Talk:Magdalen Berns: Difference between revisions

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 September 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Magdalen Berns article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies Start‑class Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies Start‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

To see the statistical history of edits made to this article:
http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl
project =  en.wikipedia
page =  Magdalen Berns
Pyxis Solitary (yak) 10:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berns died 4 days after the above-referenced RfC was closed on 9 September 2019 with the following consensus:

...we should generally provide in text attribution when using the term "TERF" in BLP.

Nevertheless, it's worth noting. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 08:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has been archived: Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 05:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the "not all significant viewpoints" and "neutrality" templates, the article seems to have settled down somewhat which hopefully indicates that all parties are generally more comfortable with the wording and balance of the article. I am therefore proposing to remove the templates unless there are any views that these issues persist. McPhail (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the ruckus from long ago has settled down. Oftentimes, editors who add these issues templates move on to other interests and forget to remove the templates. In the case of this bio, they should now be removed. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A month has passed now and no concerns have been raised - and the article has not been significantly changed - so I will remove the templates. McPhail (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSPSOURCES, the Nicole Jones source (Jones2020) added <12:08, 26 May 2020 is a Medium blog and not acceptable as a reliable source unless the author is a "subject-matter expert".
WP:RS/P > Medium: "Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions...."
If Jones is not an expert as described, it must be deleted. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Noted, thanks, I've replaced the source. McPhail (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've had WP:WIKIVOICE problems in this biography in the past. These recent edits 16:30, 20 June 2020, 20:10, 21 June 2020 have reared the ugly head of the biased language and POV issues that were dealt with in 2019.
The subject may be deceased, but WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:VER requirements are not. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: I already put the references in which she is described as "TERF" and "transphobic". --I Mertex I (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost none of the sources for this article are appropriate for wikipedia. Links to youtube and twitter proliferate, alongside blog posts, tabloids, and endless self-publication. The first source is an unattributed Morning Star article, against wiki guidelines (the 9th source is also an unattributed Morning Star article). The second source is self-published, against wiki guidelines. The fourth source is a link to Berns' youtube account (primary source). The fifth source is Meghan Murphy#Feminist Current, again not a reliable source. The sixth is AfterEllen. Later on we find sources where there is a consensus of unreliability. Quillette and PinkNews both appear, despite there being a consensus these are unreliable. More self-published stuff (48,51,60), loads of tweets (29,61,62,67,70,72,74), youtube videos (36,37,68,71), it's just awful. There are a handful of decent sources present, and they tend to be in support of insignificant statements in the text, such as Edinburgh Evening News to verify the date and location of Berns' death, and The Scotsman to verify Berns co-founding a campaign group. This is a really significant issue which currently undermines the entire article in a big way.Wikiditm (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The fifth source is Meghan Murphy#Feminist Current, again not a reliable source. The sixth is AfterEllen. Later on we find sources where there is a consensus of unreliability. Quillette and PinkNews both appear, despite there being a consensus these are unreliable." – Where did you get the idea that Feminist Current and AfterEllen are not acceptable sources? You may not like what they may publish, but per WP:NPOVS, that doesn't make them unreliable:

NPOV 1.1.2: "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias."

FC and AE are not included in WP:RSPSOURCES.

Per WP:RSP, Quillette is considered "generally unreliable". Per WP:GUNREL, it's acceptable "outside exceptional circumstances", for which the guidance links to Wikipedia policy WP:IGNORE. Since Berns is dead, the "never be used for information about a living person" doesn't apply.  PinkNews is considered "generally unreliable, except for quotes of a living person's self-identification of their sexual orientation" (which, if we are to be absolute about it, means that excluding the specific exception, editors should go through Wikipedia and remove all PinkNews citations from every article in the project).

As for "The fourth source is a link to Berns' youtube account (primary source)." – WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states: "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable" ... Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source....";  and WP:PRIMARYCARE > An article about a person, states: "The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist current and AfterEllen are blog sites with no established reputation for accuracy or fact-checking. Of course these are not reliable sources. As you acknowledge, we also see Quillette and PinkNews despite the consensus that these are unreliable. There are unattributed citations to The Morning Star which should be attributed. There's a stream of sources which are self-published, tweets, or youtube videos. I don't agree at all with the appeal to WP:IGNORE. We cannot use that policy to defend sourcing that is this level of dreadful, surely? You are correct about the primary source youtube channel, especially as this is used for a claim about subscriber numbers, which is an appropriate use of this source.Wikiditm (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Current and AfterEllen are not "blogs". They are websites. They are not hosted by blogging platforms. But even if they were to be blogs, Type of blogs: "Some forms of user-generated content, such as a social commentary blog, can be considered as a form of citizen journalism." HuffPost, for example, is both a blog and an aggregator, and it is used as a reliable source in numerous articles — all "blogs" are not created equal and notable blogs do exist.
"with no established reputation for accuracy or fact-checking...." Unless you have evidence to back your statement, it's your opinion only. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist Current and AfterEllen have been labelled blogs in reliable sources. See [1] or [2]. With regards the fact neither of them have an established reputation for accuracy or fact-checking, I cannot prove that a man down the pub doesn't have this either. We should aim for a significantly higher bar than "you can't prove this isn't reliable." Finally, wikipedia has exceptional circumstances for all kinds of sources. There are always going to be individual cases where it makes sense to cite something which wouldn't usually be cited. It seems here, though, that the entire page is being treated as an exceptional circumstance. Rather than defending such a low-quality article, we need to be either improving it (considerable improvements needed) or scrapping it (if it proves impossible to find any appropriate sources). Breaking wiki guidelines with almost every source should not be an option we are comfortable with.Wikiditm (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]