphobia." and "Organisers said it was the largest trans rights demo in the UK, with 150 protesters", but another could just as easily find the statement "Look out for the eight-foot high purple and white Julie Bindel Fanclub banner" more relevant.

I don't actually know much about the subject other than in general terms and what I found on the net. Therefore I've put a note on the other editors page's as well as a call for any expert assistance there might be out there on to the LGBT studies page. Respectfully CyntWorkStuff (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I would point out though that the quotes you just provided differ in their portrayal of events from what was in this revision. Anyway, it is obscenely late in the UK and I must go to bed. CIreland (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite - part 1

A lot of the original sources have been mangled and lost in various edits - I have a half-done revision that I'll post up on the talk page for comment when it's done. Right now, I have to go to TDOR... Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's what I've come up with - it's a complete rewrite of the controversy section, which puts the protest in the wider context. What do people think? I've completely avoided mention of the size of the protest as I don't think we'll come to a consensus on how to describe it.

Bindel's writing on gender reassignment surgery and transgender issues, has caused controversy in the Transgender and greater LGBT communities. Most notably an article she wrote in 2004 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/31/gender.weekend7) that compared transexuals to "the cast of Grease" resulted in an apology from the newspaper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/feb/14/pressandpublishing.comment) and from Bindel herself for the "tone" of the article. In 2007, she also went on BBC Radio 4's Hecklers debate to propose that "sex change surgery is unnecessary mutilation". (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hecklers/pip/o29wl/)

Despite continuing disapproval of her views from the transgender community and a vote of censure against her at the National Union of Students LGBT Campaign's 2008 Conference (http://resource.nusonline.co.uk/media/resource/CD6%20Motions%20Document%20LGBT.doc), she was nominated for the UK LGB rights organisation Stonewall's 2008 "Journalist of the year" award (http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/?p=724), which was eventually won by Dr Miriam Stoppard. The nomination attracted a protest against Stonewall outside the event from the Trans and Queer communities and mixed support from attendees of the awards. (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-9523.html) (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/11/412557.html) Bindel's follow-up piece to the protest in the Guardian newspaper (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/08/lesbianism) caused even more widespread discomfort, when she stated she, as part of the "lesibian and gay" movement, did not want to be "lumped in" with Transgender or [Bisexual]] people - whom she appeared to accuse of having "odd sexual habits".

The main reason I've stuck with the Pink News and Indymedia sources is that they are first-hand accounts - other reports that are not personal blogs have either picked up on the Pink News story or on press releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoeoconnell (talk • contribs) 13:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The only issue I have with the above is the sentence:

The nomination attracted a protest against Stonewall outside the event from the Trans and Queer communities and mixed support from attendees of the awards

Does not reflect the statement by the protesters that the larger transsexual organisations have refused to support us or give us any publicity. I think that ascribing the protest to "the Trans and Queer communities" is too broad although I'm having trouble coming up with a satisfactory re-wording.

How about "...parts of the Trans and Queer communities"? Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I also think we should come with a more neutral section heading than "Controversy". Something like "Reactions in the LGBT community" or somesuch. CIreland (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I like your suggested heading. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is not just dealing with the nomination though but also with Julie Bindel's views on transsexualuality and these views are controversial. I agree controversy is not the best heading to use but your proposal would appear to only be dealing with the reaction to the nomination. ZoeL (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone, how are you all today.

I do understand that we must be judicious and non-inflammatory in our wording. But ZoeL is correct, as I was trying to explain last night this section is here to document that Ms. Bindel's stock-in-trade is that she holds and articulates in her writing some views that are decidedly not mainstream. This includes both the fact that she is Transphobic and made more than one statement to that effect AND as articulated in her Guardian column of 8 November 2008 ("It's not me. It's you: As a lesbian, I no longer want to be lumped in with a list of folk defined by 'odd' sexual practices"[1]) she is also Biphobic.

Now I do understand that Ms. Bindel is given to just making outrageous pronouncement because as The Guardian's pet "angry lesbian", that is her stock in trade. And I do understand the position that some hold that to even mention them (or her) just gives her a larger platform and ups her ad revenue, but I'd like to point out the article of another "angry commentator" Fox's Bill O'Reilly that we might take as a model on how to structure things. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How about Reactions to Bindel's journalism then? We could then also balance the section by documenting any awards or other honours she may have won or been nominated for. CIreland (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I like that, very measured. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I approve of that too - although that I'm aware the Stonewall award is the only one that she's been nominated for, not sure what else could be added. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well since the article is on all of Ms. Bindel's activities and the section is simply "Reactions to Bindel's journalism" we could include one of her own columns on the subject "Why men hate me"[2] and it would have the benefit of giving her opinion so that it would make the section even more "fair and balanced". CyntWorkStuff (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree in principal to the proposal by CIreland. However her views on transsexualism could be in the biography part is this is simply stating a fact. The reaction to it and the award nomination can then be included in the section proposed. This section could also include reactions to her journalism on topics other than trans issues. ZoeL (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea ZoeL. I think it is actually more correct that "her views on transsexualism could be in the biography part". May I ask that we make it her views on both the Trans and Bisexual Communities though.

May I also suggest that we start a new section here since this is getting quite long and it is technically no longer just about the "Stonewall controversy" CyntWorkStuff (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree and would suggest that we split the new section off starting with Zoeoconnell's post containing the proposed rewrite. I am not sure if there are any policies that would prevent us from splitting it off like that though. ZoeL (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

More references requested

Is there a source for the no platform/censure thing? The NUS documents online still show no platform. --Zoeoconnell (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the following quote in one of the referenced articles "The result of this led to Ms Bindel being sanctioned by organisations such as the National Union of Students LBTG body, and for many feminists to distance themselves from her."Stonewall Awards nominee causes LGBT split. Having only lately come to this article, I don't know enough about this entire subject to say if this is enough to resolve the reference request.

Many of the press articles are sourced from press releases I myself wrote. Thus, I would call into question their accuracy simply because they're based on information that I believed was accurate at the time but has now been indicated might not be accurate. The only way to get a resolution would be a published statement from the NUS LGBT campaign group but apparently that's hard to get at the moment. (Presumably due to high turnover of students) Zoeoconnell (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite - part 2

Since even that was quite long I've made a "Part 1" and a "Part 2". Hope that is OK with everyone. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If we include her view on bisexuals, we should probably include sex workers too - I know some sex-work-positive feminists don't like her views on the topic. Not sure of a good source for such things though. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have stalled... assuming the section is called "Reactions to Bindel's journalism" and the text is changed to "...parts of the Trans and Queer communities" as mentioned above, are people broadly happy with the changes? Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said above I agree with the proposal in principal but think that her views on transsexualty and bisexuality could be included in the main biography section as her views on this are known and the reaction section should be dealing with the reaction to her journalism. ZoeL (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, it seems kinda hard to split because it's all action-reaction-rereaction... I'd be open to a suggestion as to which specific bit you'd like to see in which section however. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

After re-looking at this I think you do have a point. I note that articles on other journalists have controversy or criticism sections and all the details are included in that section but I understand that the title may not be suitable here and so Reactions to Bindel's journalism would be a good title. This could also include reactions to her journalism on topics other than trans issues. ZoeL (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the revised page is much more reasoned and balanced, and largely avoids the partisan qualities of the earlier versions. I'm no slavish fan of Bindel, but this page should not be used as a platform for attack and activism, no matter how well meant. I hope others will add content relating to Bindel's other writings so that this difficult, problematic, but important journalist can be fairly represented on these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.75.119 (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible sources

Here's two dozen books with mentions of Bindel that may help. -- Banjeboi 19:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit undone (April 2009)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. I reverted an extensive edit of this article that was done today - it rather missed the point and shifted the bias back towards the pro-Bindel camp again, also excluded the fact she caused upset in the Bisexual community with some of her recent comments too. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Please pick and choose specific content that you feel isn't policy-compliant. This is a biography of a living person so blogs generally aren't helpful. We don't fling mud here and the entire article hinges on a limited enchange compared to her years of work, that's WP:Undue. Also I removed some rather WP:POV language like "caused even more widespread discomfort", "despite continuing disapproval", "her continued publication of controversial articles" etc. I also removed this source which seems to be a dead link to a blog. I added her own statements which we do do per RS. And the rest of the changes were cleaning up per our Manual of Style. I'm open to re-adding something neutral and undue regarding her upsetting the bisexual communities if acompanied by a reliable source. We have higher standards for BLPs than for peope who have died and I will be enforcing those standards and have little doubt that these changes will be sustained. If there is such controversies there should be no problem in finding plenty of reliable sources to help guide what weight to give the content which as of now takes more than half the article. -- Banjeboi 02:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC) As seen in the archives there was an extensive discussion last year on this and new wording was agreed. Could we not discuss this first here before large changes from the agreed wording are made? ZoeL (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC) As noted by ZoeL above, this was discussed extensively at the end of last year. I didn't say that it wasn't policy-compliant, just that it shifted the bias back towards the pro-Bindel camp. I'll go through and check all the references are up to date etc - as for reliable sources, there are many of them and it's a case of picking and choosing the most relevant. Julie has only been writing for the Guardian regularly for a short period of time and it's that platform that has fuelled her prominence, so I believe the trend towards more recent events is OK - having said that, if someone knows much about her workl prior to that point... (One think that *is* needed is something about her recent work on trafficking - another controversial topic) Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I've had a quick look through and I'd dispute the assertion that some of the content you're claiming is WP:POV - you highlight "her continued publication of controversial articles" for example, whereas Julie Bindel herself states that she holds "very firm, and often controversial politics and beliefs." (Writewords interview, "What kind of response do you get from readers?") In context, the phrase "Despite continuing disapproval of her views from the transgender community" also seems reasonable and proportionate. It seems your changes are just an arbitrary rewrite of an article that was arrived at by group consensus and would not stand up to any sort of arbitration, sorry. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, just because a group considered a version to be acceptable doesn't mean that version is set in stone. We have policies on BLPs and these will be enforced. Poor sourcing and coatracking on a BLP is quite bad form and simply won't fly. Wether you love or hate Bindel we present a NPOV stance. We don't state she is hated, we state this person is hated by ___ because ____. And then we look to balance that with counter views if any. Really, I'm not here to sell one side or another but to keep Wikipedia as a place where Bindel and every other BLP is treated fairly and with due process. If she is an evil person then reliable sourcing will make that case - not bias writing. If she is a saint the relaible sourcing will show us the way. In either case we throw out wobbly sourcing, POV writing and pointy information that seems to wp:coatrack. It's just unhelpful. All articles grow and it seems unlikely this one will be deleted so it's better to ensure it's accurate and credible. Reverting my edits is unlikely to help your case that we need to include more negative material. -- Banjeboi 10:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC) This was discussed last year and the current version was the consensus. NPOV and BLP was raised and discussed then - please can you read the talk page and the references in this article. As noted, I believe your NPOV claim is spurious and based on lack of research - the subject of the article herself admits her writing is controversial so I don't believe a statement like "her continued publication of controversial articles" is an NPOV issue. I also don't believe that there is a problem with the sourcing - the references that are there are a selection of much that's available, more can be added or bad ones replaced as necessary. (I've already updated the NUS 2009 link) If you have concerns about specific points please can we address them one-by-one rather than just by rewriting the article without discussion. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I've read the archive and the sources and have used my good judgement that we follow policies on BLPs and reliable sourcing and neutral point of view. And no, we have a manual of style for a reason. I'm sorry you aren't open to a lot of radical changes at once but this article was a mess. I could have been much more melloe a coddled my way into changing what needed to be done or, per WP:BRD, just effected the changes to clean the mess. If there is something that needs to be re-added please present the reliable sourcing that support it. -- Banjeboi 10:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Please can you address specific points. 10:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Pick any point you wish and I'll be happy to discuss, it may make sense to start a new thread if it's more complex. -- Banjeboi 10:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC) That's just trying to reset the status quo to discussion of your version of the article, when the issue at hand is what is wrong with the old version - I.e. please can you list specific points from the old article that you have problems with that you believe warrant a rewrite without discussion and consensus. Where I have responded to some of your particular points ("her continued publication of controversial articles") you haven't been willing to continue the discussion. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC) You say the article was a mess but as I said above it was discussed extensively. This discussion included a wikipedia administrator so could you please discuss the issues here with all parties rather the reverting the article based on your opinions of it. ZoeL (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC) OK, the manual of style is pretty clear on how we layout certain sections, and that we don't link, for instance 1962. That is deprecated. Instead we use a handy template that you insert that year and it presents the subject's age. Among the dozens of changes are quite basic ones as that. I'm guessing the more sticky points are that I reworked the whole protest against Bindel. She has been a feminist anti-violence activist for how many years? Exactly, yet more than half the article is devoted to criticizing her for one article among at least dozens she wrote. She publicly apologized for the article but we go on to spell out the protest of her nomination for an award while digging at her a bit more as a controversial and disliked person. The old version conveniently left out her opinion on the matter although the link to her opinion was there, plain as daylight. She pointed out that the protest also was again Stonewall for not being inclusive, we left that out. She pointed out that she had issues with all additional groups to the rainbow tent, we had left that out and biasedly presented it was just about trans and bi people. She pointed out that she felt it contradictory to fault her for expressing opinions on trans issues while simultaneously being told to embrace trans people and trans issues. We, oops, left that out as well. That is not NPOV, it is bias and wrong and we shouldn't do it. Just as an article about you should be accurate, dispaasionate and fair. You're not perfect so we share the notable bits with due weight. Does Bindel's lifework take less weight that this recent dust-up and what weight should we give these recent issues. My hunch is that more than half the article devoted to it is too much and I'll bet anyone will sensisbly agree to that. Rather than pare it down further - for the moment at least - I suggest the rest of her life story be built up to add due weight and context. I'm quite happy to have more neutral and uninvolved editors peek in here, meanwhile I will continue to add reliable sourcing and content. If you have something specific that you feel was removed in error please present it with a reliable source and I'll be happy to work with you to re-add it. -- Banjeboi 11:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (Outdent) OK, point by point: "OK, the manual of style is pretty clear on how we layout certain section, and that we don't link, for instance 1962. That is deprecated. Instead we use a handy template that you insert that year and it presents the subjects age. among the dozens of changes are quite baic ones as that." - accepted, but they're being lost in the major rewrites that you're trying to do. I shall try to integrate the ones you've mentioned into the article - I've already added some of your content in. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) "She has been a feminist anti-violence activist for how many years? exactly, yet more than half the article is devoted to criticizing her for one article among at least dozens she wrote." ... "You're not prefect so we share teh notable bits with due weight. Does Bindel's lifework take less weight that this recent dust-up and what weight should we give these recent issues. My hunch is that more than half the article devoted to it is too much and I'll bet anyone will sensisble agree to that. Rather than pare it down further - for the moment at least - I suggest the rest of her life story be build up to add due weight and context." - She's been increasingly high provile over the last 4-5 years due to her irregular Guardian column and the weight given to more recent work reflects that. Prior to writing in the Guardian, she was nowhere near as high-profile as she is now. I would certainly welcome more material on her other work but I would stress that even outside of LGBT circles much of it is controversial - her work on prostitution has attracted a lot of criticism for example. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) "She publicly apologized for the article but we go on to spell out the protest of her nomination for an award while digging at her a bit more as a controvesrsial and disliked person." - Her apology was carefully worded and she's never apologised for the meaning, just the tone and inappropriate humour. (She claims to have apologised for it, but when asked directly about it she's very careful with her wording - Christine Burns podcast is an example of this) It would most certainly be wrong not to mention her nomination for the Stonewall award, I hope you'd agree - but then, one has to mention the protests given their scale. As for controversial, as mentioned above she is by her own admission controversial. I don't see a problem with stating that. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) "The old version conveniently left out her opinion on the matter although the link to her opinion was there, plain as daylight. She pointed out that the protest also was again Stonewall for not being inclusive, we left that out." - Agreed, would you like to propose a chance to the existing wording to highlight the fact that the protest was against Stonewall and not her? Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) "She pointed out that she had issues with all additional groups to teh rainbow tent, we had left that out and biasedly presented it was just about trans and bi people." - The version you propose however doesn't mention the bisexual community as being one she attacked. Given the size of the community I think it's important to mention that - the existing quote highlights that better than the "tongue-twisting LGBTQQI" one which is why it's included. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) "She pointed out that she felt it contradictory to fault her for expressing opinions on trans issues while simultaneously being told to embrace trans people and trans issues. We, oops, left that out as well. that is not NPOV, it is bias and wrong and we shouldn't do it." - I'm unclear specifically what you're referring to here, the reference is to an article that doesn't seem to mention any of that. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) "just as an article about you should be accurate, dispaasionate and fair. I'm quite happy to have more neutral and uninvolved editors peek in here, meanwhile I will continue to add reliable sourcing and content. If you have something specific that you feel was removed in error please present it with a reliable source and I'll be happy to work with you to re-add it." - Again, you're trying to shift the status quo. The current article is the consensus view and we should be starting from there, not having people come in and do complete rewrites without discussion first on a topic that's clearly contentious. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry but you're arguing to keep POV and coatrack-ish content. This will be fixed whether you participate or Stonewall. -- Banjeboi 12:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC) You cannot throw around POV/coatrack as a "I'm right, you're wrong" way of getting your particular revisions on an article. I am willing to enter into discussions on this despite the fact it was already discussed at length in 2008. However, you seem unwilling to discuss and keep just making edits that I would equally claim suffer from POV issues and ones that have not even been discussed. You may think that there are POV issues but that is not the consensus view at this time. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC) You are continuing to ignore the fact that a consensus was arrived at last year after an extensive discussion the involved a wikipedia administrator. You are completely ignoring this and rewriting the article as you see it should be. ZoeL (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Who is that administrator? I'd very much like to dialog with them on how involved they were and how they helped determine this content and sourcing were acceptable. -- Banjeboi 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Have you even read the prior discussions on this talk page? CIreland was the admin involved. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I don't recognized each of the 1000+ admins by name. I've invited them to check in on the discussion. -- Banjeboi 14:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Benjiboi - are you really saying that because the mainstream media didn't report an event (eg trans protest outside Stonewall awards) it didn't happen? I do hope not because that seems like Orwellian doubllethink. Wilmot1 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think I've ever stated that or anything like it - if you look at the proposed version it's right there, with due weight and properly sourced. Pinknews covered it and did interveiws including with Bindel herself. Sure seems like I'm acknowledging it happenned and should be included. -- Banjeboi 00:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

possible quote

This doesn't easily fit now but has been cited as noteworthy:

“ Violence against women could be said to be an area of feminist 'success' in that the issue is now one of intense public concern, and many of our particular criticisms have been accepted as valid. (Bindel, Cook, and Kelly 1995:65) ”

-- Banjeboi 10:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)