Talk:Magdalen Berns/Archive 1

Archive 1

Need some more info on her views and writings

So far, the information about her views is just a sentence or two. Could this be elaborated? Let's have a summary of one of her main arguments. Lehasa (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe also something more specific on her impact and influence on women and lesbians and feminism. Lehasa (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, there's not enough here right now to understand why she is important. Will see if I can find some more information on her views. (Properly sourced information may be hard to come by though.) Small candles (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

This has been marked for deletion do to lack of notability, in the body of the page there is a link to Rachel Mckinnons page which is not marked as such despite being if anything, less notable. I object to this inequality of judgement. Yonimitchel (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Whereabouts is the link to McKinnon's page? Is this the issue which has caused the article to be marked for deletion? Please help out, I'm willing to fix this. Can I also suggest including the following sources where relevant: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/09/03/college-supports-trans-scholar-under-fire and https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/magdalen-berns-a-shero-among-women/ in order to include some more secondary sources? SilverStar6583 (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion}} tag. Per policy that process is for uncontroversial deletion, and I take your comments above to be a good faith opposition to deletion. However, any editor in good standing can nominate this article for a full deletion discussion; if that happens you would need to justify why the article doesn't meet the deletion policy and the final decision to delete will be made by an administrator who will weigh the consensus of the discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I would come down strongly _against_ deletion. Magdalen Berns was a clear voice for a specific point of view. It's likely that people will come to wikipedia for more information about her and links to her work. The fact that some people here haven't heard of her or disagree with her is not evidence that she is unimportant. Only that they don't know about her. To use that as a reason to prevent others from learning more is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Quixote9 (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It's clear that biased actors have come here from this reddit post to create an edit war around this wikipedia page. I would strongly suggest deletion, as this is a clear effort to falsely legitimize her work, which does not have a broad reach outside of a this group of people.Forivall (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The very fact that so many people are on here debating this should demonstrate clearly that Magdalen Berns (for good or for ill) is a notable figure. The arguments in favour of deletion seem far more concerned with delegitimising her arguments, and her appeal. Wikipedia is not a moral court, it is an impartial record - I suggest that those who are concerned with inaccuracies attempt to make the article as neutral as possible, rather than fighting for its deletion. Jackf834 (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability: Replacing Non-independent Sources

Due to account seniority I'm currently unable to address the notability issues since the article is now semi-protected. I intend to fix these issues by including more independent sources which cover the relative topic in-depth. To those currently able to edit the page, I suggest removing Berns' YouTube channel where it appears as a reference, instead finding an independent source which documents the information and if this isn't possible to remove the relative sentences and replace it with verifiable information. I propose https://womensliberationfront.org/ and https://www.nationalreview.com/ as independent sources where information can be referenced. I also propose that Berns' radical feminist views and the response to her from feminists and transgender activists alike is documented more thoroughly, along with her early activism and the reasons for her prominence and importance, in order to demonstrate that the article is necessary, though this is not the primary concern.SilverStar6583 (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 22:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Link to YouTube Channel

Please re-add Magdalen Berns/Archive 1's channel on YouTube as an external link. Removing it was not necessary or consistent with Wikipedia guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any."

SilverStar6583 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It keeps being marked as spam by the same editor, and it is not spam. MatrixRaven (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm adding my vote to reinstate the link to her Youtube channel. That gives access to some of her main work and it's entirely appropriate for a link to it to appear in an article about her work. I'm sorry to be harsh, but labelling that "spam" is just plain vandalism. Quixote9 (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 22:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Biased Language

I propose the phrase "cisgender women's rights" is changed to "women's rights on the basis of sex", since this is a less biased and more accurate summary of the subject's views, who advocated for people with a female sex including transgender men and non-binary people.

I also propose that the phrase "....which refers to the mechanism by which certain cis lesbians use their sexuality to deny trans women's womanhood.", in reference to the "cotton ceiling" is changed to, "....which refers to the belief of some transgender activists that lesbians eschewing sexual contact with transwomen invalidates their status as women." I have chosen this phrasing since it is more objective and informative, as the current description is clearly heavily biased towards transgender activists. I also suggest it is made clear that the "cotton ceiling" refers to the underwear of lesbians for clarity purposes.

I object to the term "anti-trans" feminism. Magdalen's views were based on women's rights being sex-based, to word it this way suggests being against transgender people was her motivation. I find this highly deceptive and biased, and it should either be removed or clarified - perhaps add at the end of the paragraph, "she was opposed to transgender activism." The link to the "TERF" page is also highly subjective and flawed.SilverStar6583 (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The bias creeping into this article is worrisome. Apparently, just because it is protected doesn't guarantee no vandalism. MatrixRaven (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely hope the admins and editors in good esteem can see this and take the steps to make the article more neutral.SilverStar6583 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 22:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Seriously stop trying to hide the truth about Berns transphobic history Tarawb (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• • Can we please stop with the petty politics, Tarawb. Burns had a clear set of political views on women's rights being sex based. It's a perfectly well understood philosophical position. No more, no less. You are entitled to disagree with her views, absolutely. You aren't entitled to have an encyclopedia article mirror your personal biases against Burns, any more than someone who agreed with Burns views would have a right to have their biases mirrored in her favour. Wikipedia is not the venue for you to wage a culture war. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Morning Star

Material from the Morning Star obituary should be reintroduced. It is a significant and reliable indicator of Berns' reputation and status within a significant section of the British Left. For those unfamiliar with the publication, the following passages are from a 2015 article in the New Statesman: 'The Morning Star is proud to call itself the only English-language socialist daily newspaper in the world, and it covers industrial disputes, anti-austerity protests and international affairs in a brisk, populist tabloid style. Recently, it has earned praise for its coverage of women’s sport and corruption in sport. Jeremy Corbyn, the candidate for the Labour Party leadership and Morning Star contributor, has called it “the most precious and only voice we have in the daily media”, and Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, says it is “essential reading for many union activists”. The People’s Press Printing Society is now run by a management committee that includes representatives of nine national trade unions…' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brizzo82 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Context issues

The following details are mentioned without enough context for them to be evaluated by the reader:

• Doris Gray Scholarship Award - Is this granted by the Women's Engineering Society? If so, that article makes no mention of it.
• Thinking Differently: Feminists Questioning Gender Politics - This conference was, per the source, organized by lecturer Julia Long, but this is not explained, nor is it clear who this is or why it's significant. Berns is mentioned once, in passing, as part of a routine list of speakers. Routine, non-notable events are generally not worth mentioning unless there is some larger significance, which would be indicated by a reliable, independent source.
• Holyrood Boxing Gym
• Haringey Box Cup
• Golden Girl Championship
• British Universities Boxing Championships

If these things are significant, they should be linked per WP:REDYES. If they are not significant enough to link, they should be trimmed-down or removed. Her amateur boxing career is only significant to the degree it is supported by sources. It is not enough that sources exist, somewhere, which have mentioned her. We need to provide readers with some way to understand why these details are encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• • The source of the boxing information is an official statement about Magdalen Berns released by Boxing Scotland, Scotland's National Governing Body for the sport. The organisation is recognised by the International Boxing Association (AIBA), UK Sport, the Scottish Government and Sportscotland. Brizzo82 (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Graham Linehan as a 'critic of trans people'

Linehan is not a 'critic of trans people'. He challenges the idea that gender is innate, that people can change sex, and that a male-bodied person should be unconditionally accepted as female (even as a 'biological female') if he chooses to identify that way. Like all gender critical feminists, he doesn't accept that female (or male) is a social role or identity; rather, it's a biological reality. To say he 'criticises trans people' suggests he has a prejudice against trans people, when he is actually critical of gender identity ideology. In fact, many trans people agree with Linehan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.164.55 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not an article about him and this is not the place to defend his behaviour. The reference given supports the description of him in the article and and that is enough. If we were to reword it at all, I would suggest changing it from the somewhat vague and weaselly "critic" to "vocal opponent" which more closely follows the language used in the reference. I'm not going to open that can of worms as the current description is adequate and this article may well end up getting deleted soon anyway. In the meantime, the current description is neither defamatory nor libellous and I'd advise you against using misleading edit summaries suggesting otherwise.. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

'Critic' of a certain group of people rather than an ideology carries a definite meaning, and it isn't appropriate here. It implies he is a bigot, which he is not. The further implication is that Berns is supported by bigots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.164.55 (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

But there is no "ideology" here. That is just an attempt to abstract victims into non-personhood. Linehan was not warned by the police for harassing an ideology. He was warned for harassing an actual person. We go with what the sources say and that reference does not even use the word "ideology". We can't just make stuff up and put it in an article in order to spare his blushes. Anyway, this article may not be around too much longer so maybe don't worry too much about this. It may all be gone soon. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

What the source actually says is that he criticized the "transgender movement," that is, a political movement (with which many trans people disagree), not simply people who happen to be transgender. The source does not say "transgender people," so it's WP:OR and you can't use it. -Pine457 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any such "transgender movement" actually exists but as that is the name he uses for his conspiracy theory we can use it when referring to what he opposes. I'd prefer it to be used in quotes (or if scare quotes are considered weaselly, which would be fair enough, then distanced from Wikipedia's own voice in some other way) but given that the whole article might be gone soon I'm happy to leave it as is for now. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The New Yorker: What Is a Woman? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism. Ctrl-F for 'movement'. -Pine457 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

You can't say she "was anti-trans" in the lede, because you can't say it anywhere. It's not WP:NPOV. What you can say is that some critics called her anti-trans. I'll offer a compromise wording. -Pine457 (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Using "transphobia" is a value laden term, and so the use of "anti-trans" is already a compromise. It is important to note when an exceptional view on trans people is present in the context of reference to radical feminism, as her work has a significant presence of anti trans views (see the "blackface" citation), but radical feminism does not equate to these anti-trans views. In addition, I'd like to note that "on the basis of sex" is a particularly biased phrase in the context in which it is used in the lede. I do accept your compromise in wording though. Forivall (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In addition, as DanielRigal mentions in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/918260454, her views were not mainstream radical feminism, so it's best to not confuse people. Forivall (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

"the largest organisation of its kind in Scotland"?

Does anyone have membership figures for ForWomen.scot? It seems like the claim in the Morning Star article that it's "the largest women's rights organisation in Scotland" is unlikely to be accurate, since e.g. Engender have twice as many Twitter followers as they do. If what's meant is that FWS is the largest radical feminist organisation, then the article should say that IMO. Vashti (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

der Freitag Community section

I did a little work, and now I have a der Freitag article of my very own! Here's the archive version in case it gets taken down, as I'm sure it will. All this considered, do we still want to retain the der Freitag Community article? also yes my German is very bad Vashti (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this. The blogs aren't edited and have no editorial oversight whatsoever; they're just blogs. I was not able to find any sign that the author is notable; however, DF post links to Community posts on their Facebook page, and I did find this repost, where the author is described only as "a der Freitag community member". Vashti (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

unnecessary biographical information

McPhail, even if WP:PSEUDO doesn't apply, that cut information is still original research synthesised from a jumble of primary sources and a Facebook post. That's, to coin a phrase, "wholly inappropriate", although improving an article listed for deletion is certainly not. This article is not going to stand or fall because someone jumbled a paragraph together from a few lists of names and grant applications. Vashti (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, re that description from the local freesheet by one of the women who wrote the Morning Star article, please note WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources". Vashti (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Terf

The comments about Berns being anti transgender are accurate. This can be seen by the attempts by the anti transgender radical feminist to white wash this page. Tarawb (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we please stop with the petty politics, Tarawb. Burns had a clear set of political views on women's rights being sex based. It's a perfectly well understood philosophical position. No more, no less. You are entitled to disagree with her views, absolutely. You aren't entitled to have an encyclopedia article mirror your personal biases against Burns, any more than someone who agreed with Burns views would have a right to have their biases mirrored in her favour. Wikipedia is not the venue for you to wage a culture war.Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Her 'clear set of political views' was clearly transphobic, both in intention and effect. Your argument appears to be that any opinions should be accepted uncritically on wikipedia as long as they are what you deem a 'philosophical position'. Luckily, WP isn't in the business of endorsing views or censoring important context about those views' response from society and experts on the subject, which is what you're proposing. Literally every other ideology, political position, or conspiracy theory has a 'criticism' section, and there's no valid argument for giving special treatment to ideologies you endorse. 217.44.245.12 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming the comment above is Tarawb again? Could you define what the term "transphobia" means to you? From the context of your replies it seems to be "unquestioning acceptance of any statements made in favor of trans people." I hope not, but it's hard to see what else you could be saying, since you offer no arguments in favor of your position. There are just flat assertions. Which ironically is what you accuse Mpjmcevoybeta of.

Just to reiterate why there is a need for people like Berns who focus on sex-based women's rights: it is because of the oppression of women based on their sex. Women cannot identify out of that classification. Female feticide and infanticide happen long before there is any question of identifying as anything, just to take one example. There is a clear need for voices fighting specifically for women, such as Berns was. You would have to define transphobia very oddly indeed for it to *depend* on the oppression of women. Quixote9 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

She literally called trans people "blackface actors" with a "sick perversion". That's explicit transphobia. Stop lying, Quixote. https://www.themarysue.com/jk-rowling-transphobic-follows/ Forivall (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

perhaps before you cackling perpetually offended divas rush to tarnish the memory of Magdalen, you could give her body a chance to rest. This would allow passions to cool and perspectives to broaden. Be mature for the first times in your lives. She’s only just died, you hungry vultures. 120.22.137.245 (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral, not a memorial. If you want Magdalen to have a page, you need to understand that editors from all over the political spectrum will rightly edit here to ensure that the page meets Wikipedia's neutrality standards and covers all points of view. Vashti (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe they should do so without “she said a bad thing about trans people, so she’s guilty of hatred!” Wikipedia should be about maturity and authenticity. I’d love to see that now. 49.198.182.164 (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia handles controversy by citing voices from all sides of the argument. Wikipedia is also not a soapbox. Vashti (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Notability

I don't see anything particularly notable about this person. Wikipedia is not an obituary listing. Forivall (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, the assertion that Burns is more notable than MacKinnon shows that Yonimitchell is acting in bad faith, as that is simply not the case. Forivall (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This person can be considered a minor e-celeb whose activism was very influential in feminist circles in recent years. This person is important in the context of feminist activism as she was a well-known figure, and was involved in notable activism at her university. Hopefully this article can also contribute some more information about the nature of radical and gender-critical feminism and figures associated with this movement, as Wikipedia is lacking in this area. I hope you understand and reconsider. SilverStar6583 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

From my perspective, this article has been created as a response to her death in order to memorialize her. I'm aware of the nature of her work, and it's not substantial or novel. The standard of notability requires a long period of broad recognition. In my opinion, that has not been demonstrated. This is illustrated as both SilverStar and Yonimitchell have created their accounts within the past few days, and their activity is focused on this page. Forivall (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The article is not a memorial. The fact that she died recently may have been what galvanized people to create the page, but that does not make it a memorial. Berns provides very clear talks on several aspects of feminism. If Forivall does not find them notable, I think the simple statement does not suffice. They are of interest to many people, if not to Forivall. So let people study the topics of interest to them, and Forivall can do likewise. It is also not evidence of *bad faith* to value one person's work above another's. Not in the case of Yonimitchell, nor in Forivall's. It only becomes bad faith when that preference is used to silence the other's insights. Quixote9 (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The only aspects of feminism she has spoken on is anti-trans feminism. The "bad faith" was in determining notability, not the value of one's work. Like the commenters on this reddit page that has undoubtedly driven traffic here: "I don't think Magdalen should be on wiki. There's other places, better places, where her legacy can be remembered.". It's not silencing just because she shouldn't have a wikipedia page. Forivall (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Forivall, it is readily apparent your bias is creeping into the editing process. That has no place on a site that supposedly strives to be based on facts and academics. She has spoken on women's rights only directly in response to those rights being threatened. Claiming her pro-women stance is anti-trans is the same as saying that pro-choice abortion rights advocates are anti-life. The fact that you CHOOSE to call it "anti-trans" shows your clear bias, and your choice to ignore facts and be impartial. Additionally, claiming she is not notable, when she was associated with Julie Bindel and Graham Linehan, among others, who as you can see both have pages here, is the true bad faith. That she died before she could do more doesn't lessen her notable impact. MatrixRaven (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I second this sentiment entirely. Magdalen is clearly a figure worth having a Wikipedia page, and it also strikes me as incredibly biased to use deceptive and inaccurate language to describe the subject's views, solely because some of those views have been controversial. Neutrality and objectivity should be prioritised above all else.SilverStar6583 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Since when did "associated with" become strong grounds for notability? This person simply does not pass GNC.Battleofalma (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

As the person who created the page (although, many many editors have since improved it greatly), I can clear up the motivation. It is precisely because Berns is notable that the page was created. It seems very odd that someone who commands an online following in the tens of thousands, including the likes of Graham Linehan and J.K. Rowling, should be having their notability called into question. Berns is a very controversial figure, and undoubtedly divisive. That seems to me the likely motivation behind repeated attempts to have this entry deleted - but an entry on Wikipedia is not dictated by how likeable an individual is, rather, how notable they are. Jackf834 (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Berns was very transphobic and we see a move on Twitter by gender critical feminist to white wash history Tarawb (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I notice you do not link to anything Berns has written or said to support your statement that she was "transphobic." Everything I've seen of her work has been for women's rights and for women's right to define themselves, which is the same right accorded to every other group. (See Rachel Dolezal controversy, for instance.) Women have the same right to assemble as other groups do. If you disagree, you need to explain why that is. Simply asserting transphobia or whitewash is not an explanation or proof. Quixote9 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not Berns was transphobic isn't the issue here, and is entirely irrelevant to the question of notability. An individual's notability is not premised on how good or bad a person they are/were. The article, and the many references within it demonstrate beyond question Berns' notability, but the strength of debate she has inspired on this talk page only serves to illustrate further her obvious notability. Jackf834 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment from referenced individual (Phaylen Fairchild)

I have never written a piece about Magdalen Berns and only ever referenced her once in an article about author J.K. Rowling wherein I discussed her repeated pattern of following caustic, transphobic accounts on social media. The article you attributed to me is not even my own, it is a Snopes article disputing my headline.

I have tremendous respect for the work of the Wiki Organization and its integrity. I am, however, dumbfounded over the effort to posthumously elevate an individual who never attained any notability in greater culture beyond the harassing of a minority class on twitter.

When notified I'd been referenced, I first found it hard to believe that a random individual who used social media to torment innocent people would be elevated to that of one given a wiki biography. Upon investigation, I found that, indeed, the content of the biography reads more like a personal obituary giving disproportionate and unnecessary substance to things such as her extracurricular activities in college, personal hobbies and accomplishments- none of which have any significance to the greater world, culture or anything that commands such a raised platform. Even the most modest effort to reveal anything substantive regarding Berns turns up no more relevant achievements than a common social media user whose sole intent had been to sew discord with the support of an aggressive but small circle of allies who share such a narrow world view. When authoring my piece, I never imagined myself to be referenced in an article that appears to honor the memory and personal record of Ms. Berns.

I understand that Ms. Berns small base likely attempted to memorialize her with her own wikipedia entry as, post death, those in that circle made multiple efforts to create a very different narrative around her that greatly exaggerated the reality of who she represented to the broader world-at-large. While, to these people it may seem relevant that Berns was a champion at amateur boxing, or once spoke at a small event for radical feminists in a legion hall in London, or interned at a coding camp where she learned to program, I would hope you editors, when applying the gravity of what constitutes notability and relevance on even the most minute scale, might have been better able to discern between personal affinity for and agreement with her political persuasion versus high profile political activism or well known figure of significance to a specific topic. Alas, that doesn't seem to have applied here.

With consideration to my inclusion in Berns wikipedia memorial, please refer to the section in which you attribute a quote to me that is linked to an article about someone else, in a piece by another author and that my words here, like most of your citations and overall entry, are manipulated to appear to give more gravitas to Berns than was ever intended. Most of the cited articles, in fact, have nothing to do with the activities of Magdalen Berns at all beyond her twitter feuds, but this ongoing dispute to maintain her page appears only for the purpose of supporting her political views or remark entirely on other anti-trans activists, such as Megan Murphy, who are, clearly, not Berns. I have made no edits but appeal to you editors to consider the qualifications of this page and the pirpose of those rallying to keep it. Phaylen (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Phaylen: You said "The article you attributed to me is not even my own, it is a Snopes article disputing my headline." We have the article attributed to Dan MacGuill, not you. Maybe we can make that even clearer in the citation, though. Here is my attempt. -Pine457 (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This seems entirely at odds with your prior assertion that Berns was a "well known transphobe". Being nice isn't a criteria for being the subject of a Wikipedia article. McPhail (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want your comments and opinions to be quoted/referenced in Wikipedia, a publication, or elsewhere ... don't make them public. You would not have been quoted in the Snopes article ("The author of the piece, Phaylen Fairchild, wrote....") if you had not sought recognition by the general public. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 11:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Text sourced only to primary sources

We need better sources for this material, before it can go back. We can't just synthesise text out of primary sources, that's not what Wikipedia is about. Especially regarding the Google and GNOME stuff, WP:INDISCRIMINATE tells us to "[u]se reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates" - while not strictly applicable, the "no self-published or official sources" line has to hold. If Magdalen's coding was notable, we need have reliable third-party sources for it.

The Boxing Scotland link is problematic. It's on Facebook, but they're an official organisation and an AIBU member so that doesn't necessarily matter. However, this is not a secondary source; it is a press release and a primary source. I'm also concerned that I cannot independently verify their claims regarding Magdalen's boxing victories. I was able to source the BUCS win to a contemporary tweet (and add her weight class etc; I think a tweet cite is probably okay for a pure detail like that regarding something which is otherwise well sourced - which this may not be). But she does not appear on the Golden Girl Championship's list of champions, and I cannot find any source stating that she was involved with the Haringey Box Cup. Plus, neither of these tournaments are notable, which leaves us with the question of whether they are Wikipedia-notable achievements. I feel like if she had won something notable, there should be information somewhere, but right now we have claims cited to a Facebook post that are otherwise completely unverifiable. The Spiked article, which is the other source, is clearly quoting that Facebook post verbatim, so if the information in the press release is dodgy or unverifiable, so must the Spiked article be; WP:PRSOURCE tells us that "When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release (a practice called "churnalism")."

This also all leaves us with what I suspect is WP:UNDUE weight resting on the Camden New Journal article. The final section is almost entirely sourced to primary sources as well, which means it will also need paring down unless better sources can be produced.

• , working on implementing the FFTW3 library for Ruby.
• As part of the Summer of Code, she interned in the Outreach Program for Women of the GNOME Foundation where she worked on the Java ATK Wrapper, a module to translate Swing events for the Accessibility Toolkit.

Vashti (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

An awards own page would be sufficient as a source, the notability of the award is a different matter. But yes this all rads a bit like puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Eight ghits for "doris gray scholarship" -magdalen. If the award is not notable, should we still include it? Should we mention that she won an award from the Women's Engineering Society, who are notable? You see my issue, though; it is all a bit puffy. Vashti (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If the award is not notable I am not sure it should be mentioned. Now scholarships are harder, but would be notable as part of their education.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:PRIMARYCARE, "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" [...] "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." The sources provided are therefore adequate for the information about Berns. Moreover, basic information about a deceased person such as where they studied and worked is not so sensitive that it needs to be immediately purged. It should be flagged as requiring more sources if necessary. McPhail (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say that depends on what it is. If it is unduly trivial, and indeed possibly self serving puffery then no it should not be here. We are not here to big someone up but to provide our readers with pertinent information. If (for example) the Summer of Code was something you just wrote into and got automatically a place, and that was all you had to do I would suggest it tells us nothing about her or her abilities. If however it was an invitation program in which carefully selected people were granted internships it might well be worthy of note. They key here would be did anyone give a damn about it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of merit, I think it's about factually recounting what Berns did in her professional life and what she worked on. "Berns was employed by Company X where she worked on Product Y." McPhail (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There are way too many primary sources in this article, and they are used way too much to fill the bulk of the content in the article. As previously mentioned, this is trivial puffery. And even those of the secondary sources, the vast majority are opinion pieces, and the rest are comments about her tangential involvement in the incident with JK Rowling. I doubt a call for more sources will be effective, as the call for more sources during the deletion period lead to mostly more primary and opinion sources. Forivall (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Gender Critical

Does the article really need to portray Berns’s views as somehow out of the ordinary? The vast majority of society doesn’t subscribe to “assigned gender” and never will. This is a term that a radical fringe element of far left extremist social justice advocates hold. That Berns was critical of this ideology is not article worthy but rather normal commonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.44.248 (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hearsay isn't appropriate for Wikipedia --Forivall (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. “The vast majority...doesn’t subscribe...and never will...radical fringe element of far left extremist social justice advocates hold. That Berns was critical of this ideology is...commonsense.” is a clear example of bias, since regardless of one's personal views, there are significant portions of the far left both supporting and opposing the idea that transgender identities are valid. There are many people whose political views are not regarded as leftist, who support this idea. The only part of the political spectrum that unambiguously opposes it with very little disagreement, is the far-right. Wikipedia is supposed to display clear facts, and not disregard or overemphasize a part of them because it seems commonsense to some. Besides, this is something Berns talked about and focused on a lot, not something she mentioned once or twice. —S. Jevtić _{talk·contribs} 00:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Medium blog as a source

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)

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

Maintenance templates

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)

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)

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)

"Transphobic" and "TERF" (here we go again)

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)

 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)

Terrible sourcing problems

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

I question the accuracy of the sources that described Feminist Current and AfterEllen as blogs. They are not infallible. FC publishes works by several writers, and its terms and conditions refer to "we" and "us". The opinions of writers and contributors are, to quote FC, "their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Feminist Current".   AE has always had an editorial staff.
As far as "established reputation for accuracy or fact-checking" — these publications attract naysayers and anyone call pull a hairball out of their rear end to make biased accusations about them. Since this is Wikipedia, and since one of its core policies is WP:IGNORE, I'm comfortable with its policies. Because outside of BLPs which have to be air tight, building this project is not predicated on perfection. If you go down the road of removing Feminist Current and AfterEllen as sources, then you need to be prepared to remove all sources, everywhere, that are rejected by WP:RSPSOURCES (which, I repeat, FC and AE are not included in it) — and if you want to open that can of worms, don't expect anyone else to do the mass removals for you. Using Feminist Current and AfterEllen as sources is not "Breaking wiki guidelines". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikiditm - respectfully, I think you are perhaps overstating these issues. The article would certainly benefit from further improvement in terms of sourcing (as would many, many, other articles), but stating "almost none of the sources for this article are appropriate" is simply not true. Nonetheless, I will continue to add secondary sources to the article. McPhail (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Over-emphasis on family life, career and sporting endeavours

As mentioned at Talk:Magdalen_Berns/Archive 1#unnecessary biographical information, there's an excessive amount of biographical information with primary sources. As this isn't a biography, there's no need for the article to be in chronological order. I've taken the liberty of rearranging the sections, so that the most notable information is shown first. No content has been removed. Forivall (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"As this isn't a biography". ??? What do you think this article is? What planet are you on? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a biographic encyclopedia article. It's not like, a biography as in a book that chronologically goes through someone's life. •forivall•^irc•L and Q• 03:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your POV, it is considered a Wikipedia biography. Sometimes they are long, sometimes they are short. But Wikipedia is not a "book", or The Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia, or even the Encyclopædia Britannica. And if you didn't notice it before, this article is "within the scope of WikiProject Biography". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and in the style guide, it says that non-chronological order is fine "where there is good reason to do otherwise". The other events aren't notable, that's a fairly good reason, unfortunately for your POV. •forivall•^irc•L and Q• 04:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

By that logic information on the childhood and adolescence of 99% of biography subjects should sit at the end of the page, since the vast majority of people attain notability as an adult. The page is short enough that there is no sound rationale for creating confusion by presenting events in a non-sequential fashion. There is nothing in the style guide that says information should be presented in descending order of notability. McPhail (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, most biography subjects keep things concise. As most of my activity on wikipedia thus far has been mostly fixing typos, I was looking for a quick fix to resolve how these other sections obscure the notable aspects of Berns. Clicking random article a few times got me Bandu Samarasinghe -- in comparison, it's kept to a few short, concise paragraphs of concise sentences, and expanded info is relevant to their notability. I'll return at some point to simplify the language so that it's in line with the standards i see throughout most of wikipedia. thanks for the feedback. •forivall•^irc•L and Q• 11:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of misleading content

I removed the claim that: "She described trans women as "blackface actors"" because it cannot be stated that she actually held this stance. The claim comes from a tweet that she once wrote - this one [3] (a tweet that is constantly being paraded by many trans-activists), but that tweet was taken out of context, and there is no evidence that Berns was referring to transwomen in general, rather than trans-activists (she had repeatedly differentiated between the two in her videos) or whether she was referring to specific people (trans-activists) that she was arguing with on twitter. While the fact that Berns believed that transwomen are men is true (this is the view she expressed in her videos), the same cannot be affirmed with certainty about her believing transwomen are "blackface actors", and she didn't actually "describe" them as such. Therefore I removed this claim from the article. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:7E62 (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read this. - Daveout(talk) 09:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

For better or worse, if content is supported with an acceptable source it's legitimate per WP:VERIFY. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Improved section titles

I saw some very non-neutral fiddling with the section titles which was, correctly, reverted. I don't think the titles are awful as they are but I do think that they could be improved by making them more generic. How do we feel about the following idea?:

• "Radical feminism" -> "Views", "Opinions" or something like that. Reason: Not everything in that section is directly about Radical Feminism.
• "Criticism and acclaim" -> "Responses", "Reactions" or something like that. Reason: It's just a little less hyperbolic.

As I say, I don't think it is awful as it is and I'm not going to change it unless people agree. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Certainly these titles are odd; most of the "Radical feminism" section isn't about radical feminism (though some of it is), and "Criticism and acclaim" is too much lkke "Brickbats and bouquets" for my taste. I generally prefer more specific section titles rather than utterly bland ones, but these sections are heterogenous enough that "Opinions" and "Reactions" might be the best we can do. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Broadly happy with this but instead of just "Views" I would say "Views and activism" as the section is not just about Berns' beliefs but also actions such as founding an organisation. McPhail (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put in "Views and activism" and "Reactions" which is definitely a worthwhile improvement. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Why does this wikipedia page exist?

Magdalen Berns is not a notable or famous youtuber as claimed. She garnered 37k subscribers and her most watched video has just under 200k views. By contrast, Wirtual (a very much non-famous video game youtuber who rightly has no wikipedia page) has 450k subscribers and his top video has over 4.5m views. This page has just been created by her fans. You can't have a page for every youtuber over 30k subscribers that would be millions of youtuber articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.3.32 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't actually read the entire bio. Because if you had, you would have seen that it contains a lot more than her being a YouTuber. When in doubt: look at the reliable sources used in an article to get a clue. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The only thing here even remotely a "claim to fame" is her youtube channel, which is very small and has no views. Things like being an amateur boxer or attending a coding summer school are even less important. Millions of people do this. I get that you're a fan, but not everything that you're a fan of should have an encyclopedia article. There shouldn't be an article for an insignificant youtuber barely anyone watched.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.3.32 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

She is notable enough in the trans-exclusionary radical feminist movement. She was even acknowledged by JK Rowling, for example. This article exits to provide information for those who want to know more about her, just like any other article. - Daveout(talk) 10:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Being acknowledged by JK Rowling doesn't make you famous, obviously. The vast majority of people JK Rowling acknowledges don't have wikipedia articles. You say she's notable within the context of some small group, but so is every youtuber. As I mentioned, Wirtual has more than ten times the subscribers and views. He's way, way more famous "within the trackmania community", but his fans don't get to give him a wikipedia article because in the grand scheme of things he's a nobody. So is Magdalen Berns. It's silly to have a whole article based off a youtuber who never even got more than 200k views on any video.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.3.32 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 2 June 2021(UTC)

Notability (as the term is used on Wikipedia) isn't determined by viewing figures or even fame, but rather by the existence of significant, independent coverage. See WP:GOLDENRULE for an explanation of this. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Nothing says "lacks significant, independent coverage" like having to resort to the Morning Star and Edinburgh Evening News as your first two sources. In fact, looking through that explanation it becomes impossible to maintain that Berns is notable. The rule says we want significant coverage, not passing mentions, in reliable sources. It explicitly says "not tabloids" like the Morning Star. Of the reliable sources used: The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, USA Today, Snopes... every single one is a passing mention. If we are going to follow that "golden rule" then it is certain this article should not exist. There is no significant, reliable, independent coverage as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.3.32 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily commenting on whether the subject meets the criteria, but rather explaining what they are. If you don't think it meets them, you're free to nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It was quite confusing but I have done this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.3.32 (talk • contribs)

The link for the newer deletion proposal leads to an old, closed discussion. Is it supposed to be like that? - Daveout(talk) 17:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, discussion will take place here. - Daveout(talk) 18:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a shame. There's immediately been a campaign from fans to oppose the deletion. https://twitter.com/OvertonWindow1/status/1400354380726128641 https://twitter.com/KeelahSalai/status/1400246256518172672 The golden rule seems very clear. There isn't a single significant, reliable, independent source covering Berns, so there shouldn't be an article. But maybe a more important rule in practice is what the person's fans think.

"There isn't a single significant, reliable, independent source covering Berns" - this is simply not the case. McPhail (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is. Look through the sources on the page. The vast majority are not independent, or not high quality reliable, such as National Review or the Morning Star. All the good sources, such as the Telegraph, the Times, the Guardian or Snopes, are not articles where Berns is the subject - she only gets a passing comment. There doesn't seem to be a single source among the 85 listed which pass wikipedia's golden rule. I understand that she has a very committed fan following, but I just don't think that should change the rules. Not having a single significant, reliable, independent source covering Berns is a clear problem. Why deny it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.18.117 (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The test that a subject is not significant enough to enough people is an inappropriate one for what purports to be an encyclopedia. It is an unfair test for those offering minority viewpoints. Many persons in history purported to be trans would be eliminated from coverage under such a test. The claim that M Berns is not significant enough is also defeated by the controversy over her being assigned a page. If her views and impact are not significant, why spend so much time trying to erase her? Go on with your lives, then. There are many, many, people who are of limited significance in a global or national sense, but who have pages. These include professionals like academics and policymakers who are not public figures and have contributed only narrowly to a field of interest. Will the “Wikipedia speech police” conduct a sweep of all of them? I am highly doubtful. Coverage in a newspaper is not the test. There are few independent newspapers today given the pressure on media to control the message. That pressure is evidenced by this debate. Those who are targeted for deletion are more likely to be those expressing controversial opinions. The deletion would also be sexist, suggesting that women may only have one point of view. In such a context, the bar must be set high on those seeking deletions, especially women the targets are women and/or minorities. That bar is not met here. Leave the page up. The test should be facts. Provide balance. If Wikipedia allows deletion of this page, that deletion should be a call to make Berns’ views even more widely known than they are now. Wikipedia already has major reliability and balance issues. Organized groups of roving editors seek to undercut messages with which they disagree in order to silence those views. They want to use Wikipedia as their own private mouthpiece. Those editors seek conformity, not facts. Leave the page up. The members of this conspiracy to silence opposing views need to stop claiming they are seeking this deletion on any legitimate basis. Wikipedia needs to fix this problem of groups targeting politically unpopular views. Olliemae (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

One person has nominated the article for deletion, Olliemae; this isn't about the actions of some "Wikipedia speech police" or of organised groups, whatever you might have read on social media. The deletion discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination), where you'll see that the majority of editors who've contributed support keeping the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Read this if your "keep" comment has gone from this page

Don't panic if you put a "keep" style comment here and it is not here now. I have moved them over to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination) to keep them together with a lot of other comments of the same type. They have not been deleted or changed, just moved. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd also note that people coming here to post that the article should be kept, in response to canvassing they've seen on social media, isn't going to have any impact on the deletion discussion (which is heading towards a clear keep outcome anyway). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It definitely does look like its going towards a keep, due to there being enough good sources to justify it. However I think this only came up due to how much of the article was based on terrible sources, and included language very clearly put up by fans of her's (Including some hilarious vandalism by a user "MagdalenForever"). After the RfD is done, this page definitely needs a solid cleanup/rewrite on several sections. SomerIsland (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

When you say "enough good sources" what exactly are you referring to? There isn't a single source in the article which satisfies wikipedia's golden rule - not even one. 84.65.18.117 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It's obviously a speedy keep. The only reason it's AfDed is because there's a vendetta out there against gender-critical feminists. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion – June 2021

The result of the article deletion discussion that took place 2 June–9 June 2021 is:  Keep.

To understand Wikipedia's procedures for deleting an article, see deletion process and WP:AFD. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

A useful project for this article - Good Article status

Now it has clearly survived a full deletion discussion with a consensus to keep, it seems as if this would be a good time for those so minded to see how the article might be turned into a formal Wikipedia Good Article. Doing so will insulate it against further deletion attempts. Berns is important whether one agrees or disagrees with her views, or simply has no strong opinion. This would be a useful opportunity to seek to ensure that her legacy, agreed by current consensus, is made more substantial, always remembering that this article may not be her memorial.

There may be parts that require a rewrite, parts where the referencing is of doubtful quality. There may be parts where quantity of referencing has taken incorrect priority over quality Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact there isn't a single source meeting wikipedia's golden rule surely makes this impossible though. There's no way to rewrite the article so that substantial coverage in reliable sources suddenly exists, because it just doesn't. It would be great if we could use the Telegraph, the Times, the Guardian, but we can't because they've never covered Berns. 84.65.18.117 (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It just seems to me that an article capable of surviving an AfD based on the closer's analysis of the policy based arguments ought to be capable of GA status. It is an interesting paradox if it is truly impossible. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't based on an any analysis of arguments - it was just a vote. People can vote to keep the article, and that's fine, but we can't change reality by voting, we can't vote good sources on Berns into existence - they still don't exist regardless of any votes. 84.65.18.117 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Using student media as sources

Re this edit: WP:RSSM >
"Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community. They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available. However, given their local audience, student media may be challenged or discounted during notability discussions about topics related to home institutions. A topic which can be sourced exclusively to student media, with no evidence of wider coverage in mass market general interest media, is not likely to be viewed as notable."
Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing there that indicates The Wesleyan Argus is unreliable. McPhail (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Also the source is an opinion piece from the student newspaper. In the article the author titles herself as an "Opinion Editor". CatCafe (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A section on "reactions" is by its nature about opinions. If we don't want to include opinions then the entire Reactions section should be removed. Arbitrarily singling out a student newspaper while retaining Tweets and quotes from bloggers is not consistent. McPhail (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: Tweets and quotes from bloggers: I agree that it is inconsistent to only strike the student newspaper; strike the Tweets as well, I say. This section is about notable reactions which are within the greater cultural context of her life. I'm sure we all have opinions on Berns but they aren't includes as they are insignificant. The section shouldn't be straddled by attempts to bolster; Berns isn't an Andrea Dworkin, anecdotal, but, my first knowledge of her came from her slight relation to J.K Rowling. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

"A topic which can be sourced exclusively to student media, with no evidence of wider coverage in mass market general interest media, is not likely to be viewed as notable."
That is the RS policy. The subject of Magdalen Berns has been covered by multiple media sources and notable individuals. Therefore, the Wesleyan Argus opinion piece is in addition to the wider coverage. Under the specificity of WP:RSSM, it meets the threshold for use as a source. That you found out about Berns in relation to J.K. Rowling is how many people outside of Scotland learned about her for the first time, but this does not mean she was an unknown individual within the scope of women's rights and gender identity activism ... which is how Rowling came to know of her to begin with. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

"The subject of Magdalen Berns has been covered by multiple media sources" - this is just not true. That's why all the sources are tweets, blog posts, student newspapers, and so on. All the actual good sources make only passing mention of Berns. 84.69.10.242 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

National Review, Edinburgh Evening News, Spiked, Camden New Journal, The Critic magazine, Morning Star newspaper, AfterEllen, Ophelia Benson/Butterflies and Wheels ... are legitimate, acceptable sources. You may not like Berns, you may not like that Wikipedia has a biography about her, and you may scratch the ground to come up with whatever concocted reason you can think of to argue against this bio, but the Berns article has been the subject of two (2) WP:AFDs. It's a done deal. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That list says it all really. The best you could find was a bunch of tiny local newspapers, blog posts, conservative opinion pieces and, to top it all off, the Morning Star. Has Berns ever received wide, significant coverage? No. The argument about liking her goes the other way - you're clearly part of that transphobic clique, but this doesn't make coverage of Berns suddenly exist. I looked up the AFDs and they were both flooded by transphobes. A search for twitter finds hundreds of accounts calling to arms over it, and the movement's leader posted about it here: https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/trans-rights-activists-are-trying If we're so desperate to keep this page alive that we must scrape the barrel for sources, then student newspapers are a necessity. We can't swap them out for the BBC or ITV or the Times or the Guardian because these outlets have not once covered the subject. 84.69.10.242 (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

"...you're clearly part of that transphobic clique....": this personal attack directed at me violates Wikipedia policy WP:NPA (ANI warning). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I have warned the IP editor that comments of that nature are not acceptable on an article talk page, and that any repeat of them will likely result in a block. As a general reminder to all participants, comments here should be about the content of the article and its sourcing, they should not be about other contributors, and certainly not include accusations of that sort. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

But "You may not like Berns, you may not like that Wikipedia has a biography about her, and you may scratch the ground to come up with whatever concocted reason you can think of to argue against this bio" is fine. 84.69.10.242 (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the comments about what you like or dislike are not on-topic for an article talk page, which is why I reminded all participants to keep their comments properly focussed on the content and sourcing. Those comments do not, however, constitute a personal attack on you as an individual, whereas yours did - do not repeat them. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning up

In the latest AfD, many Keep voters also expressed the view that the article should be cleaned up of the many primary and non-RS sources. In my view, they still dominate, with (as I said in the AfD) strong echoes of WP:PSEUDO.

In my view, a good first point to clean up the article would be to de-memorialise and focus it. Berns achieved notability, if at all (I'm still unconvinced but consensus is against me so I will henceforth assume it), due to her Gender Critical views and activism. Take that away and it seems very little question she'd not be notable (as explained below). Much of the rest of the content in the piece, I would argue, shouldn't be there under WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

Early life, education and career: a large portion of this relies on obituaries of her mother or herself, and has little link to her notability. Her siblings? Her grandparents' jobs? The former could get a number in an infobox I guess, but the latter just seems padding. Her life as a young socialist/Marxist starts to approach WP:COATRACK territory. Her software career is unremarkable and not linked to her notability, nor notable in its own right. The description as a "self-taught coder" is sourced to the text of a speech by someone else. Her time at the University of Edinburgh, however, does tie directly into her later notability. I propose that's where the bio focuses.

Scottish Boxing: It is telling that none of the opponents she lost to has their own wikipedia page. Much of this section is made up of one-line snippets of reports about other boxers or boxing clubs. This is true of references 32-34 and 39-42. References 36 and 37 scream WP:OR - they describe views of the Haringey Box Cup in 2017 (Berns competed in 2010) and the Golden Girl Championship in 2019 (Berns competed in 2011) - we have no idea if anything changed in the intervening 7/8 years, and the sources do not help. The short "In Memory" section in Boxing Scotland's annual report (ref 35) combined with the several passing mentions in the RSs puts me off suggesting no mention is made of her boxing at all, primary source though 35 is - the collection of achievements described there, described as "pioneering" by the primary source (but representative body), seem useful to include even though they would not make her notable as an athlete (see WP:NBOX) since I have seen reference to boxing in relation to her GC activism.

Suggested text for both these parts: Berns attended the University of Edinburgh in her thirties.[8] She initially studied engineering, receiving a Doris Gray Scholarship from the Women's Engineering Society,[19][20] and in her second year she switched to physics. She was a member of Scotland’s first female boxing squad in 2011, and represented the University of Edinburgh in 2009-2011. She was the first Scottish boxer to compete in, and win, the Haringey Box Cup in 2010 and the Golden Girl Championship in 2011. In 2011, Magdalen also won the British Universities Boxing Championships.[35] She graduated from the University of Edinburgh in 2016.

I am not nearly bold enough to make such major changes without discussion, but that would be welcome.Hypnotist uk (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I have however removed the OR and associated references, which changed the reference numbering above. The range of passing references is now 32-34 and 37-40. Hypnotist uk (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. There is nothing in WP:NOT that states a biography should exclude or give only passing mention to the subject's life outwith the events for which they are best known. (By that logic the lengthy section on Harry S. Truman's military career should be condensed to a few sentences as literally no-one knows him for being a soldier as opposed to a president). I can't see how WP:COATRACK applies - the article is a biography of Magdalen Berns so any biographical material that can be sourced is germane. The "Views and activism" section is by far the longest section, as is proper, so WP:UNDUE does not apply; improvements to the article should focus on adding more content and more sources to this section, not arbitrarily pruning the other sections. If there are specific details that are judged to be irrelevant that's one thing, but arbitrarily lopping out reams of text about the article's subject and paring it back to the bare minimum has no basis in policy. McPhail (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTEVERYTHING in WP:NOT is quite clear: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". The fact we're having to scrabble around in primary sources and lift passing mentions from secondary ones in these sections strongly points towards rather more of a summary being needed than we have. Right now, the early life and boxing sections are together about half the length of the activism section (again, the reason for notability) which is nowhere near satisfying WP:UNDUE I would suggest. Do you really believe the article is improved by it stating "Her maternal grandfather was an artist"?

The lopping back is not arbitrary, but based on an analysis of what the RS support. Again, there was a strong desire expressed in the AfD to improve the article and its sourcing throughout - that cannot be achieved merely by adding content and sources to one section. I am proposing that given the vast majority of specific details in the first sections are irrelevant to her notability, they should be summarised far more than they are. I have comments on the next section too, but as I said, I thought this would be a good place to start in improving the article further. If a line by line approach is preferred, that is also fine for me though!

On the WP:COATRACK point, the socialist activity felt more to me like a "here's what a young socialist can do" exposition. Having just got back access to the New Camden Journal though, I have changed my mind - that piece links her younger experiences back to her GC activism, so it feels wrong to exclude it fully. I'd add back something were I to redraft.

Finally, the Truman example feels perverse - it is neither true nor (if it were true) relevant to WP that "literally no-one knows him for being a soldier". His military service is known well enough but, far more importantly for here, covered in multiple good and reliable secondary sources. It's also only about 1/12 of the article, and in his mind, of direct import to what came next: "My whole political career is based on my war service and war associates". Hypnotist uk (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

To get into the detail: the first three sentences of "early life" are referenced to obituaries of her mother - none RS, and both the Guardian and Morning Star text should have been attributed in-text per WP:RSPSS. In addition they add little to the focus of her notability. I don't think we want to start the article with "According to the Morning Star, she was the daughter of Argentine-born Gustavo Berns and the socialist historian Deborah Lavin" - but that is what WP:RSPSS demands.

The relocation and school she attended is perhaps from a RS - hard to say, real paper but guest writer - but even if it is, it didn't feel particularly suitable for a summary. I might have erred on the side of keeping the school, earlier.

The next sentence is a synthesis of two primary sources and one secondary RS (again assuming NCJ as a RS here). The NCJ says "She was an activist from her early teens, campaigning against Huntingdon Life Sciences and giving out election leaflets for the Socialist Labour Party" and that feels reasonable per the above; the self-serving words of the primary source about her attending discussions on Marxism rather less so, and the blog of a friend again is hardly reliable or independent.

So no, it wasn't just "arbitrary". I wish my first go had had more from the NCJ but the idea this should just be overlooked is plain odd. WP:V exhorts us to "base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Sticking in material from any old source is just not that. Hypnotist uk (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You are conflating two separate matters. If content cannot be adequately sourced, that is a separate issue to whether it warrants inclusion. The "Views and activism" section relates to Berns' life from the age of circa 32 onwards, so the three preceding paragraphs are a summary of the first 31 years - i.e. the first 86% - of her life. That to me does not seem disproportionate for a biographical article. Again, if there are specific items that you feel are inadequately sourced that can be discussed, but I do not believe there is a credible argument for widescale removal of content. McPhail (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the "two separate matters" fall directly out of WP:UNDUE which is clear the weight of the article follows the weight given by reliable sources. Where we are scrabbling around to find other sources to add detail, as is endemic in this article (and which was widely recognised in the AFD including by Keep voters), we're failing NPOV and we're including details that shouldn't be there given poor sourcing. We do not weight bios of people on a year by year basis (on this basis we need to add detail about her life as a baby, come on). We should instead follow what the RSs say. And the RS in this article - such as they are - mostly focus on her Gender Critical activism. We shouldn't be adding random details from a series of self-published or self-aggrandising primary sources... but we are.

In any case, I've already given specific detals above just from the first paragraph: the first three sentences of the early years section, and her attending discussions on Marxism. All are poorly sourced and, again, at least need some attribution in text to follow WP:RSPSS - but IMO would be cleaner just to get rid of. I look forward to discussing how we improve or cull this paragraph, and then we can move on to the next paragraph. Hypnotist uk (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is about "viewpoints", not factual statements. Again you are referencing policies that have no bearing on your argument, to the extent that this is verging on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But in the interests of compromise and assuming good faith, below is a pared back paragraph. I'd say someone's parentage and birthplace is fairly basic information for any biography, and the information on activism is clearly germane to her later activism (i.e. the description of Berns as a "far-left YouTubers who hate[s] transgender people").

Berns was born to Argentine-born Gustavo Berns and the socialist historian Deborah Lavin (1951–2020), who separated after her birth. Berns grew up in the London Borough of Camden, where she attended Hampstead School. As a teenager, she participated in activism: taking part in anti-war marches; campaigning against Huntingdon Life Sciences; attending Socialist Labour Party discussions on Marxism; distributing election leaflets for the Socialist Labour Party; and joining a socialist choir.

I don't agree that it has no bearing, and I might take the refusal to engage on any of the repeated WP:V arguments I've made as reflecting an WP:OWNed page, but I agree it's better to edit constructively. I agree that birthplace is fairly basic information, but citing to the Morning Star is far from meeting WP:V. Since this is a basic fact about herself, let's use her own words: https://twitter.com/MagdalenBerns/status/709236143343140864 . Plenty of articles don't list parental names, e.g. Diane Abbott, Rachel Riley. I don't see any compelling reason to do so here so it would be good to hear from other editors. I'd be ok with nationalities, but I cannot see why we have her mothers' years of life here, and we only have the (very self-interested) Morning Star's word she was a "socialist historian" - her daughter uses neither word to describe her. We don't have any RS to say she was raised in Camden, that I can see - Chynoweth does not say so, neither does her sister (but the latter says they settled in London and her mother continued to work there, which at a stretch gives just about enough support for the phrase I think). Finally, I still do not think we have any RS for "taking part in anti-war marches", "attending Socialist Labour Party discussions on Marxism" or "joined a socialist choir" - none of these statements are verifiable, as far as I can see; the sources for them are far too self-interested or self-published assertions. I put forward:

Berns was born to an Argentine father and a British mother, who separated after her birth.[17 - Berns2020] Berns grew up in London,[17] where she attended Hampstead School.[8 - Chynoweth]. As a teenager, she participated in activism: campaigning against Huntingdon Life Sciences and distributing election leaflets for the Socialist Labour Party.[8]

At the end of the day, every argument I am making comes back to WP:V - and the many sources that I believe are used outwith its boundaries. Feel free to ignore every other policy I've mentioned. Also you can't use cite references like that on a talk page, FYI. Hypnotist uk (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If we could find a RS to say her mother helped set up the Communist Party of Great Britain (M-L), though, that would be a worthy addition. Several of the less-than-reliable sources claim such, but she's not metioned on Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist) or its sources, as far as I can tell. Hypnotist uk (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggested version below. I don't agree with removing her parents' names; this seems like fairly basic information to me. McPhail (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Berns was born in London[4] to Argentine-born Gustavo Berns and Deborah Lavin[5][6], a founding member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist);[7][8] her parents separated after her birth.[9] Berns attended Hampstead School in the London Borough of Camden.[10] As a teenager, she participated in activism - including campaigning against Huntingdon Life Sciences, distributing election leaflets for the Socialist Labour Party,[11] and protesting a fur shop in Picadilly[12] - and attended Socialist Labour Party discussions on Marxism.[13]

Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any real consensus about adding the names of parents when neither is notable. It's at least something reasonably sourced so let's move on. We shouldn't include her mother's role as a founder member of the BCP-ML until we have a reliable source for it, much as I think it's potentially important - self-serving primary sources are a problem for the article, after all. I am not sure what it adds to say where the school was, and the source also doesn't (the school also has its own page we can just point people to). I still maintain we do not have suitable sources for the meeting attendance or (newly) the fur shop protest, and certainly not for wikivoice, though. The following seems a reasonable and decently sourced compromise to me:

Berns was born in London[14] to Argentine-born Gustavo Berns and Deborah Lavin[15][16]; her parents separated after her birth.[17] Berns attended Hampstead School in London,[18] and as a teenager, she participated in activism - including campaigning against Huntingdon Life Sciences and distributing election leaflets for the Socialist Labour Party.[19]

I've left in one Morning Star reference as adding strength to the Guardian (assumed-to-be) RS. I would also be ok with the last sentence being "and as a teenager, she participated in activism - including campaigning against Huntingdon Life Sciences and distributing election leaflets for the Socialist Labour Party,[20] and according to the Morning Star newspaper protesting a fur shop in Picadilly.[21]" Hypnotist uk (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it is important to at least mention Lavin's membership of the Communist Party at least given Berns' own socialist involvement. The Camden New Journal emphasises Berns' relationship with Camden so I think it is noteworthy to clarify that this is where she went to school; I don't see Hampstead School being in Camden as a statement requiring a source. Proposed tweaked version below: McPhail (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Berns was born in London[22] to Argentine-born Gustavo Berns and Deborah Lavin[23][24], a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist);[25][26] her parents separated after her birth.[27] Berns attended Hampstead School in Camden, London;[28] as a teenager, she participated in activism, including campaigning against Huntingdon Life Sciences, distributing election leaflets for the Socialist Labour Party,[29] and, according to the Morning Star newspaper, protesting a fur shop in Picadilly.[30]"

Point taken on the link to Camden being important. On Lavin, maybe we just follow the "helped to found" language in the Guardian - a bit weaker than "was a founder", and also better sourced than "member" (while possibly being more meaningful). I've edited accordingly. Thanks for engaging on this - the paragraph feels much stronger now. Onwards and upwards. Hypnotist uk (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

"Cotton ceiling"

It is entirely incorrect to claim that the cotton ceiling refers to unwillingness to have sex with trans women with penises. It's just a complete fabrication. Wiktionary doesn't even agree with this. If the term is going to continue to be used in the page, there should be some sort of disclaimer to note that this usage by Berns is nonstandarnd. 74.133.65.50 (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The definition at Wikitionary is A social barrier to consideration (by cisgender people) of transgender people as viable sexual partners. That is a very inclusive definition, and includes amongst other potential groups cisgender lesbians who refuse to have sex with trans women who have penises. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As written, it suggests that the term cotton ceiling means that specifically, which it doesn't. It is incorrect. 74.133.65.50 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

While they are obviously phrased differently, I disagree that the two sentences have different meanings. The refusal of a cis lesbian to have sex with a trans woman with a penis is one possible definition. Non exhaustively, so to would the refusal of a cis gay refusing to have sex with a trans man with a vagina, or a heterosexual refusing to have sex with any trans or non-binary person because they have the wrong genitalia. Cotton ceiling is a very, very broad term, with multiple different manifestations. These manifestations are not mutually exclusive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't use Wiktionary as a source because all of it is user-generated, and anyone with a keyboard and keypad can massage and manipulate what's in it. I'd rather rely on sources that are websites, newspapers, or magazines. Such as: Girl Dick, the Cotton Ceiling and the Cultural War on Lesbians, Girls and Women, December 5, 2018 (which Miranda Yardley, a trans woman, also published in her blog, December 9, 2018). Hopping the Barbed Wire Gate— ‘LGBT Sandwich’ Lands Cotton Ceiling 2nd Most Watched by author Julia Diana Robertson, May 16, 2019. If a lesbian only desires same-sex dates that’s not bigotry, it’s her right, 29 May 2022. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

References