Talk:Jessica Yaniv/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

sources

There's an ample supply of reliable balanced sources. Let's not rely on Western Standard or similar sources that show a negative bias. -Rob (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

More sourcing problems

On a minor note, can we please use {{cite news}} to format citations appropriately, and include all relevant information on sources, and use archive urls to avoid link-rot.

More signficantly, there seems to be a move to use trash sources.

• In this edit there is a Yahoo Australia News link that relies on a Daily Mirror story. I'm not too sure about the reliability of Yahoo News Australia, but, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Daily Mail is clearly not reliable. Also, the story of the gynaecologist is all based on some Twitter postings. There's no source stating an actual official complaint was failed. I think it's best we don't mention every tweet by or about Yaniv.
• In this edit there is a link to a Quillette article by Lindsay Shepherd. This is blatantly unreliable. Not only is Quillette listed as unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but the author, was involved in a deeply personal and hostile online feud, which included a ban (for a time) from Twitter. Both have written deeply hostile things about the other, and neither is a reliable source on the other.
• The Post Millennial is also on the same list of unreliable sources. It just happens to also have Shepherd as a periodic writer as well.

All unreliable sources have to be removed. If there's no reliable source for a claim, it should be removed. There's ample coverage in reliable sources. --Rob (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the threat from my talk page. Rather than you wikisplaining the article Thivierr, let's work through the refs one by one. Thank you. CatCafe (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

All unreliable sources and BLP violations must be removed immediately, per relevant policy. The onus is on the person wishing to include something, to justify it. --Rob (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It us incumbent upon you to show good faith, which you have not on my talk page. There are reliable sources for all the text additions Trivierr. Will you allow the content to be returned if the RSs are included? CatCafe (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources, per WP:RS, and ensure the content matches the sources, and there is not a problem. But, I think you'll find some stuff just isn't covered by reliable sources, or isn't covered in the same manner. ---Rob (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Good, thank you for now agreeing to act in good faith. The Star Observer is the premier Australian LGBTI publication, it is a RS, any probs?[1] CatCafe (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the section referencing the complaint about the gynecologist, as it really appears WP:UNDUE for inclusion. I can't even find any indication that Yaniv ever actually pursued the complaint, so the entire amounts to Yaniv tweeting something and some other people tweeting back at her. I don't see how that could possibly warrant mention, much less a full subsection. Nblund ^talk 21:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

sourcing for harassment allegations

I'm having a tough time seeing how the level of detail in the Jessica_Yaniv#Alleged_online_harassment section could be justified by the extant sourcing. It doesn't appear to have garnered even a passing mention in high quality sources, and it seems like gossip that is not feasible to cover neutrally for the simple reason that neutral sources don't cover it. I've trimmed what seemed like excessive detail, but it could probably be removed all together. Nblund ^talk 21:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@CatCafe: If it wasn't clear here, I don't think the name of the accuser is the sole issue. Typically, Wikipedia has had a fairly high bar for inclusion when it comes to these kinds of allegations. Unless the standards have recently changed, I think this level of detail for something that is not widely covered is likely to be a BLP violation. Nblund ^talk 22:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, but I think the section should stay, as there are 2 (if not more) reliable sources reporting on this topic. CatCafe (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What's the other reliable source for that specific claim? Nblund ^talk 22:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Look I really don't have time to debate your tangents. But I'm replying to your proposal to delete the section, and the section relies on 3 RS (they're in the article, and I don't have to republish them here for you). If you want these classified as non-RS then this is not the correct forum. Good bye. CatCafe (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm specifically talking about the Jessica_Yaniv#By_Yaniv section - the portion I removed comes from one source alone. You're not under any obligation to do anything, but if you intend to have a say in what the entry looks like, you're going to have to be willing to talk about it. "What other sources exist for this" is not a tangent, it's the basis of determining WP:DUE weight. Nblund ^talk 01:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Look honestly your asking me a question about something I never made and it's badgering. I said "there are 2 (if not more)" and then gave examples of 3 RS. Now you demand more? Please look for the additional RS yourself, rather than demanding others do your work for you. OK? Please go and learn how to search for Rel sources rather than duscuss with me. CatCafe (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed a sentence from that section. You restored that sentence here. You restored it, I'm asking you to justify it. If you can't justify it, then we should remove it. Nblund ^talk 03:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleting Reliable Sources

Can RS's not be deleted from the article. The same editors who are deleting them are then complaining about a lack of them. It's counterproductive and oversight is required. Thanks in advance. CatCafe (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you referencing this edit? I removed them because they were unused and causing an error. I see you've restored them inside a comment tag, which seems fine, but that doesn't have any bearing on the AfD. Nblund ^talk 03:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with the AfD. It's got to do with editors whining that there's not enough reliable sources available when there is, or seemingly was, before they were deleted. Thank you for agreeing to desist from this. Please go out and find some more if you like, that would be helpful. CatCafe (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I really don't understand your complaint here. Nblund ^talk 04:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No-one asked you to involve yourself in this thread. You don't need to take everything personally. CatCafe (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nblund, I specifically asked that RS's not be deleted, then you specifically went ahead and deleted the RSs I had added. You may edit if you may, but please cease your need to eliminate RS. I cannot work with you under such conditions. CatCafe (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, this source is not useable for a BLP. The other two sources were removed because they weren't actually being used in the article. I've restored the other two sources to the "unused sources" comment tag. But do you understand that nothing inside these tags is visible to readers? I don't think it causes any harm, but it's really not reasonable to expect other editors to conform to your idiosyncratic preference to keep unused sources there. If you really want to do this, you should really just do the legwork yourself. It's definitely not a valid reason for restoring material that violates BLP. Nblund ^talk 05:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If a source is very reliable, informative, and relevant; but not yet used as a source, then it should go under "Further reading". Hidden/commented-out text is useless clutter, that confuses future editors. However, I don't see anything here that qualifies for added "Further reading". Also, given the attempted use of "sydneycriminallawyers", it's worth noting that the default assumption of anything found online, is it's not usable. If a source is blacklisted as a perennial bad source, then it's definitely unusable. But, even if it hasn't yet been banned by Wikipedia, it may still be unusable. Some sources are good for certain things (like non-contentious facts), but not usable when there's a clear bias that makes reliability questionable. If you read an article, and it's overtly hostile (or promotional) of a person, that means you probably shouldn't use it. While there's an active debate on the sufficiency of sources, what doesn't help, is adding mediocre sources to an article that has good sources. All it does it drown the good with the bad. Nobody is impressed by a flood of junk. --Rob (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Titania McGrath

Seriously? Titania McGrath is a fictional character. They do not exist. There is a comedian who uses that name to mock people. If we did cite the book, we would name Andrew Doyle (comedian), not Titania McGrath as the author. But, being only a comedian, they are not a reliable source. Now, if a reliable sources mention the book by Doyle, then maybe that's worth mentioning. User:CatCafe, you added this based on an apparent belief this character is real? Then, you try adding it back, while admitting it's a parody, but still referring to Titania McGrath as a "satarist". McGrath is not a satarist. Doyle is a satarist. McGrath does not exist. This is why it's necessary to be cautious when adding sources. Please, only add reputable sources, and don't just add every random piece of garbage you find on the internet. This is seriously embarrassing to Wikipedia, to be taken in by such a well known jokester. Being fooled by bad sources is bad enough, but now we're using fictional sources? --Rob (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Lighten up Thivierr. Maybe I'm not the idiot you subscribe me to be. You probably feel it's time to go running to BLP/N to dob me in and report my errors for editing in a WP:BOLD manner? Last time you got over excited and reverted a slab of coding errors I had fixed - counterproductive. The crime here is that I accidentally referred to a comedian by his pseudonym, and used a not so great ref. No-one was defamed, no-one was slandered - but you saw the need to write a short-story suggesting I am a fool as above. Please lighten up & Move on. CatCafe (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOLD doesn't mean add everything you find on net for others to fix. BLPs require extra sensitivity. Using a pseudonym isn't a big deal per se. Many authors are known and referred by them interchangeably with their own name. However, in this case, the author made an intentional hoax intended to mock those that take him seriously. Your initial use of him indicated you were fully taken in by the hoax and suggested Wikipedia was too. A hoax that has long long long been known as such and doesn't really hide itself that much. A little like falling for an April fools Day gag from last year. --Rob (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@CatCafe: No one is calling you an idiot, but if you can't see the problem with using this source, then you need to take a step back from editing biographies and familiarize yourself with the WP:BLP guidelines. Competence is required, and so is being able to take constructive criticism. Nblund ^talk 14:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Book usage

I removed "DELETED: Big Tech's Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal the Election" as this is not a source of facts, but is a source of commentary. A book of political opinion, should be used pretty much like we would use an opinion piece in a newspaper: state what the writers opinion is and attribute it to the writer in the body of the article. Even if a newspaper is a reliable source of facts, we still don't treat it's opinion pieces as sources of fact. Same goes with book publishers. This publisher may publish books that we can rely on for facts. This book isn't one. Murphy's twitter ban is a non-contentious fact, supported by factual reporting in the National Post. It doesn't need redundant citations. Whether Murphy *should* have been banned, and whether she aught to have said/done what she did, is a matter of opinion, and as opinion, if covered, should be done so with appropriate in-line attribution. This approach is already used in the article under the "Impact and reactions" section. --Rob (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute the removal since you say it is redundant non-contentious information. However, major literary publishing houses assert fact checking to its books and this is a discussion of a fact; as opposed to whatever fact-checking, if any, a newspaper does to its editorials/columnists. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yaniv's words in student newspaper

So, yet again, here is a trash source that's being used. It's a statement by "Yaniv" in a student newspaper. We don't even have to consider the reliability of the student newspaper, as we're talking about Yaniv's candidate statement, written in the first person. The subject of the bio is not a reliable source of facts about the subject of the bio, especially when those statements are self-promoting (as in, she was running for a position, and justifying why she should get it). --Rob (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know what this adds. Even if attributed to Yaniv, it's probably undue since no secondary sources appear to have covered it.Nblund ^talk 18:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"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." and "primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does.". The source supports non-controversial facts about Yaniv. I have tweaked the text to clarify that this is a claim by Yaniv herself. McPhail (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

But what does it add that makes it encyclopedic and WP:DUE for inclusion? The fact that we're resorting to citing a student newspaper is probably good evidence that it's not actually important. Nblund ^talk 20:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it is a trivial claim, based on a trashy source, with no guarantee that the person mentioned is Jessica Yaniv. I removed it. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the fact nobody independently wrote about it, shows how meaningless it is. Also, this isn't Yaniv's verified official web site. It's some text printed in a student election a decade ago. We don't know the statements aren't contentious. The statement says she was behind a significant action (removal from national organization), maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, maybe other candidates disputed that. I don't know, and I don't care. Mini bios of election candidates are one of the most useless sources of information there are. They are sheer puffery, that's printed without any fact checking. If we did cover this stuff, we'd need to qualify it with text like "According to Kwantlen Chronicle Yaniv claimed...", which is needless clutter for something so useless. Now, if a reliable publication (with fact checkers) actually reported on the student union leaving a national organization, and credited this person, then that might actually be noteworthy. --Rob (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Canadian News Wire isn't a source

Canadian News Wire is not a news outlet. They print press releases, in exchange for payment. Also, this doesn't say anything about Yaniv. It just lists her as a contact for further information, going to show how non-independent the source is. --Rob (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I say delete the references to it then. The one News Wire reference I saw is about ear buds put out by someone she worked for at some point and has nothing to do with her. So, 100% it should be deleted. Probably a lot of other stuff could be to. Not every mundane thing about her or trivial news mention she gets is notable or should be included, and there's a lot of cruft in the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Trans activist

Resolved

He is not a trans activst— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.163.252 (talk • contribs) 13:22, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

Not big on reading, I guess. You don't even have to open the actual sources, the headlines alone confirm she is a trans activist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Except hes one of the biggest anti-gays in BC. He literally gives reason for bigots to worry about a nontrans man trying to use their bathroom. He wants to tell prepubescents how to use tampons and have a topless pool party without parents present. Thats a predator, not an activist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.51.100 (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

He wrote his own articles to try to circumvent this, so sourcing doesnt really help when the one being sourced is good at SEO

Rebel reporter altercation

I removed this. There needs to be some consensus on how to handle this, before adding back. The text had stated that Yaniv was arrested. However, the North Shore News doesn't state as fact that there was an arrest related to the incident. It says that the Rebel News reporter claims there was an arrest. North Shore News merely confirms there was a police investigation. An arrest is a major factual claim (potentially defamatory), and we need a definitive statement before mentioning it. Note, this is quite different, than the taser case, where there's sources explicitly stating she was arrested and charged. --Rob (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Rob, source clearly says police "opened an investigation", but the only reference to arrest was made by the victim himself: "claims Yaniv was arrested and released". This must be made absolutely clear in any material for inclusion. Also from source: "Police have not confirmed any charges".Wisefroggy (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Other news outlets have not been able to confirm arrest either: "widespread speculation that Yaniv was arrested over the weekend, but The Post Millennial and other outlets were unable to verify the claims"[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 14:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Rob that's a good point. I can't find anything that doesn't just refer back to Rebel news, which isn't a good source for pretty much anything. I'm inclined to err on the side of just leaving it out unless there's actual confirmation. I doubt that Rebel would completely fabricate this, but I don't think we lose much without it. Nblund ^talk 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Human Rights Tribunal complaints section

According to this article she dropped the complaints against the hair salons five days. Which seriously puts into question if the section about it, or really the whole article on her since it hinges on that story, should even exist. Last time I checked Wikipedia doesn't traffic in complaints that never go anywhere. I'm not sure what the article has going for it beyond that though. Really, it's to bad the AfD went the way it did based on the people that went off about how her complaints against the salons were going to go somewhere eventually. Either there should be a new AfD in light of her dropping the complaints, it should be over turned, or something else should happen, but in no way should the article just stay as it is in it's current form. The article I cited calls her a "Serial human rights complainant." Which I agree with. Wikipedia isn't a place for biographical articles about "Serial human rights complainants." There has to be more about the person and their life then that. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If you had been following her you would have known that in mid 2020 Yaniv had taken out additional complaints out on new salons, after she previously lost the cases to the others - and she is only now dropping those latest 2 complaints. These additional cases are actually articulated in the last para of the section 'Human Rights Tribunal complaints' if you had read it. And you really can't use the Post Millennial as it is not RS Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. But I do look forward to you finding more other content from RS's to improve the article, rather than simply want to AfD it. I'm sure you have the capabilities to expand the article. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I actually did read through the articles etc. Thanks though. I still stick by what I wrote. That said, it is hard to keep track of all the nothing burgers she's been involved in. Since there's been so many of them. Anyway, my suggestion was to change the article "some how" to reflect that yet one more thing she was involved in went no where. Obviously doing another AfD is simply one suggested option out of many options Wikipedia gives us for dealing with this kinds of things. I could really care less how the article is alterted to reflect the fact that she's a serial complainer that's involved in things that never go anywhere. As long as its alterted to reflect it. Last I checked there's many more ways to improve articles, or more importantly Wikipedia, then to "find more sources." I know being its much easier to be hyperbolic and single minded about things and to act like your way of doing it is the best and only way to do things though. So, feel free to continue demagoguing and characterizing things. It should have been obvious based on our past interactions where did the same thing that my original message wasn't intended for you and that id take your opinion about it as less then worthless. Adamant1 (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh stop it, you're embarrassing me. If only you could add that same amount of text as above to the article, that would be great - but alas. As you want something added to reflect what the Post Millennial is saying about her dropping the latest complaint - OK I will try and add that for you later on when time permits. But if the others find fault in it and have it deleted - it's on your head. Take care. CatCafe (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millennial isn't reliable for article content, but (yet again) the fact that no reliable sources have bothered with covering the outcome of these cases is a good indicator that they aren't actually worthy of inclusion.Nblund ^talk 15:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Also @CatCafe: I would normally take this to your user page, but since you've asked me not to comment there, I'll bring it up here: adding stuff to the article and then seeing whether anyone deletes it is exactly what we need to avoid doing on a WP:BLP. The goal of talk page discussion is to build consensus first before adding material that violates policies, because living people can be harmed by it. The fact that you're still not getting this at this point despite repeated notes from other editors is a raises real questions about your ability to edit in this area. Nblund ^talk 15:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Nblund I question your ability to be able to logically conduct discussions on this talk page, so maybe you should cease. You need to take your issues up with other editors. I did not suggest using the Post Millennial. And I did not say there were no other sources covering the content that the other editor wants added. Maybe you are unaware of other sources due to an inability to search for them, I can't help you with that skill. Please target your concerns at the correct editor. Goodbye. CatCafe (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Other editors are attempting to use the talk page for consensus building, and you seem to be using it to antagonize people. If you're aware of other sources, the appropriate thing to do would be to propose them here. You've had multiple warnings from multiple editors at this point. It's not a coincidence. Nblund ^talk 21:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You are doing the antagonising at this point. Please refrain from it. CatCafe (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Legal name

Her legal name is Jessica Simpson[3], and the lead should reflect that. My version may have been clumsy, but we should be clear of her current legal name. The current version positions one name in the same way we normally show somebody's birth name. Since we can't show her birth name (for obvious reasons) we need to show "Simpson" and "Yaniv" and make clear which is legal and which is widely used. Saying she is "known" as "Jessica Simpson" implies that it's just an alias she goes by or people choose to call her. It's her legal name. -Rob (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Rob - you said "we can't show her birth name (for obvious reasons)". Why not? Wisefroggy (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You didn't ask me, but: the relevant guidelines only allows the use the "dead name" when a person was previously notable under that name. This isn't the case for Yaniv, and there's really nothing useful to be gained by including it. Nblund ^talk 20:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No. User:Nblund you said: guidelines "only allows the use the "dead name" when a person was previously notable under that name". This is almost true. But not quite. The WP link you provide makes a distinction between the "Lead" (ie. intro) and the "article space" (the remainder). This is what it says for article space:

"In the case of transgender... birth names should be included in article space only... when notable under that name" So I agree if not notable, then birthname is not needed in the article space.

But for the lead, here is what it says: "the birth name may, if relevant, be given in the lead"

And indeed it is relevant: during the whole bikini wax thing, she was using both names (Jon and Jess) - the judges wrote multiple paragraphs on Yaniv's usage of both names (here, for ex: [4]

Thus, the birth name can and should be included. Unless Rob has some other reason we've not considered. Wisefroggy (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The lead is part of article space. You're quoting from two different parts of the policy: there's one standard for general name changes, and a different one for transgender birth names. If you look at the leads for other articles on trans people who transitioned before becoming famous, you'll see that birth names aren't included (Lavergne Cox, for instance) Nblund ^talk 21:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for missing this section. WP:BLPPRIVACY says it makes sense to bring up full names when they've been widely covered, but I don't really think this fits the bill based on the two sources that reference it. I don't think this is a huge issue, but it seems to add very little and runs a risk of needlessly publicizing information that the subject wants to keep private. Nblund ^talk 21:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yaniv is clearly not notable for their birth name. So, there's just no need to state it. Even if we discuss when she adopted a name change, or issues of how she identified herself, as mentioned above; there's no need to actually state the name. --Rob (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing from the article: Yaniv is a very unrepresentative sample of transgender people or activists

JY is described as a "trans activist," but her actions are being used to mock and discredit actual trans advocates whose interests typically center on keeping trans people from being killed, fired, evicted, etc. E.g. this article: "Jessica Yaniv fallout: Vancouver transgender activists say high-profile case has been 'massively negative' for community."

To quote a Globe and Mail opinion piece "Ms. Yaniv is already infamous in many far-right chat rooms and socially conservative publications, where she has become a caricature of what it means to be a trans person in Canada: a useful scapegoat, in other words, to dismiss legitimate efforts for equitable treatment for the trans community." Our article should not be an extension of the right-wing coverage that uses Yaniv as a good reason to deny human rights to other trans women. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please state more clearly what you want changed in the article. We already use the piece by Joanna Chiu, which you mention, which was published in the Hamilton Spectator and Toronto Star. We have multiple opinions shown under "Impact and reactions". We mention Arwa Mahdawi of the The Guardian making essentially you're point about right-wing media coverage. Are you asking for more of this? Would you like to change the positioning, or mention it in the lead? Do you have suggestions for new or changed wording? I appreciate there is a danger that anything negative about a member of a minority is seen by some as representative of the entire community. But, we're not making that connection. We're not saying anything negative about the trans community. We never suggest that Yaniv represents anybody. We call her an "activist", based on sources, but do not call her a leader or representative. If you read this article, you'll see it doesn't reflect any of the masses of anti-trans internet screeds about the topic. I suppose we could put a disclaimer on the top of every article stating "this article is about a specific named person, and is not representative of other members of the same race/religion/sex/orientation/identity/etc so don't be a bigot please". Or, if you feel this article shouldn't exist, feel free to request deletion a second time, but that's a discussion for another location. --Rob (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thivierr is correct and I was mistaken. This kind of information is present in a section of the article I apparently skimmed over. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Gynecologist complaint

This edit really seems WP:UNDUE and trivial. There's no indication that Yaniv actually filed a complaint, no follow up on the result, and apparently not enough interest among reliable sources for anyone to bother finding out any additional info. The entire story is based on a series of Tweets. What does this add? Nblund ^talk 15:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The material has reliable sources; WP:RS is satisfied. Whether you think there is "no follow up on the result" - there does not need to be any followup. This material is relevant and notable.Wisefroggy (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

And the material is 29 words long, which you think is WP:UNDUE. It is not WP:UNDUE by any reasonable interpretation.Wisefroggy (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Did Yaniv ever pursue the complaint? What was the result? Was her interpretation of discrimination law correct or incorrect? If we can't answer any of the basic questions about an event, it's useless for readers. Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge, it doesn't just include every random factoid about a person we can scrape together. Nblund ^talk 18:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with Nblund's suggestion that we should undertake WP:OR. The text is fine as it is, is compact and not WP:UNDUE, and relevant to the section as per the sources. It was important enough to be covered in WP:RS and the LGBTQI press, who also said "Yaniv said the College of Physicians and Surgeons confirmed to her that the gynaecologists’ refusal is discrimination and against their code of ethics." CatCafe (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a matter of one (deleted) tweet by Yaniv, plus editorializing about it, all of which happened in December 2019, much of the coverage focused on Gervais mocking Yaniv. Per Nblund above, it does not belong in the bio until/unless more events emerge from it making it relevant to the biography of JY. The WP:ONUS is on people wanting to add it to gain consensus for its inclusion. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

HouseOfChange You want to delete because it is not, in your words, "relevant to the biography of JY". Ok... so consider: JY's notability is almost entirely - entirely - based on discrimination claims against bikini waxers. Wouldn't a discrimination claim against a gynaecologist be similarly notable? Or at least notable to the extent of adding another 29 words to the article? Wisefroggy (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A google of the topic comes up with over 20 'news' items, so the topic has been extensively covered in the press. It is further supported, as Overington in The Aus also says: "She is not daunted, having since launched a human rights campaign against gynaecologists for refusing to accept her as a ­patient". CatCafe (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

So is it a "campaign" or did Yaniv actually lodge a complaint? This editorial doesn't provide any new factual information, and it further muddies the waters regarding what Yaniv actually did. I haven't suggested we cite original research and I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. Counting google hits (without regard to source quality or depth of coverage) is not an especially useful way to determine due weight or encyclopedic value.Nblund ^talk 21:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Nubland, As with your previous complaints, you continue to demand additional WP:OR before content is included. We include what the WP:RS's say, not what editors think is important after additional WP:OR is explored. Considering that, I can no longer help you with your concerns as you can't stay on the original topic, and always want to explore WP:OR. You removed Wisefroggy's text claiming it was WP:UNDUE, and you have not been able to substantiate that. Good bye and have a nice day. CatCafe (talk)

Again: I really don't know why you think my comment has anything to do with WP:OR, but the fact that you can't even spell my name correctly suggests that you might just not be reading anything very closely. I'm not calling for inserting WP:OR in to the article. I'm noting that we don't have enough reliably sourced information to write encyclopedic content about this incident. As always: you're not obligated to participate in any discussion, but - as HouseofChange notes above - the WP:ONUS for achieving consensus rests with the people trying to restore contested content. Nblund ^talk 21:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Noblnd, "As always: you're not obligated to participate in any discussion" if you deteriorate into insults (i.e. over spelling). This is why any discussion with you is problematic, as I previously have asked you to stop the insults suggesting I am some sort of fool. I am asking you again please desist this. Best of luck with breaking down the content in the articles in order to analyse your WP:OR. "Good bye and have a nice day." CatCafe (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@CatCafe:, WP:OR involves *adding* (or sometimes altering) material. Removing all mention of something can not be "original research". You seem to think every single detail meeting a certain reliability standard must be included. Sourcing rules work one way only: Wikipedia coverage requires reliable sources; but reliable sources don't require Wikipedia coverage. Trump is a trillion times more notable, but we don't cover every tweet he writes, even though they're all heavily covered, and infinitely more important. Also, Yaniv is not a powerful or influential person. The mere fact they say something doesn't automatically mean anything. Please stop trying to add every single thing you find on the internet. --Rob (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Look Thivierr stop talking rubbish, and making misguided accusations. It's verging on bullying. I did not suggest conducting WP:OR, another editor wanted to explore this. I did not add the content in question, another editor added it and asked me to comment here. That's your problem, you throw around accusations here on talk without researching what you're talking about. Next time you want to accuse me of something, you better make sure it's accurate and based on facts. Good bye and have a nice day. CatCafe (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Rob you seem to think this material is too trivial to be included (you said: "Please stop trying to add every single thing you find on the internet"). The gynaecology thing is entirely relevant and notable. Yaniv is notable almost entirely because of discrimination claims against bikini waxers. Now Yaniv is claming same against a gynaecologist. Totally relevant. To not include this material, IMO, is a disservice to wikipedia community.Wisefroggy (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Nblund said "Was her interpretation of discrimination law correct or incorrect?". This is not for us to decide. We are not judges. You also said: "Did Yaniv ever pursue the complaint? What was the result?". This is similarly irrelevant. Our job is to simply, like you said, "summarize accepted knowledge". Which is what we are doing. Unfortunately, you keep deleting it.Wisefroggy (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not soliciting editors' personal opinions on those issues. I'm pointing out that reliable sources don't answer any of the questions that a reader might ask in response to reading this information. Those kinds of relevance/significance questions are what separates news from encyclopedic material. "Summarizing" means that we sometimes leave out verifiable information if it is not important to the topic. As it stands, this is a non-sequitur that is more likely to perplex people than enlighten them. Nblund ^talk 03:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

JY's notability arises almost entirely from discimination claims against bikini waxers. Now, JY has done and/or threatened the same against a gynaecologist. To me, this seems totally relevant to the article. Why does User:nblund think it is OK to keep the claims against the bikini waxers, but NOT OK to keep the claim against the gynaecologist? Wisefroggy (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think after a certain number of iterations on the whole "I'm suing someone for discriminating against me" thing there's a point that its a "one trick pony media opportunism" type thing (controversy for sake of it and media attention more then anything else) and therefore it reaches diminishing returns when it comes to listing every single incident the person is involved in or every little detail of said incidents. It would be much more practical and serve Wikipedia readers better not to list cases beyond say the first major one or just summarize the other ones by saying something like "there has been other discrimination law suites involving the person past the initial one" and leaving it at that. It's not really important to go into the details of every single or to even say they happened for that matter. Just like it isn't important to list in a BIO about a musician who has struggled with drug addiction every time they went to rehab or to list specific details on the rehab centers they went to etc etc. Even if TMZ did a piece on all of them or whatever. It's fine to say "the person has gone to rehab multiple times", to just note the first time, or not to mention it at all. At least in the case of someone going to rehab for a drug addiction they aren't doing it specifically so TMZ covers them or to create a controversy. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1 I agree totally with your words "It's not really important to go into the details of every single" instance of discimination. And the article does not. There were 14 (or 20?) lawsuits against bikini waxers, but we obviously don't list all 20. But a discimination lawsuit against a gynacologist is not quite the same, and would warrant an extra 29 words, would it not? Wisefroggy (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd say no. Not when the person the article is about has a history of accusing people of things for attention and it's just allegations. Sure, if she was seriously harmed by the gynecologists actions toward here, it impacted her life in some serious way, and there was a law suit that ended in a major settlement or jail time or something. But none of that is the case here. She just alleged a gynecologist did something and nothing else seems to have came out of it besides that. 100% it's meaningless in the grand scheme of things when it comes to significance by Wikipedia's standards. More so because she has a history of making allegations against people that go know where and being involved in drama just for the sake of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll second these points, and add that: if this were a significant issue, then reliable sources probably would have bothered to find out the most basic facts about this case. Nblund ^talk 04:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wisefroggy:, you said "...a discimination lawsuit against a gynacologist is not quite the same, and would warrant an extra 29 words..." There is *no* verifiable report of a lawsuit. There's not even a reliable source that says Yaniv has ever had any dealings with a gynecologist. There's a couple sources that merely repeat what Yaniv tweeted, qualifying everything with "Yaniv said" or "Yaniv wrote". So, you're opinion about how this is important is irrelevant, as there's no evidence that anything ever happened. After a reliable source says there is a lawsuit, then we can talk about its protentional inclusion. --Rob (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Rob I misspoke by using the word "lawsuit". *obviously*- OBVIOUSLY - we will put in whatever the source says. Can you please re-answer, but assume I wrote "threat of complaint" instead of "lawsuit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1: Above, you proposed (your exact words):

saying something like "there has been other discrimination law suites involving the person past the initial one" and leaving it at that.

What I propose:

In December 2019, a gynaecologist to which Yaniv claims to have been referred, refused to serve her, stating "we don't serve transgender patients". Yaniv said she planned on filing a complaint against the clinic.

Which do you think better serves the wikipedia community? (and obviously we'd clean up either sentence to match the RS - example as Rob pointed out, RS does not say lawsuit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 14:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Neither. We can't really claim this either: Yaniv said on Twitter that she was referred to a gynecologists and refused service, but we don't actually have confirmation of that from anyone other than Yaniv herself. Since no reliable source appears to have verified any aspect of this claim, it's basically a self published primary source, which isn't useable for claims about third parties. Nblund ^talk 15:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Nblund got it exactly correct. --Rob (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Obviously I should've made clearer the part where we have to clean up any material to match the sources - so I'll do that now. New proposal:

In December 2019, Yaniv published tweets stating a gynacologist, to which Yaniv had been referred, had refused to serve her, telling her "we don't serve transgender patients". Yaniv further questioned whether the refusal was a violation of College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia policy, asking "Are they allowed to do that, legally? Isn’t that against the college practices?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure if in-text attribution allows us to get around the WP:ABOUTSELF problem, but even if it does: this brings us back to the initial problem of the whole story amounting to "Yaniv tweeted". To my mind, there's simply no way around this unless there are better sources that can give us enough detail to speak to the context and significance of these tweets. Nblund ^talk 19:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with Nblund here. Phrasing it "nicely" (or whatever) doesn't get around WP:ABOUTSELF. Also, there's been multiple RfCs about Twitter posts (primary or otherwise) and the clear consensus is that they should only be used to help confirm basic facts that are already refenced by other sources that are actually reliable. So, even if WP:ABOUTSELF was met by rephrasing things it would not matter because there would still need to be a secondary reliable source to confirm it. Not that WP:ABOUTSELF is met by rephrasing it anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a very long discussion so apologies if I missed understood, but um is this discussion really about someone seriously suggesting we add that the subject suggesting on Twitter that they might file a complaint, something which no RS ever covered, and where a complaint doesn't appear to have been filed 10 months later? Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's half correct. But whichever editor said there wasn't RS covering the topic must be mistaken. Its covered in at least these two @ [5] and [6] plus others I believe. CatCafe (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

One of those articles is doing nothing but quoting her directly about it and the other is just direct copy of Tweets between her and Ricky Gervais. So, in no way is either "coverage" about it in reliable sources. Which you should really know by now. Especially when it comes to the second article. The important thing is that neither actually confirms that it happened outside of her just saying so. Which is exactly the same when it comes to reliability as just using their Tweets directly would be. Just because her Tweets are being posted on another site besides Twitter doesn't make them any less Tweets or anymore usable. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, I kindly ask you to stop attacking my capabilities as an editor. This is uncalled for and something "Which you should really know by now". Please be constructive, find better sources and contribute something to the article. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting how every time someone calls you out or gives you feedback it's a personal attack. Yet, apparently your behavior and how you act is always perfectly fine and acceptable. Anyway, you should know it by since it's been brought up to multiple times and the guidelines are pretty clear about things. What's not constructive is repeatedly doing or suggesting things that go against the guidelines and consensus. Exactly like you've been doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, I skimmed the discussion a bit too much. If there was some RS mention of this Twitter storm, this discussion wasn't completely pointless like I thought it was. However, I still strongly question the inclusion of some Twitter comments even if they were covered in a single RS and there's no evidence anything ever came from it, and all we have is two RS from the time of the tweets. If RS were still mentioning this months later, this may be some indication of enduring significance, but without that, I don't think so. Note I say single RS because even with more careful checking I only see one mentioned here or in the original edit, 7news. The Australian was linked above, but it's an editorial so isn't an RS for factual matters like this on a BLP. Star Observer seems to be concentrating on what Ricky Gervais said, and only mentions what she said as needed to understand Gervais's comments. Even if other RS from the time exist, I'm still not sure this would belong but I can't evaluate what I don't know about and am not going to look since I have doubt this belongs anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1 drop the stick. It's OK for editors to make suggestions on the talk page, and it's not OK for you start banging on about behavioural issues when they do. Seeing you sit on talk directing other editors to edit the article for you (because you have some mysterious restriction on directly editing), I think the behavioural issues lie with you. Move on. CatCafe (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, yes I pretty much agree. I doubt whether that topic would be added unless the complaint evolves more. CatCafe (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems like all you do is try to shut down any conversation that doesn't align with your view point. I'm not "directing other editors" to do anything. I'm simply giving my opinion about why I think the Gynecologist complaint shouldn't be in the article. In no way is me giving my opinion about something on a talk page telling anyone what to do though. I'm sorry you find discussion so distressing, but it's what happens on a talk page. You on the other hand, have told people what to do multiple times by trying to stop any discussion or consensus building about the article. You've done with almost everyone who has commented. Me, or anyone else here, is mandated to edit the article in order for us to have an opinion about it. That said, I'm pretty Nil Einne has. Yet you've acted the same way to them. If anything your the one that should put down the stick, instead of trying to police who says what in the talk page. I totally agree with Nil Einne's comment "Other editors are attempting to use the talk page for consensus building, and you seem to be using it to antagonize people." Please reframe from it and AGF. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, see you are a perfect example of what happens when an editor's only contribution is restricted to the talkpage and she/he cannot edit the article page here due to whatever restriction exists (enforced or choice). I asked you to drop it and move on, and still you go on and on and on. I'm asking you kindly again, please drop it and move on. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I just don't feel like making edits that might be controversial or get reverted without there being a consensus to do so first. Again, that's just how the editing process works on Wikipedia sometimes, discussing edits before doing them is what the talk page is for, and there's zero wrong with it. I'm sure that isn't a good answer you for though. Since it seems like from every conversation I've seen you involved in is everyone shouting up and doing what you say though. Anyway, it's sort of bizarre that your attacking me for not just making an edit that no one, even you, thinks you should be in the article. Shrug. That's the problem with people who demagogue every discussion. They aren't ever consistent at all in what their criticizing the other person for and they make sure their what their being critical actually makes sense. In this case, giving me flack for not making an no one wants is pretty nonsensical. That's fine though. I'm going to edit an article just because someone harasses me about it or not participate in a discussion just because someone doesn't want me to. Now, I'd appreciate it if you dropped the personal stuff, stop telling me what to do, and stick to the topic of the discussion. Which isn't your personal opinions about what other editors should be doing or your grievances about feedback that your unable to handle. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Still you can't drop it Adamant1. Sure. Two bits of reality based advice for you, pot-kettle-black, and go and take a chill-pill. Move on. CatCafe (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Last time I checked I was discussing this other people when you interjected yourself into it. So, if anything your the one that should take a chill-pill and move on. I'm not moving on from my own discussing that you had nothing to do with originally. I think I've said it before, but please familiarize yourself with WP:OWN. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Rebel News is not reliable, but is SPAM

I removed the use of Rebel News. They are not a reliable media source. The link to the story is particularly bad, as it includes an explicit appeal to raise cash to fight Yaniv in court. --Rob (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

With things like that I'm supprised there hasn't been an RfC for it on the reliable sources message board yet. It might be worth doing one. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised too, as I can't find any discussion on Rebel News reliability. It seems we only add sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources when there's been substantial discussion about it, such as an RfC on WP:BLPN, which seems to require an actual dispute over the source in article. So, let's see if anybody actually defends Rebel News usage. If so, we'll need a central discussion on blacklisting it. @CatCafe:, since you added it, can you clarify if you meant to use Rebel News, or if this was a mistake? --Rob (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not discussing its accuracy as a source, the question that needs to be asked is of the person who claimed it is non-RS - Is it listed as non-RS somewhere and thus cannot be used? Did that editor make a mistake in judgement? I am happy to add sources if I find they have not noted as non-RS, or listed non-RS on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, so long as they are use correctly, just as per WP rules allow. CatCafe (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the fact that the article includes an explicit appeal to raise cash to fight Yaniv in court is enough of an indicator that Rebel News is non-neutral and therefore isn't reliable. It should be obvious that Perennial Sources is in no way exhaustive, that are plenty of non-reliable sources it doesn't cover, and that determining reliability (or lack there of) is ultimately up to the people adding the them and editing the article. TIL, sources don't have to be listed in perennial sources to not be reliable or usable in an article. It's on the person adding them to not post sources that go against the guidelines. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, what do you mean by "Period"? You didn't refer to any policies supporting your above reprimand. To be taken seriously, you really need to link to the policies you're thinking of if you're going to use tone. If you feel so strong about this please get it listed on WP:RSP, thanks in advance. CatCafe (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to point to a policy that says editors are responsible for how they edit articles and what they put in them. Literally every guideline has to do with the responsibility of editors. Otherwise, there would be zero point in having them. Or do you think editors can just edit articles however they want and use whatever sources they feel like? If so, I'll just add a long string of FFFFFFFSSSSSSS to the article and call it a day, because there's no specific guideline saying I can't right? There is WP:VP, but it doesn't talk about that specific thing. I assume that's your argument. I.E. WP:RS doesn't apply to Rebel News because it doesn't explicitly say it does, and until it does, Rebel News is a perfectly fine source. Just like until WP:VP is explicit that I can't fill an article with the letter F then it's perfectly fine to do until it does. Or am I miss understanding your stance somehow? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It's unpleasant when you deteriorate into personalities, and quite unhelpful when you don't stick to issues re the source in question. Maybe someone else more civil can convince me. Until I am provided more compelling policies, I am abiding by the rule stating: "Reliable sources may be non-neutral" as per WP:NPOVS. That policy indicates that it's the overall article that has to be non-neutral, not necessarily one source used. I agree that the source asking for funds is cheezy, but that's regarding a different topic to that which is used and referred to in the article. I can find no compelling indication that the topic of LifeSiteNews is anything other than accurate in the source. CatCafe (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You asked for a source to support what I said and I gave you a few. Plus, I asked you to clarify your position. There isn't anything uncivil about either of those things. It's not suppressing though. Waxing poetic about non-existent "uncivility" seems to be the only argument you know how to make. That said, I wouldn't call it civil to say that another users opinion shouldn't be taken seriously unless they cite a specific guideline or to chide people repeatedly about their "tone." Every other comment you make is some kind of low level, trite dig at how other people talk. It's rather snobby and extremely bias. This is a global project and people just aren't going to talk exactly in the way you see as "civil." I know where I live how I talk is perfectly fine and everyone speaks the way I do. We aren't British nobles in the 15 hundreds. So, Get over it, practice a little tolerance, and stick to the guidelines and topic of the discussion. or if your that sensitive just don't participate. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Anyway, the usual and extremely played out PC chiding by CatCafe aside it's pretty obvious the source shouldn't be used. If that means that particular references or Rebel News in shouldn't be is up to other to decide. Since CatCafe wants to contest it though and make this whole way more difficult then it should be, there should probably an RfC for it and Rebel News more specifically. It's better in the long run to have the source banned anyway if possible. Since likely it's being adding to bad sourcing on a bunch of other articles besides just this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, I will take that as a 'no' that you cannot refer to policies supporting your arguments of why the source should be excluded at this point in time. I was hoping you could convince me and refer to policies overturning the ones I referred to above, but you're all hot air. Maybe some other editor is wiser and can stay on topic. No need for you to continue to respond. CatCafe (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

because I don't need to cite a policy. Saying that it shouldn't be used and there should be an RfC about it is more then adequate. Both are extremely on topic. Just like the other discussion where you did the same exact thing, I'll remind you that it's not your place to say when, how, or who can participate in discussions. Also, just like your other comments there is nothing civil about saying someone is full of hot air or insulting their intelligence. You should familiarize yourself with WP:NPA. Especially if your going to chiding everyone else about their behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) Adamant1 (talk) 19 October 2020 (UTC)

OK Adamant1 thanks for confirmation in you stating "because I don't need to cite a policy" to back up your argument of excluding the source. Seems there's presently no consensus here to use that particular source, and maybe others are better placed to discuss any such policies in clarifying the issue. Thanks for your input. CatCafe (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

CatCafe, do you acknowledge there is a clear conflict of interest by Rebel News in using negative stories about Yaniv as a means of fund raising for a court case about Yaniv on those same pages? Do you see that linking to such a self-serving bias story, that's doing fundraising, would make Wikipedia itself appear bias? --Rob (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I see your point, but you were the one who deleted the washington times source used by Wisefroggy causing the issue to conflate re the LifeSiteNews Twitter topic. Anyway maybe you should have found a better source when you decided to exclude the washington times. And I was hopeful you could also refer to a policy backing up your position, and as you have referred to COI I can't find anything in WP:COI to support your claim re the source. You need to specify policies backing up your claims and action, otherwise this debate drags on. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 19 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Rebel News --Rob (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

About bloody time Thivierr, even though that's after the fact. I look forward to you getting it sorted and listed at WP:RSP and avoiding all this exclusion debate of RebelNews based on, what seems, no existing policies to back up your actions. Maybe in a democracy, some may argue that's RebelNews can be RS is some specific situations - I look forward to other uninvolved editor's input. CatCafe (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The list will never be exhaustive. There are millions of bad sources. We just list some that are commonly used. It will always be up to editors to ensure they are using valid sources appropriately. Also, even if you find a source that is normally reliable, you still can't use it in a case where there's a clear conflict of interest, as there is in this case. --Rob (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, based on what specific policy that you can provide a link to? CatCafe (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)