Talk:PinkNews

Equal marriage rights

Editor Zaalbar recently removed the reference to "equal" marriage rights, making it just "marraige rights". However equal/equality is the language used, including in the source, so I'm restoring it. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor has made a similar edit, changing "marriage equality" to "same sex marriage". However, both the Tatchell and Pink News source refer to marriage equality. The difference is important, because the campaign was also about opening civil partnerships to heterosexuals. Thus the equality went in both directions - "same sex marriage" does not accurately describe the objectives. I am retaining the term same-sex in describing Stonewall's revised policy, because they refused to support civil partnerships for heterosexuals (according to the source) and threfore in that context it is accurate. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I was in two minds to revert or leave it. The poll and argument was for "equal" marriage, not just a marriage bill for the bare bones. We still don't have equal marriage, just a marriage bill with baby steps and so i support the changes made by Hamiltonstone. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on PinkNews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20130102223741/http%3A//www.c4em.org.uk/ to http://www.c4em.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

COI tag?

Somebody tagged for WP:COI. I have removed this as there was nothing to indicate where they think the COI lies. It seemed more like a vague, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, allegation of bias than a genuine claim that any of the specific editors here have an actual conflict of interests. If there is reason to suspect that there is a genuine COI issue here then we can discuss that. What we can't discuss are vague allegations that boil down to "Somebody did a bad thing but I won't say who or what. You must guess what I am talking about and counter every possible claim that I might have made but didn't.". These are not productive and we will not be wasting our time by indulging those. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Libel sections

I think the libel claim section is unwarranted per WP:PROPORTION, which explicitly states "a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news." Further, WP:VNOT is relevant that "not all verifiable information must be included" and it may be more appropriate to be "presented instead in a different article".

The Cherry story was copied from Joanna Cherry where it belongs. Sources for that are Pink New's own correction and an interview of SNP politician Cherry in the pro-independence The National newspaper. I can't find any mainstream coverage nor indication that the body of publications consider this a notable story about the newspaper. The outcome was a donation to charity and a correction, so clearly it didn't reach the courts never mind succeed in the courts (there would then be damages and significant costs).

The Bindel story was added here. It is sourced to Pink News own "joint statement" and a press release from the lawyers acting for Julie Bindel. Again, I can't find any mainstream coverage of this. It seems to be a matter of interest only to the pro-Bindel blogsphere and twitterati. This didn't reach the courts either, and was resolved by a "joint statement".

In the UK, claims of libel are very common and most are settled out of court. In 2020, there were 43 such cases reaching the courts, against media/news outlets in the UK, 10 of which were against the publisher of the Daily Mail. That's just one year.[1].

There are no equivalent "libel claims" sections in The Guardian or The Daily Telegraph articles. Instead, the lost libel cases suffered by both papers appear in the biography of the journalist or the claimant. For example, the Telegraph lost a notable libel case from George Galloway over allegations that he took money from Saddam Hussein[2] (£150,000 in damages and around £1.1m in costs) and the Turkish PM Erdogan over allegations he accepted a donation to his political party from Iran[3] (a substantial sum in damages and Erdogan’s legal costs). The two claims against Pink News, neither of which reached a court, are trivia.

If we compare with newspapers for which making up false and dubious stories and losing libel cases in the courts is a matter of record in the balance of reliable published sources: The Daily Mail and News of the World (the latter sued out of existence over the phone hacking scandal). Both do have libel sections, which arguably have attracted cruft the way such lists tend to. Generally, those libel cases are noted for when the newspaper had to pay damages and costs and there is widespread reporting of the case. Compare the Ashley Cole mention in News of the World (two sentences) with the News International section in this article (two large paragraphs). And Pink News was a bit player in that story which was really about the Sun and News of the World.

We should remove both trivia libel claims as undue. I think there's an argument that this article should contain brief mention of the Ashley Cole case, because the paper itself reports that it could have faced an existential threat. But a couple of sentences should suffice. -- Colin°^Talk 12:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:UNDUE weight in this matter is important. In this post an editor has assumed the coverage here indicates Pink News has a reputation for making libellous claims. So our article is misleading our readers. In fact, if this newspaper has, in its 17 years history, never once actually been taken to court for libel, never lost a case and never once had to pay damages or costs, that's quite a remarkably positive record. -- Colin°^Talk 12:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Homeostasis07 whose edit is mentioned in the post above.

The last sentence of the above post rather misses the point. If a publication settles a case without it going to court, the usual interpretation of this is that the publication was so obviously in the wrong that it was not worth fighting it out in court. If you settle a libel case by making an apology, or making a payment, this is the equivalent of losing.

And the suggestion in that same sentence that PinkNews has never had to pay damages or costs is not correct. As the article says:In June 2019, MP Joanna Cherry took legal action against PinkNews after it published a story that falsely claimed she was being investigated for homophobia. To settle the case, PinkNews issued an apology, paid her legal costs, and made a donation to the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group. In this context, making a donation to an organisation chosen by your opponent is, from the point of view of who won and who lost, the equivalent of paying damages, and means you lost.

On the question of whether this coverage is undue, it should be borne in mind that both Joanna Cherry and Julie Bindel are high profile lesbians. It is therefore remarkable and worthy of inclusion in our article that they have both made claims for libel against a publication which specialises in coverage relevant to people who are same-sex attracted.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the legal actions were settled out of court does not miss the point, which is that these ones are trivia. While I agree Pink News "lost" wrt the Cherry action, it did not reach court. It was settled within a week: the source says "The prominent SNP MP, who is also a QC, sent a letter from her own lawyer to Pink News after ..." and it did not reach mainstream attention. Wrt the Bindel action, notice that both parties issued a joint notice, where both sides admit mistakes were made, and no money is involved. So, no, they didn't "lose" that libel case.

Can you point to the bit in WP:WEIGHT where legal actions by high profile lesbians against LGBT newspapers are automatically due? Let me quote WP:PROPORTION some more: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Currently 40% of this article concerns these two legal cases and the tangential involvement in a NOTW legal case. Does the body of reliable published material on Pink News consider the publication such a pit of libel depravity that we should spend 40% of our article discussing it? No, unlike the Daily Mail or News of the World, there isn't any libel reputation in the balance of the literature to support discussing Pink News libel at all.

We have these policies for a reason. We don't build articles by accumulating random facts. An encyclopaedic article on a newspaper should cover history, ownership, editors and editorial stances, notable journalists and contributors, significant stories and scoops, awards, and controversies that have a lasting notability. WP:PROPORTION explicitly states that accumulating random news stories or every piece of criticism is unwarranted.

A relatively small and rather unimportant newspaper like Pink News (it never features in "The Papers" on BBC news for example) warrants a rather small article. Sources like pressgazette.co.uk are more relevant to us as examples of reliable sources that are talking about the newspaper rather than covering some specific news event. -- Colin°^Talk 18:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970, I agree. If there are sourced facts about PinkNews that are missing, then they should be added rather than removing anything. If these incidents take up a large PROPORTION of the sources on PinkNews then so be it; but in any case the solution is to add material, not purge well-sourced material. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in agreement that this is a WP:WEIGHT issue. Even our BBC controversies article, which is focused entirely on controversies surrounding the BBC, only has two libel cases listed against the BBC, one in 1984 and the other in 2012. This is despite there being numerous examples of other successful (2022, 2009, 1994) and unsuccessful (2017, 2016, 2010) cases against them.

I don't see how two cases, that were settled out of court, and resulted in corrections being published, meet WP:DUE. If anything, given how permissive English libel laws are, this seems almost like it's in WP:ROUTINE territory, with some added WP:SENSATIONAL for good measure. WP:VNOT allows us to determine that verifiable information doesn't need to be included. So the question is, why does this content meet WP:DUE? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Because DUE means including significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and only mentions excluding something when it is a "tiny minority". So, well-sourced material is presumptively DUE unless it is such a small aspect per the body of sources that it shouldn't be included. That is on those pushing for removal to show.

Incidentally above it was claimed (by someone else) that the section constituted 40% of the article, but that is definitely not the case. There are several other headings of equal or greater length. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

That is on those pushing for removal to show actually per WP:ONUS The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Emphasis mine. So I'm afraid you have that one backwards.

However. A Google News search for Cherry's defamation case only brings up a single RS that is contemporary, an interview Holyrood magazine. Interviews are primary sources, so do not demonstrate weight. A more generic Google Search returns 9 pages of results, with no RS of relevance contained within. So aside from The National, whose article on this amusingly will not appear in Google News (appears on Google Search though), there doesn't seem to be any other sources for this. There is also one non-contemporary RS, reporting on potentially erroneous statements issued by Kemi Badenoch in the Commons last week, though that does not seem to help us with assessing weight.

As for Julie Bindel's action, a Google News search has 0 results from reliable sources. When looking at our own article's sources, we have no secondary coverage at all, as we cite Bindel's solicitors, and PinkNews' correction, both of which are inherently primary sources in this regard. Even a more generic Google News search doesn't return any RS of relevance in its five pages of results, and a Google Search doesn't return any RS of relevance in its ten pages of results.

Note, all searches conducted using a VPN, to avoid results that were being excluded from the search in Europe. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not an accumulation of cruft or random bits of news. Sideswipe9th, it isn't even sufficient that mainsream reliable news picked up on these stories as news (which they haven't), for we aren't a newspaper. WP:NOTNEWS emphasises that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", and requires "enduring notability". I can see that in this topic domain, both sides have at times taken a "find any dirt I can and chuck it in" approach to writing about a subject on the "opposite side", but that needs to stop. We are writing an encyclopaedia, not an attack site. To have a section on libel cases we'd have to have the balance of reliable sources considering that libel actions are an important topic when writing about Pink News. It would have a reputation in this regard. I note above two newspapers without that reputation (though the Telegraph has suffered £million loses, it generally keeps its nose clean) and two who clearly do have that reputation. There is no evidence even of a single complaint against Pink News even reaching the courts. -- Colin°^Talk 08:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe seems to be confusing ONUS with DUE. This material has been in the article for some time, so it has had implicit consensus.

PinkNews is a suitable source for legal actions against itself – see WP:ABOUTSELF. Ditto an interview.

Sideswipe says If anything, given how permissive English libel laws are, this seems almost like it's in WP:ROUTINE territory, with some added WP:SENSATIONAL for good measure. without explaining how something can be both ‘routine’ and ‘sensational’. The libel cases are notrun of the mill and neither is there anything scandal mongering about these matters, which are not gossip. The Wikipedia essay is being misused in an attempt to push an invalid argument.

No-one has countered my argument about the significance of PinkNews having legal action taken against it by lesbians. This is a serious factual matter, and not dirt as alleged by Colin.

Colin is still repeating the invalid argument about the cases not having reached court, so I am obliged to repeat myself: If a publication settles a case without it going to court, the usual interpretation of this is that the publication was so obviously in the wrong that it was not worth fighting it out in court.

The material is soundly sourced, is noteworthy, and has been accepted in the article for some time, and it should stay.

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe seems to be confusing ONUS with DUE. Nope. As you can see, I've referred to both in my replies. This material has been in the article for some time, so it has had implicit consensus. Per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. This content has been both disputed and reverted, therefore it no longer has an implicit consensus. As such, ONUS states quite clearly that the onus to achieve a consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include the disputed content. In this case, you and Crossroads.

how something can be both ‘routine’ and ‘sensational’ That's actually quite easy. Routine in that most UK media outlets receive notice of at least one libel action every year, and some receive many. Sensational in that a "big deal" is being made out of something that resulted in a swift correction and out of court settlement. We do not fill our articles on other publications every time they make a correction, so why do we need to draw undue attention to these two cases?

No-one has countered my argument about the significance of PinkNews having legal action taken against it by lesbians. I have, via sourcing. Cherry's case has two RS. Bindel's case has none. Based on reliable sources, there appears to be very little significance to Cherry's case, and absolutely none for Bindel's.

The material is soundly sourced, is noteworthy, and has been accepted in the article for some time, and it should stay. The Cherry case is sourced, but not soundly. Two RS, one of which is an interview which is primary, does not demonstrate noteworthiness. As I've demonstrated via linked Google Searches, the Bindel case has no secondary coverage. The only sources that exist for it are unreliable, or primary. A lack of reliable secondary coverage demonstrates that it is not noteworthy. If there are other reliable secondary sources for either case, then please provide them as per policy, because I've been unable to find any. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

While Sideswipe's comments are correct, and the sources are weak and partial, it wouldn't help if they were the most reliable and neutral. WP:PROPORTION says "For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." and WP:NOTNEWS policy says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Sweet's counter argument seems to be that the litigants were lesbians and the text has been in there for a while. Is that the best you can do? We need the balance of reliable sources to consider that libel actions are an important topic when writing about Pink News. Go find that. If you can't, the section goes. Also please note Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject. We already have evidence above (a bit of an own goal really) that readers of this article are getting the impression that Pink News has a problem with libel, when balance of reliable sources do not make that claim. -- Colin°^Talk 14:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Colin – I have a feeling that by your reference to ‘tendentious editing’ , and giving too much attention to one aspect of an article, you are intending to accuse me of tendentious editing. But this does not make sense. You were the one who started this discussion about a small section of this article, which has been in place for some time, so one might say that you are engaging in tendentious editing. But I wouldn’t, firstly because this is a discussion, and my view is that tendentious editing involves actual editing of the article. Secondly, it appears that you are taking one aspect of ‘tendentious editing’ out of context – according to this interpretation, any discussion about one aspect of an article is ‘tendentious editing’. This does not make sense, because it would mean that no-one should ever discuss any aspect of any article. Thirdly, I think such an accusation would be over the top – editors should be encouraged to discuss aspects of articles which they are concerned about, without the fear of being accused of the wikicrime of tendentious editing. And, of course, it is in general a good idea to avoid making accusations on Wikipedia, where, because of the nature of the medium, and sometimes also the nature of the topic in question, accusations are only going to inflame the situation, without any benefit to the encyclopaedia. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

To Sideswipe: I got the impression you were confusing DUE and ONUS because Crossroads was talking about DUE, and you responded by talking about ONUS, and you said So I'm afraid you have that one backwards.

Something cannot be both ‘routine’ and ‘sensational’. Your comment does not address the meaning of these words. There is nothing sensational about the text in our article.

You have not countered my argument about the significance of PinkNews having legal action taken against it by lesbians. The significance is in its nature – you cannot disprove this by counting sources – that is an entirely different point.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Re:the significance of PinkNews having legal action taken against it by lesbians - what we have is legal action by two (2) white, female "gender critical" activists who happen to be lesbian. Any implication about the significance of PinkNews being sued by white people, by women, by lesbians or by "gender critical" activists needs to be based on the highest-quality RS available, and not on the prior assumptions of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, Pink News was not "sued" by anyone. Someone got their lawyers to threaten to take legal action, and the matter was resolved to all party's satisfaction.

The "because they are lesbians" angle is not a serious argument and doesn't deserve a serious response. It is a joke of an argument, that signals desperation. Colin°^Talk 12:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, please clarify your comment. Do you mean (1) white, lesbian, ‘gender critical’ activists are so insignificant that they don’t count as human beings OR (2) white, lesbian, ‘gender critical’ activists are no more significant than other human beings OR (3) did you mean something else? ( I’m hoping it’s (2) or (3).) Sweet6970 (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

(3) Something else. What I meant was that when dealing with white, female, lesbian "gender critical" humans (or those inhabiting any other identities), it is not prima facie obvious which of these identities are most salient in a particular matter. We need reliable sources to determine that for us. Newimpartial (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. The first sentence of our article is PinkNews is a UK-based online newspaper marketed to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community (LGBT) in the UK and worldwide. Therefore, it seems to me to be obvious that libel claims by lesbians against a publication which is specifically aimed at LGBT people are logically noteworthy. I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that the point you are making is that if the libel claims were significantly noteworthy because of the characteristics of the aggrieved parties (e.g. being lesbians), this aspect would be mentioned in reliable sources. I think I see your point. But my view is that the simple fact that the claimants were lesbians is in context enough, in itself, to make the material worthy of inclusion in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is my point. If you think belonging to a specific community lends a particular salience to one's complaints about an organization, does that mean we should add to the LGB Alliance article the (copious) criticism from actual lesbian, gay and bisexual people who happen not to be "gender-critical"? Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The article on LGB Alliance, particularly the lead, is already overloaded with criticism from people who are hostile to the organisation. But that argument is for the Talk page of that article. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand your perception, but if your argument here is that "these threatened lawsuits are particularly relevant because lesbians are making them, and lesbians are part of the target demographic for PinkNews", that argument would seem to apply pro forte to LGB Alliance, which is not notable for the extent to which lesbians and gay or bisexual people actually support the organization and its Weltanschauung. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Sweet6970 (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I link to that page because its example is really good and relevant. They give an example of focusing on some minor aspect of a politician's life (a property dispute) and explains how even though the "property dispute may be verifiable in reliable sources", "it places undue weight on a relatively minor aspect of the subject's personal life." Replace "politician" with "newspaper" and "property dispute" with "their lawyers wrote to my lawyers" (because neither went further than that).

Note that the "undue importance" that tendentious editing talks about is undue importance in article text. That I was "the one who started this discussion about a small section of this article" is not what that is talking about, and I am in fact, stating we should, on the article, not give undue importance to this topic. Your argument is a bit like saying "Well if deliberately killing someone is murder, then so is not deliberately killing someone". This is tiresome nonsense, please desist.

The argument that this section has been in place for some time is irrelevant. WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is only a thing until editors are in dispute (which is what is happening here). Wikipedia:Silence and consensus says "Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident". Editors wanting to include content have to reach consensus for it to be included. That is true whether the text was added yesterday or last year. -- Colin°^Talk 12:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I plan to remove the Libel cases section tomorrow, since there is no consensus to include them. Arguments for keeping are that they are sourced, have been in there a while and that the complainants are lesbians. These are entirely demolished by policy explicitly stating that being sourced is not an argument to include, that any prior implicit consensus is now void, and the less said about the lesbian argument the better. The body of reliable sources does not consider Pink News to have any notable record wrt legal matters, and it has never actually been sued for libel nor appeared in the courts, unlike most newspapers. Only tabloid newspapers with a reputation for libellous claims have such sections in their articles on Wikipedia. The matter of minor legal squabbles is noted on the two complainants own biographical articles, and the weight of that is not being contested. In other words, we have satisfied the policy encouragement that we should seek to retain this in a more appropriate place.

I also plan to reduce the News International legal threat section. This is given more prominence and detail here than it is on any News International newspaper article or the complainant's own article. Pink News played a minor role in that event, with the other newspapers merely considering taking action against it, but in the end not doing so. It is relevant only really for the fact that the paper might have closed if they had. If editors want to document that case in detail on Wikipedia, the proper place is on the newspapers who were sued and lost, or complainants' biographies. -- Colin°^Talk 16:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@LilySophie: when comparing Colin's original removal versus your reinstatement side by side, it's plainly obvious that three of the four citations are the same.

For the paragraph on Joanna Cherry, both citations are the same and in the same order. As I've demonstrated above, there are no other RS covering this, beyond an interview with Cherry in Holyrood magazine. That interview does not unfortunately demonstrate WP:DUE.

For the paragraph on Julie Bindel, the same correction by PinkNews is used, however all you have changed is swapping a press release from Bindel's barristers for one from PinkNews' barristers. Both press releases are inherently primary sources, due to their direct connections to the case and so do not demonstrate WP:DUE. As I demonstrated previously, there are no secondary RS covering Bindel's case at all, so this very much is undue for inclusion. Aside from the source swap, the only other meaningful change is that the text of this paragraph is shorter, by elimination of the text that explained the circumstances which lead to Bindel bringing and settling a case against PinkNews.

Please do not restore the text a third time. If there are reliable secondary sources that I and others have missed for either paragraph, please provide them here so that they can be assessed, and achieve a positive consensus for inclusion before adding the text again in any form. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. As explained in WP:DETCON, inclusion does not rely on count of opinions for or against inclusion, but on the merit of the arguments presented. Seeing as how the included text is a tiny part of the article, uses reliable sources (including PinkNews itself as per WP:NOTGOODSOURCE) and is included in each of the involved people's articles without objection, it is clearly WP:DUE and will be included. - LilySophie (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

In this circumstance, as one of the two parties in each action, any statement by PinkNews is inherently primary. Likewise the statements by barrister chambers representing either side of the case are inherently primary. Primary sources do not demonstrate due weight. Only secondary sources and tertiary can demonstrate it.

The consensus, based on the strength of the policy arguments is currently against inclusion because the content, based on what reliable secondary sources state about PinkNews, is undue.

@LilySophie: please self-revert your latest restoration now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Nothing mentioned counters the arguments brought forth for inclusion being WP:DUE or supports the idea that the inclusion is undue. I will revert if arguments are given for inclusion being undue. As of now, inclusion is clearly due. - LilySophie (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Both Colin and I have made policy based arguments for why this content is undue.

WP:PSTS states plainly that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. By this alone, we cannot include Bindel's case, as it has no secondary or tertiary sources covering it. However, we also have WP:NOT which states All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources. Bindel's case is not verifiable with independent, third-party sources. To include Bindel's case is to breach three separate polices; WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV.

When it comes to Joanna Cherry's case, we have a single secondary source, the article in The National. Per DUE Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. A single source covering a single event involving PinkNews, does not demonstrate DUE. When looking at the balance of all sources that discuss PinkNews, we can quite clearly see that this event is largely non-notable. If it was noteworthy, more sources would be discussing it. This is very much in keeping with the third paraphrased bullet point in DUE which states If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it. That Cherry's case is noteworthy is a viewpoint held by an extremely small minority, in this case a minority of one; The National. Therefore it does not belong on Wikipedia.

I'm going to ask one more time, @LilySophie: please self-revert this addition. It is wholly non-compliant, and you are edit warring against consensus by repeatedly restoring it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Your points on primary sources have already been covered by me. The cited part of WP:DUE does not apply since we are not dealing with a viewpoint. I will revert as soon as arguments are brought forth against inclusion that align with Wikipedia policy. - LilySophie (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS applies. This is disputed content, sp positive consensus is required before it can be included. Please stop edit warring. Newimpartial (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, the section seems clearly undue. The only cite in the entire section that could even plausibly pass muster is The National; but it doesn't actually support any of this in the text - it seems like the sentence is based solely on the bolded subheading of the article, which is not usable per WP:HEADLINES. The article's body consists entirely of two quotes and is hardly enough to justify inclusion on its own overall given how minimally it treats the whole thing. And the other sentence has no valid sourcing at all - I'm completely unconvinced that Matrix Chambers is a sufficient WP:RS for a plainly BLP-sensitive statement. The primary cites to PinkNews don't help because neither of them support the article text; they are simply corrections and retractions, which are not significant on their own. I also agree that the News International legal threat section is currently undue as written - it's largely a topic tangential to PinkNews. The Guardian source mentions PinkNews once in passing and the only other source is a primary citation to PinkNews. This isn't enough for a paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  Matrix Chambers is the chambers for PinkNews' barrister team. When Colin initially removed the section, we were citing 5RB who are the chambers for Bindle's barrister team. LilySophie merely swapped one legal press release for another. Insofar as legal press releases by barrister chambers go, they're probably reliable, but they're definitely primary sources.

  Otherwise, what you've said largely matches my own thoughts on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• FYI, LilySophie is currently indef blocked per the edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. -- Colin°^Talk 18:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Lack of independent sources

While I have no issue with the subject of the article, I couldn’t help but notice that over half of the references are from PinkNews themselves.

Additionally, some of the other references, aside from BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent, and GOV.uk, appear to be questionable sources for an encyclopedic article.

I sincerely mean no trouble and have zero intention of making any changes to the article — I only bring this up in order to help improve the article.

MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)