Talk:Allison Bailey

Change LGBT to LGB or TERF ?

I don't know exactly the consensus on wikipedia regarding this so I'll just write what I think here.

From the page: "Bailey, who is a feminist, a lesbian and a lifelong LGBT campaigner stands against changes in the law through which people born as men can self-identify as women."

The choice of lifelong LGBT campaigner seems incorrect to me as she apparenlty left LGBT rights organisation Stonewall after it started it's 'trans inclusion' policy. The second part of this same sentence (quoted above) also to me sends a similar message from TERFs (Trans-exclusionary Radical Feminists) and might be more precise.

Also, I would note that in the quote from Bailey, she uses "LGB" and not 'LGBT'. Niquarl (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I've changed LGBT to LGB as that's how she uses it herself.Melissa Highton (talk) . 15:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

spelling out the words 'lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights' has further resolved the problem of redirecting to 'LGB'(talk) 18:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Melissa Highton

Tribunal hearing 12 October 2021

Ms Bailey’s crowdfunding page says: We had a successful administrative hearing in my Tribunal claim against Stonewall and Garden Court on Tuesday 12 October. A number of case management issues were dealt with, the main one being that I have been given permission to pursue my claim as direct discrimination on the basis of my gender critical beliefs, as well as the existing grounds of indirect discrimination and victimisation. The trial is still on track to commence on 25 April 2022. I will provide a more detailed update in due course. [1]

Unfortunately, I don’t think this is a suitable source for this information. Does anyone know of an acceptable source for this? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Unsuitable sources and original research

@Melissa Highton: (i) Please be more careful in your selection of sources, and in making sure that the source supports the statements you are adding. (ii) Your addition of lexisnexis as a source for the reference to S111 of the Equality Act is original research WP:OR. Please self-revert this. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a couple of citations on the page which lead to https://allisonbailey.co.uk/ including the main quote in the page. I think it is good in this case to use the language she uses - particularly in describing herself and her motivations. Ive added the link to s111 in case anyone wants to check it against the text she has on her page if you think it might not be reliable.Melissa Highton (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Query re inf from the Times 1 December 2021

@AndyGordon:Thanks for adding the inf from the Times about ‘philosophical belief’ being added as a ground of discrimination in this case. I don’t have access to the Times. Your edit says that the judge ruled on this matter in December 2021. According to Ms Bailey’s website, this ruling was made at a hearing on 12 October 2021. [2] (I didn’t add this because I thought it was not a suitable source.) What does the Times story say about the date of the decision? Also, is it certain that Stonewall opposed the application to amend the grounds? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: The Times' piece doesn't say unfortunately. You can access the full text via archive.today. The only date (roughly) mentioned is for the full hearing in April next year. I can only speculate as to why The Times is only publishing notice of it now, but I suspect that it's probably that the written decision wasn't available until on or around 1 December, and that what Allison published on her website was based on an oral judgement issued in October. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That said, The Telegraph have a piece from two days prior stating that a decision from the case was published online on 29 November, though it characterises the decision somewhat differently to both The Times and Allison on her website. It also contradicts both in saying that the full hearing will occur in June next year. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Thanks for the link. I will amend the article to say that this was reported in December 2021. I see that the Times article does say that Stonewall opposed the application, so it is correct to say that the judge ruled against Stonewall, and I will leave this, apart from deleting ‘again’, which I think is a bit editorialising. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok from me too. Thank you for checking these other sources. AndyGordon (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Is she even article-worthy?

Does every barrister merit their own page on Wikipedia?

Surely a reference to her in the article about transphobia/trans-exclusionary attitudes should be enough? 49.184.175.200 (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Her case has been reported on by The Guardian, The Times, the BBC, and many others so I don't think notability is in question. Labelling her views as transphobia/trans-exclusionary is POV - she argues that her gender critical beliefs are protected by the Equality Act 2010 as per the judgement in Maya Forstater's Employment Appeal Tribunal. We'll have to wait for EJ Goodman to rule in Bailey's case to see how her remarks and tweets were viewed by the tribunal panel. JezGrove (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this should be re-examined in light of wikipedia's WP:ONEEVENT policy. This article is entirely about this one court case, so I'll be moving the article to one specifically about the court case unless there is some good argument to be made about her individual notability. Estill-math (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed move. This article is about more than the tribunal case. For instance, she is also notable for her involvement with LGB Alliance. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)  

Her LGB alliance work has one sentence and it's under the heading for her court case. I think it'd be great if we could expand it and put it in its own section, but as of now this is still a one issue article. I'll hold off in case someone wants to do that work and can find the appropriate sourcing. Estill-math (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I also disagree. Doesn't Ernesto Miranda also fall into the same category, and yet he has an article separate from the one about the legal case for which he is remembered? JezGrove (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

No comment yet on Bailey's notability, but would a more topically relevant comparison not be Keira Bell, the complainant of Bell v Tavistock? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."

From the wiki on people known for one event. I do agree with Sweet6970 that if we can get more reliable sourcing and a better article on her other work (with LGB alliance), that the page could be saved, but this court case isn't nearly as notable as Miranda's. Estill-math (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Estil-math: I am baffled by your attitude. The views on this Talk page overall are that the article should be retained, yet you say ‘I’ll hold off…’ as if you have a right to edit against consensus, and you refer to the possibility of the article being ‘saved’ as if there had been some campaign to delete it. As I have already said (but you seem to have ignored) Allison Bailey is notable for her involvement in LGB Alliance. You have not provided any argument as to why this article should not be retained in its current state. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm baffled as to why you're so defensive. Moving the entirety of the article to a page about the case wouldn't change any of the information in the article as written. The intro information about Allison Bailey would all be kept, it would just have a more appropriate title. Besides a description of her early life, 100% of the article body is about this case. I believe this clearly puts it into the category where the consensus Wikipedia opinion Wikipedia:Notability (people) is that the article should be about the event not the person. You have said that she is more notable than just this one event, so I wanted to give you or someone else time to change the page reflect that notability because as of now it does not. Plus, hey if I change it and everyone disagrees, reverting just takes a few button clicks, so you're complaining really is just taking up more of your own time. Estill-math (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I would largely agree with your viewpoint on this. This individual only came into the public eye briefly because of one case against her now former employer. I don’t really think there is any other real meat in this article to justify a ‘notable people’ individual page. Best to move as suggested which still retains the core of the article. 82.41.119.42 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, as per my previous comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I had read your previous comments before I responded to the thread. May I gently remind you that Wikipedia sets out to be a factual online source of information. It’s not a vehicle for anyone to push a particular agenda or viewpoint. You are perhaps straying into this territory. 82.29.227.25 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Description of result of the tribunal

@NHCLS: 1) I don’t understand why you object to the statement which I and another editor added saying that Bailey lost her claim against Stonewall. This was a significant part of her claim, and is probably the aspect which is of most interest to our readers. Surely you are not trying to conceal this from our readers?

2) Personnel Today (a source which I added) says “The tribunal, which began in April, found that by upholding the complaint against her, GCC had victimised her for a protected act – the fact she had tweeted about the idea of a “cotton ceiling” and her belief that Stonewall was driving a dangerous agenda around gender self-identification.” On Wikipedia, secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. Are you saying that the Personnel Today article is wrong?

3) Your wording gives the misleading impression that the tribunal ruled that tweets by Ms Bailey were in breach of the core duties of barristers. There is a danger that Wikipedia might be suggesting that Ms Bailey breached these duties – which is misleading and perhaps potentially defamatory.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

1) I object to describing the findings in general as win/lose since she wasn't making a single claim. She made a number of claims, some of which were against Stonewall and some of which were against Garden Court Chambers, and then the tribunal made decisions on each of those individual claims. Like, the court upheld her claim that Garden Court Chambers discriminated against her but didn't uphold her claim that Garden Court Chambers caused her to lose income and didn't uphold her claim that Garden Court Chambers systemically considered gender-critical views bigoted - you can't really summarise that as just winning or losing her claim against the chambers.

2) and 3) The Personnel Today article isn't wrong: when Garden Court Chambers got complaints about her, they started an investigation. In this investigation, they concluded that two tweets she had made were likely to breach barristers' core duties - one about the cotton ceiling and saying Stonewall had an agenda. The tribunal ruled that Garden Court Chambers making this conclusion amounted to discrimination against her. The way the article was written before I made the edit, it said that the tribunal ruled that it was discrimination and also it ruled that it had victimised her over those tweets - it was saying the same thing twice. NHCLS (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Further points: There is now a story on this in the Guardian.[3]

a)This also says at the beginning that she was victimised, which is not currently mentioned in our article.

b) It includes: The panel, led by the employment judge Sarah Goodman, said GCC was wrong to publish a statement saying Bailey was being investigated in relation to her tweets after complaints, including from Stonewall, that they were transphobic, and to subsequently conclude that two of the tweets were likely to have breached a barrister’s core duties. However, it rejected her claim against Stonewall. So this says that the tribunal ruled that the idea that the tweets breached a barrister’s core duties was wrong – if this aspect is mentioned in our article, this should be made clear.

I will reply to your replies separately. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

She won some of her claims and lost others. She failed in all her claims against Stonewall – as I have said, this is a significant part of the judgment, which was made clear in my wording, but which is now obscure in your preferred wording. It is almost being euphemistic to refuse to say who won and who lost in a legal claim.

She won a claim of discrimination and a claim of victimisation against her chambers. The discrimination and victimisation are separate claims. The tribunal was not saying the same thing twice. My wording was accurate about this, and clearer than yours.

And if you want to give details of the decision, rather than just saying won or lost, then why did you delete my wording The chambers had also victimised her because of her tweet about the idea of a “cotton ceiling” and her belief that Stonewall had a dangerous agenda regarding gender self-identification.

I also await your reply to my further points.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

the tribunal ruled that the idea that the tweets breached a barrister’s core duties was wrong – if this aspect is mentioned in our article, this should be made clear - agreed, and that's what I was trying to do. Would it be clearer if it was formulated like "the tribunal ruled that Garden Court Chambers had discriminated against her by tweeting that complaints against her tweets would be investigated and had discriminated against her and victimised her by concluding in that investigation that two of her tweets, one tweet about the idea of a "cotton ceiling" and one tweet about her belief that Stonewall had a dangerous agenda regarding gender self-identification, had potentially breached the core duties of barristers."?

then why did you delete my wording - I didn't delete the wording, I moved into the preceding sentence (but you're right that I missed out the victimised her when I merged the two sentences together);

She failed in all her claims against Stonewall - would it work better if the paragraph went something like "Baliey made a number of claims against Garden Court Chambers and against Stonewall. In terms of the claims against Garden Court Chambers, the tribunal ruled that [insert the sentence above]. The tribunal also ruled that [insert the claims about the chamber the court ruled against]. In terms of the claims against Stonewall, the tribunal ruled against all of them, namely that [insert details]"? NHCLS (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I am agreeable to the current wording, after your amendment as you suggested above. It’s a pity that the case is so complicated, which makes it difficult to be both clear and accurate. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There's no template for a table where you could have each claim in one column and the tribunal's ruling on that claim in the other column, is there? NHCLS (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I know nothing about tables on Markup, and I don’t know of any suitable template – which does not mean one doesn’t exist. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

She failed in all her claims against Stonewall - Yes, but any victory Stonewall may wish to claim is a very Pyrrhic one given that the Tribunal agreed in paragraph 293 of its judgement (my emphasis added) that: “We concluded that all the claimant’s pleaded beliefs, not just the belief that woman is sex not gender, are protected”. Those protected beliefs, as set out in paragraph 279, are:

279. The beliefs for which Equality Act protection is claimed are set out in paragraph 8 of the further revised amended particulars of claim:

“She believed (and continues to believe) that the first respondent’s [Stonewall’s] campaigning on gender theory is sexist and homophobic. In particular, the claimant believed and believes that:

(a) Sex is real and observable. Gender (as proselytised by the First Respondent) is a subjective identity: immeasurable, unobservable and with no objective basis.

(b) At the root of the First Respondent’s espousal of gender theory is the slogan that “Trans Women Are Women”. This is advanced literally, meaning that a person born as a man who identifies as a woman literally becomes a woman for all purposes and in all circumstances purely and exclusively on the basis of their chosen identity. To all intents and purposes, the First Respondent has reclassified “sex” with “gender identity”.

(c) The tone of the First Respondent’s campaigning on this subject has been binary, absolutist and evangelical. It may be summarised as “You are with us, or you are a bigot.” Discussions on the subject have become extremely vitriolic, largely as a result of the First Respondent’s absolutist tone, replicated by other organisations with which the First Respondent works closely. This has resulted in threats against women (including threats of violence and sexual violence) becoming commonplace. The First Respondent has been complicit in these threats being made.

(d) Gender theory as proselytised by the First Respondent is severely detrimental to women for numerous reasons, including that it denies women the ability to have female only spaces, for example in prisons, changing rooms, medical settings, rape and domestic violence refuges and in sport.

(e) Gender theory as proselytised by the First Respondent is severely detrimental to lesbians. In reclassifying “sex” with “gender”, the First Respondent has reclassified homosexuality from “same sex attraction” to “same gender attraction”. The result of this is that heterosexual men who identify as trans women and are sexually attracted to women are to be treated as lesbians. There is therefore an encouragement by followers of gender theory (including the First Respondent) on lesbians to have sex with male-bodied people. To reject this encouragement is to be labelled as bigoted. This is inherently homophobic because it denies the reality and legitimacy of same sex attraction and invites opprobrium and threatening behaviour upon people who recognise that reality and legitimacy.

(f) It is particularly damaging to lesbians that the First Respondent has taken this position. The First Respondent had been the foremost gay and lesbian rights campaigning organisation in the UK and one of the world’s leading such organisations. The adoption of gender theory by the First Respondent therefore left those gay, lesbian and bisexual people who did not ascribe to gender theory without the representation that the First Respondent had previously provided, and left those people labelled as bigots by their primary representative organisation.

So Bailey's claims against Stonewall weren't successful, but the organisation doesn’t come out of the case very well at all. JezGrove (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that the tribunal is setting out the beliefs held by Ms Bailey which are protected under the Equality Act. I don’t think that the tribunal is saying that it supports these beliefs. It is not necessary for the tribunal to share Ms Bailey’s beliefs in order to give a judgment that she has been discriminated against because of her beliefs. My impression from skimming the judgment was that Ms Bailey lost her claims against Stonewall on the facts – she could not show that Stonewall had instigated discrimination against her. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Sweet6970 (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the Tribunal wasn't saying that it shared the beliefs about Stonewall, simply that those beliefs are protected and "worthy of respect in a democratic society". Garden Court's actions were their own responsibility and they could simply have ignored Kirrin Medcalf's complaint. JezGrove (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Then I think we agree about the actual case. And I think it’s true that there was a fair amount of adverse publicity for Stonewall during the course of the proceedings. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Disputed category – Anti-transgender activists

This category was added by Web-julio, deleted by Daff22, and re-added by DanielRigal. There is nothing in the article to support this category, and it should be deleted. In a category, we are saying in wikivoice that the subject of the article belongs to the category, but ‘anti-transgender activist’ is not even mentioned in the article. I suggest that DanielRigal self-reverts. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The category is clearly due, especially considering her case against Stonewall is the principal source of her notability. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all – it was Allison Bailey who was the victim of discrimination. Making a legal claim for discrimination– which was largely upheld – is wholly different from being an ‘activist’. And to say that she is an ‘anti-transgender activist’ in wikivoice, we need this to be the common way she is described in RS. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CAT, which includes Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial and A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. and Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

She literally founded LGB Alliance. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This clearly violates WP:BLPCAT, and despite what you say, Bailey won a discrimination case against her employer. Please try and maintain NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted to status quo as discussion ongoing, and also because it appear to violate BLP and NPOV. The article focuses on discrimination against Bailey, not the other way round.Daff22 (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Her anti-transgender activism is her main point of notability; it clearly meets WP:DEFINING and should therefore be included as a category. And she's a co-founder of the LGB Alliance; it's absurd to suggest that she isn't an activist. The court case itself was entirely about her claiming that she was discriminated against due to her status as an outspoken anti-transgender activist. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  The court case itself was entirely about her claiming that she was discriminated against due to her status as an outspoken anti-transgender activist

  No it was a discrimination case on the basis of her opinion that lesbians are female and that Stonewall's advocacy was detrimental to the rights of women and lesbians as she saw them, which are lawful and legitimate views in the UK, and most importantly she won this case. You don't have to agree with her, you just have to accept this is what her view was, how the court protected it, and how it was reported.

  Being wrongly labelled things like "transphobic" for her lawful views is why she won her case:

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61326359

  On balance of coverage in reliable secondary sources, she is not described as an "anti-transgender activist", and this is a WP:BLP so we have to be exceptionally careful about applying such inflammatory tags to individuals.

  Of the mainstream coverage of this case in reputable outlets that come back on a google news search, none of them refer to her in those terms.

  https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/barrister-loses-tribunal-appeal-against-stonewall/5120462.article

  https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/allison-bailey-discrimination-appeal-against-stonewall-dismissed.html

  https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/gender-critical-stonewall/

  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/03/barrister-allison-bailey-accuses-keir-starmer-of-glaring/

  https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/stonewall-did-not-induce-chambers-discrimination-against-barrister

  https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/appeal-court-rejects-barristers-claim-against-stonewall/management/article/1882221

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62294030

  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/19/allison-bailey-barrister-case-wider-debate-transgender-rights

  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/stonewall-lgb-alliance-clerks-london-b2074893.html

  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/04/26/stonewall-doesnt-represent-woman-like-allison-bailey/

  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/20/stonewall-malicious-in-legal-fight-against-allison-bailey-tribunal-hears

  You have to get all the way down to trash like Novara on page 2 of the search results to get even close to that, and even that doesn't actually explicitly label her as such in the way you'd need:

  https://novaramedia.com/2022/07/28/this-is-why-gender-critical-campaigners-like-allison-bailey-are-laying-siege-to-stonewall/

  So no, this isn't even close to WP:DEFINING. Void if removed (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ok but what you're describing is anti-trans activism. That's the thing where a person advocates that trans women should not be treated as women or that the presence of trans women is somehow harmful to cis women. Regardless of how you personally feel regarding the correctness or incorrectness of those positions, I don't know how you can say they don't constitute anti-trans activism. She founded a whole group that advocated for the exclusion of trans people from LGBT spaces. Simonm223 (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  what you're describing is anti-trans activism

  What you're doing there is WP:OR. Void if removed (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  No I am making a WP:SKYBLUE summary of her only weak claim to notability. Simonm223 (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CAT, which I have already quoted, is being ignored here. I repeat – it says: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic….. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Better source required for ongoing appeals

Currently the only thing being used to support that Bailey has not lost her appeal is a claim from her own website. Clearly WP:SELFPUB is allowable for WP:ABOUTSELF but this is rather more than WP:ABOUTSELF would generally allow so I'd suggest a self-published source is inappropriate. I'm not suggesting an appeal, if reported upon by reliable sources, is undue. I'm suggesting a reliable source is required for this statement. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Bailey has not lost her appeal

Bailey did lose her appeal on the point of inducement by Stonewall - at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

She has further appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The attributed statement According to Bailey, a further appeal to the Court of Appeal is ongoing to a WP:SPS we use for other attributed statements on this page is hardly controversial. Void if removed (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It involves a claim about a third party - the court - that they accepted her appeal. If this case is notable then surely at least one reliable source has commented on it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

If that's your issue, reword. Eg.

According to Bailey, a further appeal to the Court of Appeal is being sought.

Or:

According to Bailey, she is seeking to appeal this decision at the Court of Appeal. Void if removed (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

So that's a no then? There are no reliable sources? Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your objection was this was disallowed under WP:ABOUTSELF because it was a 3rd party claim.

I've removed the 3rd party claim, but now you want a secondary source to establish notability of what she says WP:ABOUTSELF - why? Do you think this is an exceptional or self-serving or irrelevant claim?

The case is already notable, we don't need any more sources to establish notability of the case. This is just her saying she's still trying to appeal.

We could equally take a quote from her immediate response to the EAT loss and say Responding to the ruling, Bailey said "she will consider carefully next steps with her legal team".

That would be entirely allowable. If you still objected, this source quotes that too, so we can back that up with secondary coverage.

But it seems like pointless obstacles to actually getting the accurate state of affairs in per WP:ABOUTSELF, when they aren't controversial. Void if removed (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I cannot read the ThirdSector article because of a paywall - I'm not a subscriber. However it does appear to be an appropriate secondary source. I've no objection to a properly attributed statement that uses that article as a basis. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A statement in our article that Bailey has stated on her website that she has leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal would be a statement about Bailey, not about the Court of Appeal. This would be perfectly adequately sourced by her website. If we do not mention this in our article, then we would be misleading our readers, because we are telling them, by omission, that the case is closed, whereas it is still active. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no. That's incorrect. A statement by Bailey about the case extends beyond WP:ABOUTSELF because A) she is saying that the court has accepted her case and that's a third party and B) she has a potential to gain from advocating that her court case is not over.

However that's somewhat irrelevant because @Void if removed has provided a secondary source which I have said would be fine to base a statement around. I'm leaving it to them to complete that change as I cannot, myself, read the source but I trust them to do so in a way that accurately reflects what the source says. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A statement by Bailey about the case extends beyond WP:ABOUTSELF because A) she is saying that the court has accepted her case

I suggested a rewording above to address this concern.

and B) she has a potential to gain from advocating that her court case is not over.

So we've gone from 3rd party concern, to notability, to now a suggestion it is self-serving.

It is a simple statement of fact that the case isn't over, it isn't exceptional, it isn't self-serving, and it can be adequately sourced from her website and left as a fairly low-key attributed statement that she says she's seeking to appeal.

I don't see the point in dancing around it. Void if removed (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the point to arguing about this when I've already said I'd be satisfied with you crafting a statement based on the secondary source you provided. Just use that source. This discussion can close at that point as you will have satisfied my concern that a better source is needed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)