Talk:Joanna Cherry

Picture

Seems odd that in an article on Joanna Cherry, the only picture is that of Mamoru Miyano (and only because of a most tenuous connection). If we cannot find a suitable picture of Cherry, I suggest we at least remove that of Miyano as it's largely irrelevant. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Added one from the Parliament Flickr, which uses CC-BY-3.0. Template above removed. YorkshireLad (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Last paragraph

I was one of the editors on recent changes patrol earlier today when sections of the article were repeatedly being blanked without comment. The people blanking were asked to come to the talk page and discuss, but didn't, and have been blocked for edit warring. But, while they weren't going about it in the right way, I wonder if they had a point about the last paragraph of the "Career" section, which seems a little too determined to draw Cherry into the controversy surrounding Harvey (and in fact there isn't a source linked saying she opened his campaign hub). I know, WP:BOLD and all that, but I thought I'd better come here after the edit war before just removing it or I'd seem rather hypocritical (and perhaps be contributing to the war myself). YorkshireLad (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree YorkshireLad. We should be very cautious: not just because of the usual living person policies but also because of the current election campaign. Cherry has become very prominent & it's not unlikely she would be subject to smears. We should demand thorough and balanced sources for any changes. If you can't find a source for Harvey's hub launch, I think it's best to play safe and remove for now. Emain Macha (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to challenge the last paragraph further on 2 points where it veers from neutrality.

1. It repeats "being investigated over bullying" without again clarifying that the complaints were not upheld.

2. The source is an article in the Herald that cites 'Senior figures within the SNP' - What is the policy or good practice on repeating claims made by anonymous sources in the press. When 'senior figures' are quoted and then reused in Wikipedia are we allowing some to brief the press then use Wikipedia as a platform for politically motivated gossip? The policy WP:BLPGOSSIP says "Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources."

I was going to try rewording it but given it's a BLP and this paragraph is *only* based on an article attributed to anonymous sources, I think it should be removed. Emain Macha (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

On Neale Hanvey's campaign hub, would his campaign page be an acceptable source? [1] Her own social media contributions to the subject have been zapped, which can be read as either a good thing or a bad thing.

On her investigation: I thought about that and wasn't sure how to change it in a way that was inclusive to the original edit and neither clunky or appearing to take a view on the claims; that the investigations were not upheld felt already fairly well established? [[User:HulloHulot|HulloHulot] (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi User talk:HulloHulot! User:Autumnking2012 has edited for NPOV so have a look at those changes: RE: campaign hub - I'd need to check policy on citing Twitter but on the face of it it confirms Cherry was at the opening of the campaign hub. On the other hand, I think it might be a moot point - it's not a vital detail to the vetting dispute (Politician support event for their own party? seems banal) and drifts toward 'original research' that should be avoided in Biographies of Living Persons (see WP:BLP)

On her investigation: I know what you mean. My concern is that people excerpt pieces of Wikipedia pages & often don't read the whole thing so even if it's established earlier in the page, the allegations shouldn't be more prominent that the exoneration, you know? Emain Macha (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon, User talk:Emain Macha]. I do, and I'm glad User:Autumnking2012 has tidied things up so thoughtfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulloHulot (talk • contribs) 13:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

← After reflection, I've removed the reference to the last paragraph about the vetting story for the following reasons:

• the "senior SNP figures" are all anonymous
• the article gives no comment/right of reply from Cherry or an official spokesperson
• this is the only source (not confirmed elsewhere)

The BLP policy warns against "relying on sources that ... attribute material to anonymous sources" - I'm interpreting this quite strictly here. I think anonymous briefing to the press can be abused by politicians to discredit colleagues and Wikipedia shouldn't be used to amplify it - even more so during an election period. If this story develops further, there may be better sources and clearer information to cover. I appreciate that there are counter-arguments that this reflects real infighting in the SNP, however, a better neutral paragraph could be developed in future rather than gifting a voice to one side. Emain Macha (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2019

Please revert the article to the version updated on the 14th of November 2019.

Substantive and malicious changes have been added which are politically motivated, citing unreliable sources and are designed to discredit the subject of the article. This is particularly concerning as there is currently a campaign running for the UK General Election.

There have been repeated attempts to reverse these changes between 28th November 2019 and 1st December 2019 but the malicious edits have been put back each time.

In addition to the above I would request that a warning be placed against the article for subtle vandalism as described here:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Greatgas (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Those edits include adding the image, as well as all the other information appears to be supported by the sources. Unless you have sources to counter the arguments presented, they will remain in. — IVORK _Talk 23:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi user:IVORK, I'm not sure that the sources are very reliable for a BLP. The sentence: "She was criticised for using the bullying claims – and accusations of transphobia[17] – to advance her leadership ambitions.[18]" The citations do not back up the sentence which conflates the two sources. Waddell's column [18] does not repeat or reference the accusations of transphobia. The reference to 'leadership ambitions' is also presented here as neutral fact when it is speculation. Waddell's column is not a news report but chatter from a columnist interpreting social media discussion - very little of it from Cherry herself. Emain Macha (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Emain Macha I have been through the section, looking at the sources and adding a couple of further ones. Hopefully you would agree that the article now better reflects the content of the sources. AutumnKing (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Autumnking2012! I think this reads much better & a lot more neutrally now; it's clearer what are allegations and counter-allegations. The Philip Sim source is a better balanced account of the disputes than columnists who could be engaging in them. I'd maybe still quibble with 'an assertion backed by other party figures' - if we asked 'who are those figures' the Scotsman is again quoting anonymous party figures. I think the sentence is fine with that part removed if you agree? Also on good wiki practice: should we cite [19] again for the sentence "One former staff member..."? or is it enough that the citation is at the end of the following quote? Emain Macha (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Emain Macha My feeling is that citing at the end of the second sentence is sufficient, other may disagree, so feel free to add it in if your prefer. I was hesitant to add the part regarding being backed by other party figures. I did so in the interests of balance. The entire paragraph related to Hanvey is essentially based on 'anonymous party sources'. I felt that if that were to be included, it was only right to give equal weight to anonymous support as well as criticism. In all honesty, I would rather both were removed, but I would say it should be both or neither. AutumnKing (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the current approach is better. I was involved in reinstating the previous version, a process that may have made me more than a bit abrupt towards editors who were acting in good faith. If we were to include Cherry's involvement in opening Hanvey's campaign hub there are still posts from Hanvey on his [2] but, like Cherry, his social media account isn't a stable source. HulloHulot (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

HulloHulot There isn't any third party coverage regarding this, and a current MP attending another's campaign launch does not seem noteworthy enough for inclusion here. If the pair had worked or campaigned together extensively, the link would be less tenuous and speculative. As I mentioned above, it would be my opinion that the current paragraph on Hanvey would be better off removed, given that at present it is based on the reporting of anonymous sources. AutumnKing (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

AutumnKing, fair enough!HulloHulot (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"Pink Saltire"

Pink Saltire appears to be a partisan source (WP:RS), and should not be used on a BLP. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Pink Saltire is not a blog and is 'partisan' inasmuch as it's an LGBT charity organisation that provides research and news for the community. They have been doing that for more than five years, are respected in and out of the community and are recipients of both Scottish Government and National Lottery funding. The article referenced is by someone who has been shortlisted for an LGBTI journalist of the year, who has worked for organisations like Sky, ScotsGay Magazine, KaleidoScot, Pink News and Gay Star News. Further, the article contains original reportage and is supported by primary sources. HulloHulot (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

"It's an LGBT charity organisation". i.e. it is partisan, and should not be used as a WP:RS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A charity by definition has an agenda (ie the cause they are promoting/supporting). The allegations do not have any other sources, so coverage does not meet standard for WP:BLP or WP:PUBLICFIGURE. AutumnKing (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Other sources have been added HulloHulot (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a tweet. Are you joking? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

While a tweet isn't quite in-line with the BLP, it does substantiate, however, that there were other sources for the criticism. Caitlin Logan *might* be described as partisan on independence, she's a columnist for The National and a reporter for CommonSpace, both of whom have strong editorial lines, but that's another matter. PinkSaltire is one of the very few Scottish LGBT news sources, how on earth are Scottish LGBT issues to be cited without them? HulloHulot (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

If the issues are of sufficient prominence, they would be reported in more mainstream sources. Just a simple google search shows loads of RS discussing Joanna Cherry's views and interaction with transgender issues. Holyrood magazine, The Guardian, The Times, to give three examples. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The issues with Hanvey were prominent in the LGBT community and the criticism has been talked about in more mainstream sources, such as [3]. I leant towards including PinkSaltire because they were the first to report the controversy, report the detail of it, report it at the time and are familiar with the issues; rather than in retrospect. HulloHulot (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That source is concerning Hanvey. Neither it, nor any other reliable sources at present, make a link with Cherry. AutumnKing (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with above. Reading through the source, I also agree with User:Jmorrison230582 that on this legislative discussion it is clearly partisan and it's interpretation of events cannot be considered as a reliable source. Emain Macha (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I hope AutumnKing and Emain Macha don't mind me coming back to this again and again. I'm not so much arguing for the article's reinsertion into the article, but seeking to understand how we're to strike a balance when it comes to reflecting how 'non-mainstream communities' have criticised those who they see as treating them poorly. The Courier article is from a more mainstream source and it alludes to PS's coverage, but it doesn't explain what the problem is (it probably recognises that it doesn't have the expertise) and so I expect that it would be edited out by someone else. Pink Saltire does research, but it's primarily a news organisation, the main one for LGBT people in Scotland, and the article cited was written by a professional. I do not intend to write an article for Hanvey and I'm not saying the article belongs here, more trying to get a clearer sense of your perspectives of what should be done when dealing with criticism from non-mainstream communities in small countries. HulloHulot (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a good question for many minority communities that don't get the mainstream coverage although I'm not sure I have a general answer. I'd say the general guidelines on covering controversial topics with neutrality can apply i.e. attribute assertions and avoid weasel words (which I think your edits did). The PinkSaltire article cited in this case, however, concludes with "It’s a position we will continue to defend" - it might publish articles however this page is clearly more editorial comment than non-partisan source. As you note, this is really covering Hanvey & so is not relevant to a full discussion on Cherry's page. Emain Macha (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

HulloHulot I would echo much of the above really. In a biography of a living person in particular, we have to exercise caution. I think in the main, these criticisms are tending to filter through to mainstream media as for example they did in the Joan McAlpine article regarding the event she was hosting in the Scottish Parliament. Reporting on that event included opposing viewpoints (in fact more opposing than supporting) which were then included. It is all about balance and proportion, making sure we present the coverage neutrally and in proportion. It is also why as a general rule , in BLP's, my preference for citations would always be for reported pieces as opposed to opinion pieces, even from well recognised sources. AutumnKing (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2019

Edit on 2 Dec 1244 by AutumnKing2012 claiming to be NPOV actually introduced heavy PoV, removing criticisms to add large portions of Cherry's views. Suggest removing half the changes, leaving in much of the hagiography but restoring legimate, reported, criticism

Revert the following:

On 11 May 2019 The Times reported that Cherry was being investigated by the House of Commons over bullying complaints from four former employees. Cherry rejected the allegations, and alleged that they were part of a politically motivated 'smear' campaign, from those within the SNP ranks who opposed her and her views. One former staff member took the complaint forward, alleging that Cherry both condoned bullying by her office manager and partook in bullying behaviour herself. Cherry was exonerated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and given leave to issue a statement to that effect - "I'm pleased to be able to advise that I have been exonerated after an independent investigation into complaints that I had either condoned or been engaged in bullying within my constituency office. As I predicted, the allegations have not been upheld."

to:

On 11 May 2019 The Times reported that Cherry was being investigated by the House of Commons over bullying complaints from four former employees. She was criticised for using the bullying claims – and accusations of transphobia – to advance her leadership ambitions. One former staffer (out of four who made complaints) took the complaint forward, though Cherry was exonerated from these accusations on 28 June 2019 after an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. 91.125.135.79 (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

References

You seem to be misunderstanding WP:NPOV Accusations were reported against Cherry, as was her response to such. Both carry equal validity. One published opinion piece, claiming that Cherry is attempting to advance her career does not carry equal validity. It is not reporting, but opinion - opinion pieces are rarely reliable sources for facts (see WP:NEWSORG). The Times piece, which carries the original story of the allegations, says that she is accused of bullying, not transphobia. The Scotsman article mentions that a party member has accused her of such, but there is no implication that this was part of the allegations from the former employees. The BBC article provides a balanced analysis of the issues, and is useful as a background reference source to the information contained in the paragraph. I hesitated over including the full text of Cherry's statement, but was reluctant to paraphrase a Parliamentary Committee sanctioned statement. The paragraph as it stands now presents a balanced account of the facts, whereas the chage proposed places undue emphasis on accusations which were ultimately ruled false. AutumnKing (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Not done, agree with Autumnking above. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree, Wikipedia should show both sides. I dream of Maple (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC) <--- —I dream of Maple blocked sock-puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Trans views

Hi,

My edit was reverted last night, I understand this is a contentious issue so I figured I'd explain the rationale for my edits here.

- I stated that she had faced accusations of Transphobia, as supported by several sources. I did not state that she was transphobic.

- I moved the section on Cherry's views on Trans issues into the main body of the article because it seemed a little odd to have it in its own section.

- SNP Women's pledge isn't central to Cherry's opposition to the GRA, so I reworded it to make that clear. It's unclear whether this organisation is still active in any case.

- The terminology used to describe the GRA and it's reform was inaccurate; The current situation requires Trans people to go through a Gender Recognition Panel in order to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate. A GRC is not the same as a "Legal sex marker". Under the current system obtaining a GRC does not necessarily require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Further, reform is on the basis of a statutory declaration with only binary options, not Self-Identification.

- The previous revision had several quotes from one source which were unclear. I simplified this by quoting a different line from the same article which made her views more clear, specifically that she views Transgender Women to be male bodied and not deserving of women's rights. I think this is more direct and understandable than tangential references to Penises and "biological fact".

Vitalis196 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Text such as an unaffiliated organisation founded to oppose [...] Transgender Rights is not verified by the given sources. You say that she views Transgender Women to be male bodied but none of the sources say this. The only mention is The Times, which says that she has concerns about vulnerability of women and girls to sex abuse from male-bodied individuals. An obvious dog-whistle, sure, but one that The Times repeats rather than calls out, and we would need the latter to verify your text. If you can find a better source for this then that might change the situation. Otherwise, the text She said that the statement "women don't have penises" is a "biological fact" is a more verifiable way of discussing her expressed opinions on the subject.

Now onto this sentence: Because of her views she has faced significant criticism and accusations of Transphobia. This is not verified by the given sources, two of which mention criticism of the SNP Women's Pledge but that's not the same thing as Cherry. The only supporting statement I can see in the sources is The Times' [Cherry,] who has been branded transphobic [...]. That's not the same as saying "faced significant criticism". What we can say she was criticised for, however, is calling transgender rights campaigners "misogynistic", because this source includes detail about such criticism.

I now understand the issue with the GRA text we had and I am happy to use your wording the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland to allow transgender people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate on the basis of a statutory declaration, rather than the existing Gender Recognition Panel system. But we cannot immediately follow it with which has faced criticism as outdated, and not fit for purpose. As citations for this fact you reference the two Times articles, which as far as I can see do not even mention the GRA (!), let alone criticisms of it. You could find plenty of sourced criticism but it would be undue weight to cherry-pick such criticism given that there has also been significant resistance to changing it. We could, however, use the Herald source to make brief comments about the criticism of the SNP Women's Pledge. — Bilorv (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the organisation is unaffiliated is sourced here. The group is quite clearly founded to oppose GRA reform, although we could delete "and Transgender rights" if you'd like?

I'm not sure that the statement about “male-bodied individuals” is even a dogwhistle as it is so overt? Otherwise I do see your point there, I'm looking for a source to back it up. In the meantime "She has described Transgender Women as" could be cut and replaced with "She has stated that". I feel that the text about women "not having penises" doesn't really cover the full extent of her views. But we could include that too if you feel it's necessary.

As far as I can see the fact that she has faced significant criticism isn't really in question? None of the sources explicitly state that but it's at least implicit in most of them, it's not a controversial claim?

If you feel it's appropriate I have no issues with mentioning the criticisms of the SNP Women's Pledge, the source I have already cited notes that it's an external and unregulated organisation and the pledge was open to the general public to sign. Hence it has been criticised as "disingenuous". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalis196 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand the issue with the text on the GRA. As for it being criticised as outdated, that is essentially the position of the majority of major LGBT and Trans rights groups. The impetus for reform of Gender Recognition act in the first place was because it is severely dated. As the report here states:The Gender Recognition Act 2004 was pioneering but is now dated. Its medicalised approach pathologises trans identities and runs contrary to the dignity and personal autonomy of applicants. The Government must update the Act, in line with the principle of gender self-declaration.. This can be quite easily sourced without cherry picking. Such as this,or this,

Let me know what you think, once we have some consensus I can implement these changes,

Vitalis196 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the page as per WP:STATUSQUO whilst Talk Page discussion is ongoing. I would agree with the points made by Bilorv. Additionally, I feel that a separate section of 'Views' is more appropriate than including such within the body of the 'Career' section, to which it is less applicable (were she, for example, to be instrumental in stopping the bill, therefore making it a notable action in her career, but that is not currently the case). None of the sources explicitly state that but it's at least implicit in most of them, it's not a controversial claim isn't how Wikipedia works. We don't make assumptions, we record verifiable information. The change to the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland to allow transgender people to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate on the basis of a statutory declaration, rather than the existing Gender Recognition Panel system seems sensible, as would a sourced sentence about legitimate concerns over the representative nature of the Women's Pledge, albeit with brevity and WP:UNDUE in mind. The Herald source also needs to be balanced alongside the Scotsman source in the article, and this Guardian one [4], which demonstrate that the pledge originated with SNP members. AutumnKing (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response. I have made this edit to the article. I feel like we shouldn't veer too much into criticism of the SNP Women's Pledge for things like inflated vote tallies, because that's not really relevant to Cherry signing it, but I hope the origin of the pledge and criticism as transphobic by other SNP members is now clear. I've changed the GRA description to what Vitalis196 wrote and added some of the sources we've mentioned here. I do not believe that detailed criticisms of the GRA are appropriate here as this is an article about Cherry, but such content would be very welcome at Gender Recognition Act 2004. — Bilorv (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No objections from me, Looks good :) Vitalis196 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism on account

Despite repeated requests not to alter this page, someone changed it from consensus wording to make this entry more like a propaganda piece than an encyclopaedic entry, and to confuse the issue by implying that Ms Cherry's actions and policies are those of the Scottish National Party, which they are not. In particular the constant re-insertion that the so-called "Women's Pledge" (which, despite its name, was signed by both women and men), originated with the SNP - ie, was of and was officially sanctioned by the SNP, but this is absolutely not true, and indeed it was strongly criticised by many SNP MSPs, as the sources in the article attest. Also, not only was it criticised by the party, but many of the ostensible signatures were in fact by people who are not SNP members, are not women, and are not even Scottish. One of the revertions is to keep deleting the word "some" SNP Members, leaving it saying that it was written by the SNP, which it was not, and to insert that only "some" members criticised it, effectively making it sound like her actions were those of the party, and a minority objected, when the reverse is what actually happened.

I am at my word's end with these constant reverts, and ask that someone please intervene, as the reverter/s keep reverting despite MULTIPLE requests the discuss it here and arrive at a consensus before reverting.

THEIR BEHAVIOUR IS VANDALISM, AND IS NOT IMPARTIAL, SND NEEDS TO STOP.

Thank you. 49.199.118.197 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the way consensus works. A version which was discussed on this talk page and had gained consensus was present on the page, to which you made edits. This was then reverted back to the consensus version. If you disagreed with this, it is your responsibility to begin a talk page discussion to gain consensus for the new version not the other way round. In response to your comments, the text as it stands indicates that the pledge originated with members of the SNP per sources, but does not claim that it was ever written as an official document of the party as a whole. Furthermore, attempting to rename the section as "Transphobic views" is inappropriate for a WP:BLP, violates WP:NPOV and goes against WP:LABEL. AutumnKing (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Phillimore events

I've tried to add something in to reflect the events of the last week, which tie back to the news coverage of two months ago when Cherry threatened an actor with libel which has currently somewhat exploded. I'm told the below doesn't count as NPOV, or potential noteworthniesss, despite wide reporting. Would be grateful for assistance.

On 26 January 2021, Cherry tweeted that the SNP's LGBT wing, who had condemned "the support given to Sarah Phillimore today by an SNP MP" whose "antisemitism and transphobia are not part of the Scotland we want to see", was "grossly defamatory", and that she had taken internal action to have the offending speech removed. Earlier that day, Cherry had argued to Twitter against the banning Phillimore, a barrister whose crowdfunder to defend allegedly antisemitic and transphobic remarks Cherry had donated to, as part of her support of free speech. Former Deputy Leader of the SNP Westminster Group, Kirsty Blackman supported the LGBT Wing in these criticisms, and noted that Ms Cherry apparently blocked her on twitter. Following Cherry's tweet, many prominent LGBT and younger members of the party announced they were leaving the party, following which Nicola Sturgeon gave an emotional impromptu statement condemning transphobia. PurpleSouls (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

As one of the editors who reverted the edit, I will give my justification:

• The final sentence is completely unsourced, and is not supported by the sources given previously. The Scotsman article, published on Jan, 30, refers to resignations from the SNP 'earlier this week'. Nothing in the article suggests that these resignation were a direct response to Cherry's comments, yet the wording used by yourself explicitly implies as such, and goes against WP:NPOV, bordering on WP:OR.
• The paragraph is WP:UNDUE is terms of the length of the whole article, versus significance of the event.
• There is no need or justification for either the Tweet or the Medium blog, (both sources to be used with extreme caution in a WP:BLP), as all the relevant information is included in the Scotsman article.
• The details added fail to meet WP:EVENTCRIT notability. There is a chance more will develop with regard to this, particularly if Cherry's complaints against OutforIndy are progressed, or if indeed either Cherry or Blackman make formal complaints about each others behaviour. However, right now, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TMI take precedence, meaning there is note sufficient justification for inclusion. The Scotsman source could provide a good background if events progress, but as of yet, they haven't. AutumnKing (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, understood. On the point of Medium and tweet note, they do source that Cherry donated to Phillimore, which The Scotsman article does not mention. PurpleSouls (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@PurpleSouls: what do you mean by wide reporting and somewhat exploded? If there are reliable secondary sources other than The Scotsman then that changes things. Name all the sources of that quality that exist, even if they're mostly saying the same information. But if what you mean is Twitter or social media forums then... that's just not what Wikipedia is about.

Medium is user-generated with no editorial fact-checking or corrections process, definitely not usable here as it's not Cherry who wrote the content. The Tweet is reliable for Cherry's opinion but doesn't show significance of the information. My main NPOV objection to this new text (definitely an improvement on the old) is in emotional impromptu statement—it's sensationalist wording. Who says it was emotional? If it's you then that's not verifiable. If it's someone else then it's wrong to not attribute that person as the originator of that viewpoint.

I understand you might feel "I can't tell the complete story of what happened without the Tweet/Medium blog". But that's sort of the problem. We shouldn't be telling the story in that much detail if there isn't the sourcing. One Scotsman article about Cherry is just not that big a proportion of the coverage about her across all history. A sentence or two might be fine but the length really needs to be cut down massively unless you can show other sources. — Bilorv (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

‘In place of compensation for [punitive] damages’

@Pyxis Solitary: I am deleting ‘in place of compensation for [punitive] damages’ again, because it does not make sense. There is no default position that compensation and punitive damages would be paid. I don’t know what it is you are trying to say. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

On reflection, I think I see what you’re getting at, and I have made an edit which I think clarifies the position. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to not reply sooner. I am traveling. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Cherry & LGB Alliance

@Bilorv:I’m afraid you’ve lost me here.[5]. You have participated at the RfC at the LGB Alliance article, and you know very well that the LGB Alliance is a registered charity, and is currently described as such in that article. You also know that Stonewall is described in the first sentence of its article as a charity, despite the controversies surrounding it, for instance [6] and the New Statesman article you provided a link to, which is almost entirely about the controversies about Stonewall. You must surely be aware that the fact that LGBA is registered as a charity is uncontested; that this status is being challenged does not alter the current fact.

The matter of attribution versus using wikivoice is not a question of ‘aesthetics’ or ‘surface-level “impartiality” ‘.

As to who has ‘described’ LGBA as ‘opposing transgender rights’: I agree that this should be attributed. Of the 3 references for this statement, the first is a tweet by Ms Cherry, which does not say this. The second is an article by Kevin Guyan, which I do not have access to. The third is an article by Pedro Monque, which (according to my Ctrl +F search result) mentions LGBA once: ‘Worryingly, some trans exclusionary LGB movements have begun to form around TERF ideology (for example the LGB Alliance in the United Kingdom and the Red LGB movement in Spain).’ So this is not a source for saying that LGBA ‘opposes transgender rights’, but that it is ‘trans exclusionary’. The use of the word ‘worryingly’ and of the expression ‘TERF’ also shows that this source is not neutral. So the article should say In October 2021, Cherry announced that she would be a speaker on a cross-party panel at the inaugural conference of the LGB Alliance, an advocacy group and registered charity that has been described by Pedro Monque as being ‘trans exclusionary’.

But in fact, this information is so trivial that the article would be better without it. Sweet6970 (talk)

As far as "registered charity" is concerned - the neutrality of this is disputed at Talk:LGB Alliance, as you well know, and there isn't much support for the phrase in the current RfC.

As far as the LGB Alliance "opposing transgender rights" there is generous support for that at the LGB Alliance article, though I agree that this basic point should be sourced here as well.

If you would prefer for this article to say (in Wikivoice, based on generous sourcing) that the Alliance is "trans-exclusionary" it would certainly be possible to do that, but this is not trivial information - it is literally the whole point of the organization, and is also why Cherry's participation in it is significant. We are not talking about the Lions' Club here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding ‘opposing transgender rights’, I think that if this is to be said in this Joanna Cherry article, then there should be a source for it – and it should be attributed. There is already a source for ‘trans exclusionary’: if this is mentioned in this article, this should be attributed.

Regarding ‘trivial information’: I was speaking in the context of this Cherry article. There is already ample information in this article about Ms Cherry’s attitude towards transgender matters. The information about attending the LGBA conference is, in this context, very minor. We should not be turning the Cherry article into an article on LGBA.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The wording "an advocacy group and registered charity that has been described as opposing transgender rights" is quite plainly inadequate—it doesn't explain who describes it as such, and its legal status is flatly irrelevant to this context except as a non-neutral bolstering of the group's authority. If you have a wording change to suggest that is an improvement over the status quo (which is all I restored) then suggest it. This is not so. — Bilorv (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to highlight Sweet6970's final point, which is that the article would likely be removed by removing the LGB Alliance info entirely. Currently, it's only sourced to her tweet. Are there sources that suggest a mention here is due? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

not trying to be picky, but did you mean ‘the article would likely be improved by removing the LGB Alliance entirely’? If so, I agree with you. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I did mean improved. Good catch. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If its just a matter of sourcing, there are reliable sources that state Cherry gave a speech at the conference; Herald Scotland, The National. I believe the organisation are uploading or planning on uploading the conference speeches online at somepoint, so there may be further coverage of the content of her speech to come. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have 2 suggestions for possible amendments: 1) Remove all mention of LGBA, since this organisation is not important in this context. OR 2) Stop the sentence after ‘LGB Alliance’. There’s no reason to get involved in this article in describing the Alliance. There’s a link to the article on LGBA for any reader who’s interested. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Re your edit summary here [7]: I was not aware that you are a spokesperson for LGB Alliance. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

From Our Vision, the first paragraph of the Alliance's About page: Even in countries that have seen advances for lesbians, gay men and bisexual people, our rights, culture and history are now under threat by be a ideologies conflating biological sex with the notion of gender identity and replacing 'sex' with 'gender', thereby erasing same-sex sexual orientation. The alliance can't hold back from ideological broadsides, caricatures and lies for even one paragraph of its self-description. It only exists to "protect lesbian, gay and bisexual rights" against (allegedly real) "gender identity ideology". Not against, you know, actually existing homophobia and bi erasure. Newimpartial (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The link you have provided goes to a page which has at the top:Our Mission/To advance lesbian, gay and bisexual rights/We advance the interests of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, and stand up for our right to live as same-sex attracted people without discrimination or disadvantage. We will ensure that the voices of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are heard in all public and political discussions affecting our lives. So your edit summary is not correct. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Above the paragraph you quote is "Our Vision", with a quote "Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals living free...". Expand that and you will find the first paragraph of the page, exactly as I have described. It isn't my fault you have to click through to find out what forms of discrimination or disadvantage matter to the Alliance: namely, those associated with what they caricature as ideologies ... of gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I found the quote you gave previously – I was not suggesting that you had fabricated it, and I’m sorry if I gave that impression. It is the edit summary in your revert which I objected to. But this is drifting off-topic. How about we drop the stick? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I am aware that the Alliance purports to promote lesbian and gay rights by "opposing gender ideology". This is, however, a FRINGE view - and this unusual political project is the only way the Alliance can be said to "support lesbian and gay rights. The organization exists to pursue its political project, which is at the FRINGE of LGBTQ communities. Newimpartial (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Tangents like these are not productive because it doesn't matter how the alliance describe themselves. We are a tertiary source that mostly aggregates secondary sources, and particular isn't going to describe advocacy groups by their own language rather than that of independent observers. — Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The Herald just mentions it in a caption. The National seems to establish a little bit of weight. Are there any other sources? My view differs from Sweet6970 in that I don't think we can mention this without contextualizing the Alliance, and doing so means the mention will need to be at least two sentences or so. As it stands, I'm leaning against the mention being due. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The only other reliable source, that I left out intentionally previously, is a video on the Evening Standard's website with footage of Cherry on a panel alongside Rosie Duffield, and Jackie Doyle-Price. I left it off as I wasn't sure if it was citable. There has been surprisingly little reliable press coverage of the LGB Alliance's conference, despite the controversial nature of the organisation as a whole and some of the content at the conference itself. There is however a little more unreliable coverage of it, but we can't cite that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: If the LGBA conference is mentioned, what wording would you use to contextualise it?

@Newimpartial: @Bilorv: @Sideswipe9th: How do other editors feel about leaving out any mention of the LGBA conference? I see that Sideswipe9th has said there is surprisingly little reliable press coverage of the conference, which suggests it is not noteworthy.

And if you want it to be mentioned, what wording would you prefer?

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I was surprised to find how little was written about Cherry's keynote at the conference, as opposed to photos and video which are readily available. Newimpartial (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me to omit. — Bilorv (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed it. For posterity, here's a diff of the removal. Firefangledfeathers 19:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm OK with it being removed. Maybe mention it on the LGB Alliance page though, along with some/all of the other speakers at the conference, if that information comes up in any reliable sources? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted tweet

@WorthPoke2: You should have started a discussion on the Talk page, instead of reverting me.

Joanna Cherry is notable as a politician, and as the Chair of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is absurd to say that she is largely notable for disputes with others.

The source does not support your text on so-called "transphobic lies".

I have already referred you to WP:NOTNEWS : Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. A spat about a deleted tweet is a prime example of something which is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia.

I am deleting text you added. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not correct to say I should have started a discussion. I did notrevert: I added more detail, including Yousaf's comments. However, that's not the point.

The vast majority of this page is about the disputes and controversy Cherry's in. It is hard to see why her commentary on the leadership election of her party, in a way which resulted in serious questions being asked about her conduct, and was discussed in multiple newspaper pieces is not notable enough to include. Particularly when the article, for instance, contains details of her sending a letter to Pink News and getting a retraction -- there's a strong case that should be removed. Nothing in WP:NOTNEWS seems relevant here. A politician on the fringes of their party getting into a prominent clash after sharing conspiratorial abuse of a heavily abled politician who is her colleague, and not apologising is the sort of thing that is going to be part of enduring notability. Almost all of the "2019 election-onwards" section is devoted to her conflicts with party leadership, something which she often talks about and is very heavily linked with her; something like this, during a leadership election is the sort of thing not generally forgotten within politics, and which informs ongoing and future relationships. (She often talks about being sacked from the front bench. There are very often discussions as to whether leadership changes will 'bring her back'.)

As a politician, her relationship to those in her political party are very heavily notable. During her party's first leadership contest in 20 years, she shared an abusive message towards a candidate she opposed, which resulted in commentary on it, deleted her tweet, but did not apologise. Can you explain to me why that is not notable for politician?

RE: transphobic lies. She retweeted a piece from a known troll (who a court ruled has "chosen insult and condemnation as his style") saying "Humza Yousaf wants to trans gay and autistic kids, sterilise them and deprive them of sexual pleasure for their entire adult life" That is, very clearly, false. It's also, very clearly, transphobic, among other things.

Do you have a more concise description of the content of the Wings tweet (which Cherry has very carefully neither condemned and appears to have withdrawn from promoting) than "transphobic lies"? WorthPoke2 (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You did revert me (you even said so in your edit summary), and you should have started a discussion here instead.

The vast majority of this page is not about disputes and controversy involving Ms Cherry.

There was legal action against PinkNews, which is highly noteworthy. If legal action results from the deleted tweet, then this would make it sufficiently significant to be included.

The tweet was deleted, and she said she sent it by mistake. So giving it space in this article, and giving the quote from Yousaf is entirely irrelevant, as is the reference to supposed ‘transphobic lies’. This is not in the source:it is not for Wikipedia to make these allegations. Your wording implies that Cherry is transphobic and a liar. This is potentially defamatory. See WP:BLPRESTORE, which includes: To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.

Sweet6970 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Having had a look at the underlying sourcing on this, there is the potential for a version of this content to be due, if the party disciplines her in some way over it and depending on the sourcing available if that happens. As things stand right now, this does look like a NOTNEWS situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

On the PinkNews legal action, I disagree that it's highly noteworthy. We discussed it three months ago on the PinkNews talk page, and at the time we could only find primary sources on it, namely the interview in The National, and another interview in Holyrood magazine. I've ran the same search as previously, and no new sources have appeared. As with the previous discussion that reached a consensus that it was undue and covered by NOTNEWS, I think the same thing here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that it's not true to say "legal action was taken" against PinkNews. Cherry was very angry at a newspaper for saying that legal action was taken in the David Paisley case, saying only a letter before action was taken and that that was not legal action. As the PinkNews was exactly the same (a letter before action) she then moved back from saying legal action was taken to "legal action was threatened". My view is that even if action is not taken, Humza Yousaf's referring to material she shared as abhorrent doing a leadership election is still notable. (Given that was reported in the paper, it seems very much to come under the same way that similar things are on Rosie Duffield's page or the mention of investigation of Douglas Ross over discussion of travellers. Particularly, if Yousaf wins, it seems definitely notable. In general outcomes of SNP disciplinary processes are not public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorthPoke2 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

PInkNews

@Sideswipe9th: Your edit summary [8] says This was also previously discussed at Talk:PinkNews#Libel sections where it was removed from that article for the same reasons. No, that was not what happened. Colin said The Cherry story was copied from Joanna Cherry where it belongs. My assessment of the discussion on the Talk page of PinkNews is that it was otherwise about that article, as you would expect. Please self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully I will not be self-reverting this at this time. In the full edit summary for my removal, I said that I was removing it per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS and I stand by those remarks. The only sources that exist on this legal case are primary; the PinkNews correction page, an interview with Cherry in The National, and an interview with Cherry in Holyrood magazine. There appear to be no secondary sources on this case at all. I linked to the PinkNews talk page discussion as a courtesy to other editors, so they could see what arguments for inclusion had been made and discounted previously.

I will consider self-reverting however if you, or any other editor can provide secondary sourcing for this case so that we can assess whether or not mentioning the case is due. Is there any secondary sourcing available? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Stasi quote

Should we quote Cherry in full (from STV):

This is an affront to free speech, and it's also discriminatory. Lesbian feminists and women such as myself are being prevented from speaking in public about our views. This is the kind of thing that went on in East Germany under the Stasi.

Or would this summary suffice: Cherry said that the cancellation was discriminatory, "an affront to free speech" and similar to the Stasi's rule.

In my view the latter is preferable as: it follows MOS:QUOTE in minimising quotes and paraphrasing wherever possible; it improves concision (half the length) and readability; and it contains the same basic information. However, Sweet6970 has objected. Note that the typo (missing space between colon and quote) and MOS:CURLY will need fixing if the quote is to remain. — Bilorv (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the two options in context, I prefer the paraphrased version. It's more concise, has improved readability, and coveys all of the relevant information. If readers want to see the full context of the quote, that's what the citation is for. Paraphrasing like this is in full compliance with MOS:QUOTE, which does suggest that we should give consideration to paraphrasing into plain and concise text when appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

1) MOS:QUOTE is a guideline whose first sentence says:Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. The full quotation which I prefer is brief, and expresses Ms Cherry’s point of view on this incident. So there is no reason not to use it.

2) The proposed summary does not give full information on Ms Cherry’s attitude to the cancellation – it does not include that she is claiming she is being discriminated against as a lesbian and a feminist. So she is certainly claiming that the alleged discrimination is homophobic. She may also be claiming that it is sexist, and, perhaps, that it is discrimination on grounds of philosophical belief. (See Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe). The summary is inadequate in this respect.

3) The summary is incorrect in referring to the Stasi’s rule. The Stasi had considerable power in East Germany when it was ruled by communists, but the Stasi did not, in fact, rule East Germany.

4) As I said in my edit summary for my edit of 20:13 on 4 May 2023: I’m not convinced that this is significant enough to include in the article, but if it is included, then a fuller quote should be given. There is an argument that this material should not be included: WP:NOTNEWS. At present, its inclusion seems to me to be borderline. If Ms Cherry actually makes a legal move to dispute the cancellation, then I think it should be included, but at present, I would not object if the material was deleted in its entirety.

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

NB - update on my previous comment:Since it is now reported that Ms Cherry’s lawyers have threatened to sue The Stand, I now think that we definitely should include something about this in the article. [9] Sweet6970 (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Threatening to sue, and actually suing are two very different things. Anyone can issue a threat to sue through solicitors providing they have the cash available to pay for the solicitor's fees, and I don't really see this as significantly different from what was said before to overcome WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe if the venue changes their position, or if this proceeds further beyond the mere threat of legal action something related to it could be included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Now that The Stand has cancelled the cancellation, [10] [11] I propose that the existing wording about this be deleted and replaced by: In May 2023, The Stand Comedy Club cancelled a proposed event by Cherry, but reversed this when Cherry threatened to make a legal claim against them for discrimination in respect of her gender-critical beliefs. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I dunno. The sequence of: Cherry announces event -> venue cancels event -> Cherry threatens legal action -> venue uncancels event, doesn't really strike me as encyclopaedic content. If Cherry had actually filed suit against them, and the case gone to court, it would have had some encyclopaedic value. But in the scenario we find ourselves in, this seems to be somewhat of a NOTNEWS nothingburger.

Maybe later in the year the event itself might have something of note, depending on what Cherry says, and how it's received by those in attendance and elsewhere, but not right now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that whether the case went to court or not does not determine whether the event is encyclopaedic. Legal action was threatened, and the venue backed down. The difference is principally that both parties saved on their legal costs. I see that in your previous post you said:’Maybe if the venue changes their position, or if this proceeds further beyond the mere threat of legal action something related to it could be included.’ Since the venue has now changed its position, I’m not clear why you now appear to be saying that this is not sufficiently significant to be included in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I did say maybe in my last comment on this, with the unsaid implication that it would be something to consider if that happened.

Now that the venue has changed their position I have considered it. I've reviewed both the media sources about this alongside the statements by Cherry and the venue on social media, and there's really nothing here of note. The event is going ahead, the venue has apologised and will be donating their share of the profit to Edinburgh Food Project. There's nothing really of significance here, and certainly not with regards to thought experiments like the 10 year test. If there had been SLAPP concerns, or if a legal commentator had drawn comparisons between this and a recent discrimination case with obvious parallels like Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others, that would have made it encyclopaedically relevant. But based on the sources we have, I fail to see how this passes NOTNEWS#2.

To put it another way, it's a newsworthy event, but it's not an encyclopaediaworthy event. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

To Sideswipe9th: Engaging in the thought experiment you recommend, I got the following results: (i) Although I have not seen the Forstater case mentioned anywhere in the news coverage, I think that this event will be remembered as an example of how that case changed the situation for gender-critical feminists. (It looks like the lawyers thought that Forstater trumps Lee v Ashers.) (ii) Amongst those who have no particular interest in the law, the Stasi quote may be remembered more than the reversion of the cancellation. (iii) In practice, whether this is remembered as significant in 10 years’ time will depend on whether it is in Wikipedia.

This experiment has moved me towards being in favour of including the whole paragraph, as currently in the article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

In practice, whether this is remembered as significant in 10 years’ time will depend on whether it is in Wikipedia. That is a very, very poor reason to consider content for inclusion. We have a rather lengthy policy on what Wikipedia is not, and as reasoning this falls afoul of at least WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTQUOTE. We aren't here to document something that it will become remembered. If Cherry, or her supporters wish for this quote to become memorable, it is up to them to do so off-wiki, and if they ever want it to be included on-wiki then that has to be done through sources we consider reliable. As WP:SOAPBOX states, we are not a vehicle for this sort of advocacy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe, it looks like you have misunderstood what I said. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer. ‘In practice, whether this is remembered as significant in 10 years’ time will depend on whether it is in Wikipedia.’ was the third result of my thought experiment. I wasn’t giving this as a reason to include the material . It is, to me, a reason why, in practice, this thought experiment cannot work as a way of assessing whether material is sufficiently significant to be included. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You have quoted the first sentence of MOS:QUOTE but don't seem to understand the rest of it. Quotations may be used, but paraphrasing is generally preferable. The main reasons to use quotes are when the language used is not encyclopedic and when no similar language could capture the same ideas. This isn't true of a routine answer to a journalist's question, and not a concise, pithy or flowery-language answer either (as to be expected from transcribed quotes, generally more wordy than written responses).

Wording changes can address your issues, such as the addition of ... cancellation was discriminatory against lesbians and feminists or correction of similar to the Stasi's actions. — Bilorv (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

1) Firstly, I think we should notify Dtobias of this discussion, since they recently added something to the wording in question.

2) I think I understand the wording at MOS:QUOTE. And in the case of this quotation, ‘when no similar language could capture the same ideas’ applies.

3) But I don’t understand the relevance of your comments ‘This isn't true of a routine answer to a journalist's question, and not a concise, pithy or flowery-language answer either (as to be expected from transcribed quotes, generally more wordy than written responses).’

4) In my previous post, I suggested a change in the wording, to the very much briefer: ‘In May 2023, The Stand Comedy Club cancelled a proposed event by Cherry, but reversed this when Cherry threatened to make a legal claim against them for discrimination in respect of her gender-critical beliefs.’. I can’t work out whether you agree or disagree with my proposal.

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

My edit updated the status of the matter, by adding a bit more to the end, sourced from the BBC, to indicate how the cancellation has been cancelled. (Is "cancelled" spelled with one "l" or two, and does it differ between American and British English? I can never get that straight.) It didn't affect the "Stasi" quote one way or the other. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dtobias: There is a question being discussed here as to whether the event should be included in the article at all, and if so, whether we should have the full paragraph as existing in the article, or an abbreviated version, such as the one I have proposed above. What are your views? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's OK the way it is, though always subject to re-evaluation over time as more events happen and perception of past events changes. It's likely one re-evaluation will happen after the date of the event itself, when it either goes off without a hitch, becomes the subject of massive protests, or gets cancelled at the last minute, and more firestorms of controversy erupt (or not). Still more evaluation would happen over the months and years afterward as it either gets forgotten, buried in the minutia of other flaps she gets into, or becomes part of the permanent folklore of the movements she's involved in. Without a crystal ball I don't know. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The point of (3) is that it is a counterargument to (2). As for (4), I missed this. I largely agree with this proposed text, with two counter-suggestions. I would put "gender-critical beliefs" in quotation marks as it is a direct quote from Cherry and not a neutral phrase to use in Wikipedia's words. Additionally, I think mention of the "Stasi" idea is key to what makes this incident significant, and it could be done in a few words e.g. "... in respect of her 'gender-critical beliefs', and compared the cancellation to actions by the Stasi". — Bilorv (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed wording would read: ‘In May 2023, The Stand Comedy Club cancelled a proposed event by Cherry, but reversed this when Cherry threatened to make a legal claim against them for discrimination in respect of her "gender-critical" beliefs, and compared the cancellation to actions by the Stasi.' This reads to me as if The Stand reversed the cancellation partly because of the ‘Stasi’ comment, whereas it was the threat of legal action which caused them to reverse it. So I suggest:'In May 2023, The Stand Comedy Club cancelled a proposed event by Cherry, who compared the cancellation to actions by the Stasi. The Stand reversed the cancellation when Cherry threatened to make a legal claim against them for discrimination in respect of her "gender-critical" beliefs.' Sweet6970 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it had that unintended meaning and that your suggestion is better. In the absence of objection by anybody else, I've implemented it. — Bilorv (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Addition of text about Neil Gray

@SleeveRider: Thank you for providing the source for the information about Neil Gray. However, I still object to the addition of the text: 'These conditions did not prevent her SNP colleague Neil Gray from standing down as an MP to stand as MSP, and being elected as an MSP the following year.'. This article is about Joanna Cherry, not Neil Gray. I am guessing that you have added this text as an implied criticism of Ms Cherry. Unless the source actually makes a connection between Mr Gray and Ms Cherry, and a criticism of her, we, as Wikipedia editors, should not be making such a connection and criticism, because Wikipedia should reflect the sources, not the views of editors. See WP:SYNTH, which includes: 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.' So my view is that the text you have added should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree: I would argue it is relevant to include this material, as without including the fact that SNP MPs were evidently able to stand for Holyrood, as Gray did, the reader may believe, as Cherry said, that SNP MPs were not able to stand. There are a number of reports of Gray standing which do explicitly link to Cherry and her claims about the contest, so this would not be violating SYNTH. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-mp-neil-gray-first-22606069 Will re-add in a week if you do not object. WorthPoke2 (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@WorthPoke2: I can’t find anything in the source you have provided which links Neil Gray to Joanna Cherry – she is not mentioned in the article at all. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Third paragraph of the article: "The party's national executive committee made the ruling in what opponents saw a sleight of hand to block Joanna Cherry from challenging Angus Roberson for the same Edinburgh Central seat" WorthPoke2 (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You have now provided a link to an article about Joanna Cherry, which as far as I can see, does not mention Neil Gray at all. What is the exact text which you wish to add to the article, and which extracts from which sources support your proposal? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The quote "The party's national executive committee made the ruling in what opponents saw a sleight of hand to block Joanna Cherry from challenging Angus Roberson for the same Edinburgh Central seat"" is the third paragraph of https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-mp-neil-gray-first-22606069

I still do not know why you were unable to read the third paragraph of a short article I linked you to.

This is a story which links Gray's running and Cherry not. It's patently relevant to the topic that despite changes alleged to block MPs from standing for Holyrood, at least one MP ran for Holyrood, and it's particularly pertinent to avoid the article being misleading by implying (via Cherry's quote) that no SNP MPs were able to run for Holyrood.

Text along the lines of adding to: "In July 2020, Cherry announced she was ruling out a bid for Holyrood, stating that the conditions for standing as an MSP were unreasonable and made a fair contest involving her "impossible"" [already in article] ", despite this, her SNP MP colleague Neil Gray was able to run, and was elected." WorthPoke2 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The quote you have provided, which starts 'The party's national executive committee made the ruling' does not refer to Neil Gray. As I have previously requested, please quote the text you are saying supports your proposed wording, and explain how the source says that the position of Neil Gray is relevant to the position of Joanna Cherry. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It is an article about Neil Gray. The fact an article about Neil Gray running features that quote makes it relevant. You are the only person objecting to such an inclusion, and others have supported its inclusion. It is not clear that there is consensus to remove this factual piece because you worry that some people may read it as a criticism, rather than a clarification, which may remove confusion from the reader ~~~ WorthPoke2 (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact an article about Neil Gray running features that quote makes it relevant. Which quote? And who are the other editors who support inclusion? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Bute House Agreement

I am deleting the material about the Bute House Agreement which was recently added. I don’t see that the tweet of 27 August 2021 says that she voted to support the agreement. But in any event, unless an independent source assesses her attitude as inconsistent, I don’t think that any of the material added would be noteworthy, and we should not be making this judgment. There may be a case for a brief mention that she has recently said that she is opposed to the continuation of the agreement. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The tweet of 21 April 2024 cited explicitly notes that she had supported the agreement, and had got it wrong "I’ve been reminded by a well wisher that I was eventually persuaded into supporting the vote for the BHA". The news article notes her position on the subject, and noting her position on the BHA -- both that she supported it then that she didn't -- is important and useful as this has become an important point of positioning in Scottish pro-indy politics in the last year.

I'm unclear on which judgment you are saying we should not be making -- that she supported it and then didn't? Both of those had press coverage at the time. I know you have a position of thinking that something which could reflect poorly on her shouldn't be included (which does not seem v NPOV, re: the Neil Gray point above) but these points do seem relevant. WorthPoke2 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I don’t know how you ‘know’ that I ‘have a position of thinking that something which could reflect poorly on her shouldn't be included. It is not a good idea to make unsubstantiated accusations of bias – it makes it difficult to have a constructive discussion.

Regarding the judgment which I think Wikipedia should not be making: this is (a) that she has been inconsistent and (b) that this is WP:DUE to be included in this article. We need independent sources for both these things. See WP:BALANCE which says: Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. You have not provided any coverage at all from reliable sources saying that Cherry has been inconsistent – so this viewpoint is not significant enough to be worthy of coverage.

The point is the same as I made in the discussion about Neil Gray above: we, as Wikipedia editors, should not be making such a connection and criticism, because Wikipedia should reflect the sources, not the views of editors. See WP:SYNTH, which includes: 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. I am concerned that you do not seem to understand WP:OR, which is a Wikipedia policy.

As I said above ' There may be a case for a brief mention that she has recently said that she is opposed to the continuation of the agreement.’ Or perhaps this is now water under the bridge, as Humza Yousaf has just ended the Agreement (?)

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Your Neil Gray argument is incorrect. As it is, it includes a claim she would not have been able to run for parliament: presenting that without any reference to the fact that she was not prevented from doing so is not NPOV.

In the case here, it's very clearly still relevant that A) She opposed the agreement and B) that she'd originally argued for it.. I'd argue it's more relevant now Yousaf ended the agreement WorthPoke2 (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

1) I see you have not answered my first point. Presumably this means you know that your comment was not justified.

2) I do not understand the first paragraph of your post of 16:49 26 April 2024. What ‘Neil Gray argument’ are you talking about? And what is it which includes 'a claim….' etc.?

3)I have already pointed you to Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. from WP:SYNTH. You may consider that Ms Cherry’s position on the Bute House Agreement has been inconsistent, and you may well be right. That is not the point. Wikipedia does not exist to state the views of Wikipedia editors – its purpose is to provide its readers with information from reliable sources. If no reliable source considers this apparent inconsistency to be worthy of remark, then there is no justification for including it in the Wikipedia article. But as I said previously, there may be a case for including a brief mention that she has said that she was opposed to the continuation of the agreement.

Sweet6970 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

My initial point was to indicate that I took your argument on Neil Gray as opposing noting something which could be considered critical. As it is, it appears to be that your position is that it is reasonable to note that. she argued it was impossuibkel for an SNP MP sitting in 2021 to run for Holyrood, and that the fact that a an SNP MP sitting in 2021 did run for Holyrood (and was elected) is irrelevant. In this, you appear to being opposing including a statement of reality as it can be taken as a criticism of Cherry. This is what I meant by your opposing criticism, and that your seeking to avoid including details which could be taken as criticism is something which fails to be NPOV..

On 3, I am not sure that this violates SYNTH. Noting that someone has expressed multiple opinions on something over a period of multiple years is not implying a conclusion. She has had multiple positions on the BHA. These all seem notable: that she voted for it and explained reasoning for it, and that she subsequently argued against it. That she said, when arguing against it, that she had voted against is something that is supported by sourced. I'm uncertain how your argument here allows for any notes on someone who has held changed positions.

Will update to reinclude BHA section in a couple of days, if I don't hear. WorthPoke2 (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your original wording. What wording are you now suggesting? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Something like:

"Cherry has had a number of view on the Bute House Agreement of 2021, setting up a power-sharing agreement between the SNP and the Scottish Greens. In 2021, she said that she voted to support the agreement, but in 2023 told a show at the Fringe, where she denied calling for the agreement to be "ripped up", that she had voted against it in 2021. In April 2024 she posted, while calling for the end of the agreement, that she had voted against it in 2021 before admitting that she had supported it. "

in the political parties ection. Could preface it with her general comments/attacks on the Scottish Greens? It seems a point to raise in comparison to the Alba stuff. WorthPoke2 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not convinced that this is significant enough to include in this article, but I would accept your proposed wording, except for the minor point that instead of ‘setting up’, I would have ‘which set up’ .

What are you proposing for the ‘general comments/attacks'?

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Something noting that she's referred to them as totalitarian (in source above), that she's prominently disagreed with them since 2019 on GRA matters, and been critical over Wightman's exit, leading into the above. WorthPoke2 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Please provide your proposed wording, and direct me to the relevant parts of the sources. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I know you have a position of thinking that something which could reflect poorly on her shouldn't be included
This is unsubstantiated from what I can see and just appears to be an aspersion. Even if it were substantiated, there's no excuse for this sort of hostile rhetorical mind-reading. Please don't do this. Zanahary (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Updated Trans views

User:Sweet6970 -- you re-expanded a quote I'd shortened. Why? In describing her views, it communicates more to notes that she describes trans children as "children with psychological problems" than it does to note one particular view expressed at one point. I don't see a strong argument for including the more extended quote, particularly as doing so actually functions less well as a description of her views than an abbreviated one. This article features a lot of extended quotes as is. Can you expand why it should be fuller? WorthPoke2 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The full quote, which I restored, gives a more accurate picture of her views. She does not ‘describe’ trans young people as "children with psychological problems”, she says that they must be treated like any other children. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)