Talk:Lindsay Shepherd/Archive 1

“Counter to the Canadian human rights code”

 * Also, could you add a citation to where in the tape the professor said this would be a violation of Bill C-16 (added here)? I would prefer to remove it but I don't want to revert again. SarahSV (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused why you marked this citation needed. It is referenced by the citation immediately following it titled What the Wilfrid Laurier professors got wrong about Bill C-16 and gender identity discrimination I'm also confused why you reverted the clarification of pointing out that Shepherd was accused of violating part of Canadian Human Rights Code and marked this a minor edit . Seems important to make clear that Shepherd was accused of violating a Canadian Human Rights Code, instead of simply saying Bill C-16, which does not clarify the nature of the accused violation. Seems this would not have been as notable and controversial if Shepherd were not accused by faculty of violating Canadian Human Rights Code. DynaGirl (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The content that has been added with respect to this point has been problematic in several recent iterations. Our quote in the body says “counter to the Canadian Human Rights code", which would most naturally be interpreted as a reference to the Canadian Human Rights Act. But there is no “Canadian Human Rights Code” with a capital C, and we can’t refer to such a document in Wikipedia's voice as if it exists. The construction “Canadian Human Rights Code Bill C-16” is even less clear as to what it is referring.
 * Also, where it is discussed in the body, it would be worthwhile to note, as described in reliable sources, that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to WLU.--Trystan (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Counter to the Canadian Human Rights Code Bill C-16" is apparently referenced to the recording as a quote an editor pulled out of the recording as relevant. Reliable secondary sources such as National Post above report Shepherd was accused of violating Bill C-16. I suppose it's actually the same thing because if you are counter to a law then you are violating the law, but seems we should be consistent and clear and preferably represent the reliable secondary sources.  The National Post describes C-16 as part of Canadian Human Rights Act, so I agree this should be the clarifier instead of Canadian Human Rights Code. Thank you Trystan for pointing out that error. DynaGirl (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) I can't see where the National Post says that., the recording was released and is widely available, so if you're going to cite the professor on that contentious point, it's best to use their words directly in quotation marks or paraphrased very closely. Also, bear in mind the lead-length issue. SarahSV (talk)
 * The National Post source linked above says C-16 added gender identity and expression as grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. DynaGirl (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant the text you added about the professor. I've fixed it and added a reference. SarahSV (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see National Post source. Here's the link again . It states regarding Professor Rambukkana But Rambukkana goes further, telling Shepherd she’s also in violation of the legal regime created by C-16. NP also says, as indicated above C-16 added gender identity and expression as grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Confused by your edit summary of "fixed per ref per talk" of changing this to "Canadian Human Rights Code" and referencing the youtube video. . Per talk, concerns have been raised regarding referring to it as "Canadian Human Rights Code" as well as referencing the youtube video directly instead of referring to reliable secondary sources. DynaGirl (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We're quoting him; he was speaking casually. You can listen to it for yourself. Now, maybe there is somewhere else in the tape where he says it again in a different way, but you would need to produce that. Also note: there is the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Criminal Code, and the Ontario Human Rights Code. SarahSV (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m no sure what your agenda is here, but you seem to want to minimize what the professors and administrators said and did. Not only did he say she was in violation of henlaw, the same was parroted by the administrator. Similarly you’ve given undue weight in the lede to a single allegation that there was a student complaint in advance of the meeting. The McLean’s article was careful to qualify the statement. You’ve presented it as a fact. Bad faith doesn’t begin to describe this.204.48.95.67 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To the IP, I don't know what you're referring to; nothing is being minimized and Macleans didn't qualify anything about the complaint that I can see. To and, they say elsewhere in the tape that it's the Ontario Human Rights Code they're discussing. I'll write something up about it. SarahSV (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * SarahSV, I think we should try not to reference the youtube tape directly. I think it can end up being problematic when editors go through primary sources picking out quotes that they feel are important. The recordings have been widely quoted and discussed in reliable secondary sources and I think it's probably better to try to stick with that. DynaGirl (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The danger lies in using a secondary source that got it wrong, rather than a primary source that (obviously) doesn't. It's not a question of us picking out what's important. The secondary sources have picked out as important that the meeting discussed the law/human rights code, so what we're doing is telling people what the meeting said about that. SarahSV (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The National Post does not appear to have gotten it wrong. They reported Professor Rambukkana accused Shepherd of violating C-16 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. They also quote the recording where Rambukkana says “These arguments are counter to the Canadian Human Rights Code ever since, and I know that you talked about C-16, ever since this passed, it is discriminatory to be targeting someone due to their gender identity and gender expression.” Please see wikipage for An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code which is the official name for Bill C-16. It appears the National Post got it right and also included the relevant quote from the tape. I do think we should try to stick to the reliable secondary sources here as a general rule. DynaGirl (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t have an issue with the wording the NP used. “The legal regime created by C-16” is an acceptable way to describe the Canadian Human Rights Act as amended by the amendment act. But if we are talking about the specific allegations made, it is appropriate to use a direct quote of what exactly was said. Processing it through the interpretation of a secondary source doesn’t add any value to the reader.--Trystan (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a footnote (current footnote b) that shows what was said. SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't just referring to that section. I actually think it's more of a problem in other areas of the article such as the summary of the recording. Instead of picking out quotes from the youtube recording that individual wikipedia editors think are important, I think we should primarily rely on a reliable secondary sources to summarize the content and also on the various quotes reported by reliable secondary sources. Of course, if we check the recording and it's wrong, I agree we should not include it. DynaGirl (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead
, you've twice added Nicholas Matte to the lead. But that one clip included Matte is of no consequence. Peterson was the issue. The lead is for the most pertinent issues; otherwise it will be too long. Also, the way you've written it means that Matte is described but Peterson isn't. SarahSV (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems on topic and relevant. I was actually confused when you removed this with edit summary of "+ details and ce" . It seems of consequence and well sourced and actually the content/quotes from Nicholas Matte in the body of article are more detailed than quotes/content from Peterson in reference to the video clips. Add- Matte needs a short description because he lacks a wikipedia article to link to. I don't think identifying him as an instructor at U or T makes the text in the lead overly long. Peterson is linked so I don't think he requires a description but would not be opposed to adding that he is also a prof at U of T. DynaGirl (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , what is the relevance of Matte such that he belongs in the lead? If Matte alone had been in the video, nothing would have happened. If you pack everything into the lead (the extra name plus the double reference to the bill), it ceases to be a quick overview. A 1339-word article doesn't need a lead this long. SarahSV (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevance seems to be accuracy reflecting the occurrences of the incident and representing the references cited. Shepherd played clips from debate between Peterson and Matte which aired on TVOntario. Per sources, Shepherd argues she presented it neutrally and gave both sides of this issue a voice. Others have stated Peterson should not be given a voice in this type of setting, even if there's an opposing voice there to debate and disagree with him. Just seems we should accurately reflect what happened and how the university and the public reacted.DynaGirl (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * SarahSV, you didn't respond to this, but I see a few days later you’ve again removed Nicholas Matte, this time with edit summary of “tightening and fixing the writing”  I worry this frequent and persistent reverting will discourage other editors from working on and improving this article. DynaGirl (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the recent edits to shorten the lead have been a significant improvement, and more reflective of the sources. The lead is meant to briefly summarize the important points of the article. Matte is barely mentioned in the body of the article, and doesn't tie into the broader issues in any clear way. It's sufficient for the lead to note that the clip was of a debate, which conveys multiple views were presented.--Trystan (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems it would improve the lead to at least mention that the debate shown in class was between Peterson and a sexual diversity studies instructor from U of T, because this would give the readers an understanding of the nature of the clips shown, as well as accurately reflect the reliable source. I can see the argument of not mentioning Matte specifically by name in the lead, considering he doesn't have a wikipage, but that the debate was between Peterson and sexual diversity instructor Nicholas Matte has been widely described in reliable sources  , .       DynaGirl (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If we pack in all the names widely mentioned by reliable sources (the names of those on the show; the names of those in the meeting; perhaps the name of the lawyer who investigated and the president's name because she issued the statement), the lead will be too long. Of all those names, you want to highlight someone who appeared in one of the two clips and had almost nothing to do with what ensued. It feels UNDUE. In addition, I've wondered whether it's fair to highlight other names in the lead given how contentious the issue has become. SarahSV (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Quotes from YouTube
SarahSV, in the Wilfred Laurier University Incident/Class section, I notice you changed the description of the clips shown in class to include these quotes from Jordan Peterson: “to use a certain set of words that I think are the constructions of people who have a political ideology that I don't believe in and that I also regard as dangerous", and "attempt to control language in a direction that isn't happening organically ... but by force and by fiat". You referenced this to youtube, specifically a 54 minute long episode of The Agenda With Steve Pakin . This seems like original research.  Per sources, Shepherd only showed 2 clips totalling 5 minutes from this 54 minute episode to her communications class. Do you have a reliable source saying these quotes you pulled off youtube and added to the article were among the ones Shepherd showed to her communications class? DynaGirl (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't pull it out of a 54-minute segment, but out of the section starting at 04:45 (which is linked above) in which Peterson debates the issue with Paikin directly. That was the first clip that was shown. See the Macleans article for details. SarahSV (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are arguing. Point 04:45 is part of the full 54 minute episode. Can you provide a link to the Macleans source which you say includes these quotes or that indicates Shepherd showed 04:45 to her class. I googled Macleans and the above youtube quote "by force and by fiat" and got zero hits. DynaGirl (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * DynaGirl, that quote is in the Macleans article. If it didn't come up in Google, it may be because a couple of words in the recording are not in Macleans; I believe "by fiat" is not there. If you google another part you'll find it, along with the time the clip starts (04:45), or look at Macleans.


 * By the way, you've mentioned a couple of times (in this and a previous thread) that I'm using a YouTube source as though there's something illegitimate about it. But this recording was widely published by newspapers. The only reason I link to the YouTube version is that the sound is clearer. SarahSV (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Complaint issue
, re: your edit: "Although the staffers claimed they were acting on unspecified complaints 'An independent investigator determined there had been no such complaint, formal or informal'."

There was a complaint or expression of concern. The question is whether it was a formal complaint, and it seems it was not. The president worded her statement carefully: "No formal complaint, nor informal concern relative to a Laurier policy, was registered about the screening of the video" (emphasis added).

See Macleans:

"As for Shepherd, she called her boyfriend to say she thought everything went well and that the students were really engaged. Neither knew one student from the class would soon contact the Rainbow Centre, the campus LGBTQ support community, to complain about the discussion. Toby Finlay, an administrator at the Rainbow Centre, wouldn’t share the specifics of the conversation due to confidentiality reasons, but adds: “It was through us that they made the complaint that led to the situation that blew up in the media.”"

That's why I wrote in the lead: "After a student expressed concern about the clips, Shepherd was summoned ..." SarahSV (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that the most likely explanation is that the NP article dropped the qualifier "relative to a Laurier policy" from the WLU President's comments. With the qualifier, her statement about the findings is compatible with an informal concern of some kind being relayed through the Rainbow Centre. It's unfortunate we don't have better sources available to clarify the issue. Because this point is one of the items in contention in a current lawsuit, I think we want to be very limited on what we say on the matter. I don't think the direct quote from the NP is warranted in the lead. I'd suggest leaving the issue out of the lead, and if we are quoting, quote the president's comment directly when it is discussed in the body.--Trystan (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There's no dispute that there was at least one complaint. The university is defining its terms carefully. There was no formal complaint and no expression of concern "relative to a Laurier policy" (i.e. nothing the university could act on). But there was something that 99.9999999 percent of humanity would call a complaint or expression of concern. There's no reason not to mention it in the lead and no reason to labour the point. We need to mention it to explain why the meeting happened. It didn't happen for no reason or because the staff are psychic. SarahSV (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I’m fine with that approach.--Trystan (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * , I've added to the lead: "After a student expressed concern about the clips to a university LGBTQ support group,[a] Shepherd was summoned ..." And footnote (a) quotes the paragraph from Macleans explaining what happened. SarahSV (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The McLeans article was written before the official investigation and the person quoted refused to provide details and was not a the original student or staffer. The university made no mention of these concerns from the rainbow center in their report which makes the McLean's quote suspect.  Leaving that in the lede with no qualification gives more credence to one source (who does not offer details) vs. an official investigation. The footnote is not the same as including the refutation of the statement in the lede.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.230.212 (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I've added an FAQ; see above. People are editing the article without reading the sources carefully. SarahSV (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

, your edits aren't accurate, including the most recent: "After showing the clips, Shepherd was summoned to a meeting ... where it was reported that a student had expressed concern about the clips to a university LGBTQ support group."

I don't want to have to keep reverting, but I'd like to ask you please to gain consensus for your changes regarding the complaint, and you should listen to the recording. There was a complaint, howsoever described, that triggered the meeting. A student "had a word" with someone from the Rainbow Group; the Rainbow Group "had a word with" the supervisor or diversity office; and the professors and manager "had a word with" Shepherd. It wasn't a complaint as far as the university was concerned, but we don't represent the university or use their language.

I am missing something about the POV that is driving the intense focus on wanting to say there was no complaint. What is the underlying issue? SarahSV (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * SarahSV, multiple different editors on talk and in editing the article have expressed concern about writing in Wikipedia's voice that definitely a complaint was made. That's just not clear. Per sources, we don't know. A complaint might have been made by a student. Or alternately a representatives of the LGBT group might have overheard discussion that clips with Jordan Peterson were shown and complained the the instructor. Perhaps this will be clarified by the lawsuit. User:Kermit7 tried to improve this by adding "allegedly", which I suppose is accurate, but didn't seem exactly NPOV, so I tried to rearrange it to remove need for "allegedly", while also not stating in wikipedia's voice that a student complaint was definitively made   But I see that you have already  reverted. . DynaGirl (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You wrote that the details of the complaint (Rainbow Group, etc) were discussed during the meeting, but they weren't. And why begin with the meeting and not the complaint? "Allegedly" is fine, so please leave it. We may find out more via the lawsuits.


 * Can you tell me what the underlying POV is that is driving the desire to say there was no complaint? If I understood it, I might be able to offer a solution, but at the moment I can't work out what it might be. SarahSV (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you are confusing me with someone else. I have only made one edit on the subject of the complaint, although I do notice it has been a point of contention for some time. I can't speak for anyone else, but my only motivation is accurately reflecting the situation per reliable sources and not stating definitively in Wikipedia's voice that a student complaint was made if sources are unclear on that point.DynaGirl (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * People seem determined to maintain there was no complaint or expression of concern, although primary and secondary sources say there was (in some loose sense). I've added more (footnote a) about who said what. I hope that's enough. SarahSV (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * SarahSV, I'm not a fan of "allegedly", but I suppose it resolves the issue in the lead, but there's still that same issue in the body of the article, under the "Meeting" section, where we're stating as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that a student complaint was definitively made. I guess we could again go with User:Kermit7's solution of adding "allegedly", but I think for NPOV it's usually better to avoid allegedly when feasible, so would suggest something to the effect of the meeting took place "after representatives of the Rainbow Center contacted Adria Joel, reporting a student concern". We've got this tricky situation where Laurier university, following independent investigation came out saying no student complaint was made. Perhaps they do mean, as you hypothesize, that it just was an informal concern not relative to Laurier policies, but per sources, it's not clear at this point. This source from The Globe and Mail says Joel was the contact point for the Rainbow Center: Members of the Rainbow Centre have said they spoke to Ms. Joel about concerns a student brought to them about Ms. Shepherd’s tutorial.  It also says An independent investigator found that no formal or informal complaint about the video was made by any student. DynaGirl (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Break
, what is your understanding of the words in bold (added) in the university's statements?

1. "No formal complaint, nor informal concern relative to a Laurier policy, was registered about the screening of the video."

2. "It was not a complaint as the term is defined in the university’s Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy ...."

SarahSV (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with DynaGirl that using wikipedia's voice to assert in the lede, without any qualification, that a student "concern" or complaint was made gives undue weight to the single source.


 * Here's what McLeans wrote "Toby Finlay, an administrator at the Rainbow Centre, wouldn’t share the specifics of the conversation due to confidentiality reasons, but adds: “It was through us that they made the complaint that led to the situation that blew up in the media.”" McLeans doesn't attribute the allegation to a student, but to Toby Finlay's retelling of it.  Finlay also refuses to let the reporter speak with the witness, so his or her statement is never, ever verified by McLeans.  That's why McLeans uses so many words to let the reader know the context.


 * Then we can add the fact that the university's own official investigation specifically noted no complaint, formal or informal was made.


 * In my view, the McLean's detail is fine in the main body text, with at least as much qualification as McLean's provided, but presenting it in the lede as it is now is misleading.70.83.230.212 (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure whether this is being caused by people not reading the sources, or by some POV—e.g. (a) that the Rainbow Centre ought not to be trusted; or (b) that we ought not to say that someone complained because it makes the complainant, probably a member of the LGBTQ community, look bad; or (c) that the issue of whether there was a complaint may become relevant during the lawsuits, because if there was a complaint the comments about Peterson in the meeting may be protected by "qualified privilege".


 * Whatever is behind this focus on the complaint, WP summarizes the reliable sources. The reliable sources (primary and secondary) say there was a complaint (but not a formal one). The university does not say that there wasn't a complaint; just that there wasn't one according to their internal definition of the term.


 * If there was no complaint, why was the meeting called? SarahSV (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It did not have to be a complaint. Merely showing the video was enough to have Shepherd hauled into the meeting. If the McLean’s reporter, who was not permitted to verify the story, was cautious about attribution, so should we. And yes, all parties involved have reason to lie, so we should stick to the facts as known and stop speculating.70.83.230.212 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But you are assuming that everyone who says there was a complaint (or informal expression of concern) is wrong: the Rainbow Centre, the professor during the meeting, Lindsay Shepherd after the meeting, and the university indirectly. What is their "reason to lie"?


 * There's no indication that the Macleans reporter was more cautious about that point than any other. It was a long article. He wrote a lot about several issues, not only that one. SarahSV (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The reporter took pains to explain how the rainbow Centre administrator was the source and how the administrator concealed the identity of the alleged student. The reporter mentioned this because it’s not a direct source and suspect. It’s journalistic standards. It’s not complicated.  The length of the article is irrelevant to this point.70.83.230.212 (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing to suggest that he lingered over the complaint issue because it was particularly contentious at that point. Here's what he said about it:

"Leibold isn’t sure if the complaint to the professor about Shepherd opening up this discussion came from someone in his tutorial, but if it did, he says he wouldn’t be surprised. ... At one point, one student very much in support of Peterson “was implying that trans people wouldn’t necessarily be the people to look to for intelligence on the matter,” Leibold remembers. “I don’t think he was intending to be malicious. I just think that’s how it came off in the room.”"

"As for Shepherd, she called her boyfriend to say she thought everything went well and that the students were really engaged. Neither knew one student from the class would soon contact the Rainbow Centre, the campus LGBTQ support community, to complain about the discussion. Toby Finlay, an administrator at the Rainbow Centre, wouldn’t share the specifics of the conversation due to confidentiality reasons, but adds: “It was through us that they made the complaint that led to the situation that blew up in the media.”"

You didn't answer my question. Why do "all parties involved have reason to lie" about it? The supervisor told Shepherd during the meeting that there had been one or more complaints. This was before he knew there would be administrative and legal interest; he had no reason to mislead or watch his words. What was the centre's "reason to lie"? Whether a student complained to them, or they complained to the supervisor, no one denies that an expression of concern was transmitted. SarahSV (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: above comment: He certainly had no reason to "watch his words" insofar as he did not suspect they were being recorded. But as for having no reason to mislead, of course he had: he needed to (falsely) justify the interrogation to Shepherd. There was no complaint registered. Period. The entire “Talk” dispute casts a regrettable light on the Wikipedia landscape which has seen itself increasingly infested by agenda leftists over the years. If Wiki wants to retain any semblance of factual credibility the present “raised a concern” is appropriate and should not be altered. Orthotox (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Title
The entire article is about a controversy at Wilfrid Laurier University, not about a person. It is even full of pictures of Jordan Peterson and others, with no picture of the supposed biographee, which only serves to further illustrate that it isn't a biographical article about a student, but an article about a controversy at Wilfrid Laurier University, in which the student was one of several participants. Per WP:1E a biographical article would seem inappropriate and also too narrow a focus for the material of this article. --Tataral (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't have a photograph of her only because (I assume) no one has asked her to release one. I agree that this is borderline between a BLP and an article about the issue, but she has become a free-speech activist who is notable because of that issue, so it isn't really WP:BLP1E. 1E is for non-notable people caught up in something rather than central to it, or central to a minor issue. She has not returned to being (or trying to become again) a low-profile person. SarahSV (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is a textbook example of what we mean by a subject notable only for one event on Wikipedia, and apparently this was also the opinion of about half of the editors who took part in the AfD discussion. I didn't take part in that discussion myself and I don't question the notability of the event (for an article about the event), but the way the article is written it is not a proper biographical article. 95% of the article and the entire lead section is about a controversy at Wilfrid Laurier University, a somewhat obscure university in Canada, in which she played a part, but which revolved around much broader issues and much more well-known people (Jordan Peterson), and the key element was apparently the fact that Jordan Peterson had been compared to Hitler and so on by the university. The remaining 5% of material is simply trivia of no encyclopedic interest, about her private life. An article on the event would seem like the most sensible solution; discussing Jordan Peterson's reputation and lawsuit against the university in a supposed biographical article on a student on the other hand makes very little sense for a number of reasons. (I have no particular opinion on the exact title). --Tataral (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Shepherd could have turned out to be a one hit wonder/WP:BLP1E, but I think her activity with the "Intellectual Dark Web," her free speech club, and writing articles it seems like she will be somewhat notable so a time longer. —Pokerplayer513 (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

why does it matter that she is vegetarian
like who really cares — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.52.186 (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I care. Supevan (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Information on her ban
All reliably sourced information regarding her ban is valid, no reason to be omitted. We should include the full story of what happened in the sources cited. If you have reasons why certain details should be omitted with regard to Wikipedia policy please state why, thank you. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of information supplied by the subject, which was not part of the rationale for the ban, is in violation of NPOV and IMPARTIAL. Per WP:BRD, I have restored the stable version, removing the controversial material until consensus is reached to include it. Newimpartial (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that this context is provided in both sources supporting the text provided seems like a good reason to include it. Of course it would be simpler just to delete the whole sentence, as there is no need to cover every minor spat on social media. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How is including the full story provided in the exact same source a violation of NPOV and IMPARTIAL? If anything selectively removing information and context is in violation of NPOV and IMPARTIAL.


 * Furthermore WP:BRD does not mean you can continue to revert back and forth: it means that after talking, your next edit should have been based on something agreed upon on the talk page. Continuing to revert is disruptive editing. See "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." from the BRD page and also see What BRD is not, thank you. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don’t think the current coverage of this incident in the article is of much use to the reader, so my first reaction was to support removing it. However, the story did receive quite wide coverage, including the CBC and the National Post. If we are going to discuss it in the article, I think we need to accurately reflect what the sources say and why the incident received attention. I would suggest expanding the text slightly (to around 3 sentences) to reflect the exchange as the sources do, and something like, “Media coverage of the incident explored issues of perceived bias and lack of transparency in Twitter’s enforcement of its conduct guidelines.”--Trystan (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. The reason this talk section was started was because the sentence
 * was changed to
 * Deliberately omitting information from the source cited and skewing the context.


 * We should provide the full context of a claim or none of it at all, especially with the biography of living person policy on Wikipedia. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Context, please, SprayCanToothpick. The text in the article now was stable for a very long time until the IP edit of December 30; that edit relies on two sources, one rather sub-par, and paraphrases them in a way constructed to lend sympathy to Shephard and undermine the grounds fir the ban as expressed by Twitter.
 * I agree entirely with Trystan that what we need here is the addition of DUE contextual and interpretive detail, relying on more and better sources. This incident shouldn't be in "Personal life" at all, really, but perhaps gathered into "Controversies" or something, IMO Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If your issue is with how it's paraphrased, we can compromise on a way to rephrase it, while including all the information. That would be a fair step forward. However, if the outcome you wish for is to specifically keep the part about Shepherd being provoked and the comments made about her uterus omitted, that is not NPOV. Furthermore, adding more DUE contextual detail -as you suggest- would include those details you selectively removed as well, which I'm in favor of. The consensus here so far is that we either expand the text to include all the details in full context (including the details about Shepherd being provoked), or it's not worth mentioning in the article. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think those sources are "subpar" then remove them and the text they support. And take a look at WP:CRITS before starting a controversies section. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the Sun source is certainly sub-par, and that is the one that talks about "mocking" - which should not he used as a term for many reasons. Per WP:CRITS - which is not as clear-cut as you make it sound - the most appropriate title would be "Twitter ban", assuming that we do actually have the sources for a longer section. A casual Google search reveals the National Post, the CBC and the Chronicle-Herald. (The section should also cover the reversal of the ban, btw). Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying the Sun is a sub-par source is subjective, though you're more than welcome to take it up with the Reliable Source Notice Board. Regardless, both sources from the Sun and Vice currently used in the article state Shepherd was provoked and comments were made about her uterus. So the fact remains if you have an issue with those sources, you can't only cherry-pick the parts you like, consensus is that all the information should be covered or none of it. I completely agree with you that we should cite National Post, CBC, and Chronicle-Herald as you suggest: the more sources cited, the better. Keep in mind that those sources also state the same thing.   If we're going for more coverage, the information you selectively omitted will inevitably be covered. And that doesn't mean you should fish for sources that only briefly cover the topic, to avoid ones with full details about the exchange Shepherd engaged in, that would not be NPOV. If you've come to terms with that, we're in total agreement. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern is not with the "information" but rather DUE and NPOV policy It is not true that all the information should be included, per policy; we follow the BALANCE set by the best of the sources, and ENC and BLP policies as well (remembering that the person "making fun" of Shepherd on Twitter is also covered by BLP). The fact is that, if your initial edit had not apparently taken the side of Shepherd in the dispute with Twitter, and obscured why the ban was placed, I would not have reverted in the first place. Newimpartial (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, that was not my edit, my edits were revisions of yours. That edit featuring more of the full story is not obscuring, you're welcome to believe it obscures Shepherd's ban but the consensus does not. Secondly, if you're truly okay with the information, will you allow the details of Shepherd being provoked and the comments on her uterus to be written in? If you subjectively interpret DUE and BALANCE in your own personal way, you can essentially cherry-pick the details you like and omit the ones you don't like, which is not the purpose of those policies. Hence the importance of consensus. Consensus here says that they're important details holding equal weight, anyone with common sense can see it, and were you to take your DUE and BALANCE concerns of those all those sources    to the Reliable Source Notice Board or the NPOV Noticeboard, consensus there would tell you the same thing. If you're that confident on your stance I strongly encourage you do! It could help!


 * The bottom line is that, , and (who thanked a post) have agreed that Shepherd's ban isn't worth mentioning unless we feature the full story, including the comments made about her uterus. I welcome them to clarify their positions if they wish to. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

First, you were not "revising" my edits, Toothpick, you were - against BRD policy - revert warring to restore the IP edit which was identical to yours. That means you were edit-warring against a long-range stable version without consensus.

Second, there is no "consensus" that all details "hold equal weight" - what is your evidence for that?

Finally, of course contextual information about the ban can be included, if it reflects the BALANCE of the most reliable source and maintains NPOV. The content you were revert-warring to include achieves neither of these goals, and your attempted canvassing will not continue to a policy-based CONSENSUS for inclusion. I say attempted canvassing because none of the people you've pinged have actually expressed support for your revert war language in this incident. Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That IP is not me nor is the IP identical to mine. Take your bad faith accusations up with an Administrator or the SPI Noticeboard if you're going to accuse me of sockpuppeting. This page is for discussing article policy not personal attacks. (misunderstood their wording as a personal accusation, my mistake)


 * The consensus here so far is very clear: Shepherd's ban isn't worth mentioning unless we feature the full story. Jonathan A Jones has said
 * Trystan has said
 * You know this. I welcome them to clarify their positions. I also welcome a 3O or RFC of more unbias editors to weigh in. If you care about consensus you should push for this too or consult the noticeboards, but instead you've resorting to throwing accusations my way. SprayCanToothpick (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is, Toothpick, the "consensus" of those two people is, if anything, a preference to remove the discussion of the incident entirely - but I think you know that isn't how CONSENSUS works. There is no consensus in favor of the language you reinserted in the article.
 * And I think I see what misled you, so I have struck through the confusing term. Certainly I was not making allegations or personal attacks against you, so I would like your unCIVIL accusations struck from this discussion, please. Newimpartial (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is, Toothpick, the "consensus" of those two people is, if anything, a preference to remove the discussion of the incident entirely - but I think you know that isn't how CONSENSUS works. There is no consensus in favor of the language you reinserted in the article.
 * And I think I see what misled you, so I have struck through the confusing term. Certainly I was not making allegations or personal attacks against you, so I would like your unCIVIL accusations struck from this discussion, please. Newimpartial (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I share that exact same preference "to remove the discussion of the incident entirely" as the writing in the article stands right now. I was entertaining your suggestion of expanding it as a compromise, which would mean we would inevitably cover the information about Shepherd being provoked anyway. How is "Shepherd's ban isn't worth mentioning unless we feature the full story" an inaccurate summary of their positions?
 * I have a suggestion that might help both of us: would you like to take it to a Noticeboard? It might help us move past deadlock with more voices weighing in seeing as the current voices aren't enough to convince you. I've suggested it before but you haven't done either. I'll do it myself if we have to, as it would benefit our discussion.SprayCanToothpick (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to formulate a neutral summary right now, but I agree that NPOVN should do the trick. Please go ahead. Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you have both asked for my view, I have largely been keeping out of what is a fairly unedifying squabble because it is better to let the two of you develop your own viewpoints before re-engaging. But for what it's worth, on the key question my opinion is unchanged: either this sentence should be deleted (my preference) or some context should be provided (though there is room to argue over precisely what). And in that regard I thing that SprayCanToothpick is at least trying to discuss and to seek compromise, while Newimpartial is just repeating the same talking points over and over again. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree with your preferred option because there was enough coverage of this incident in Canadian media that I don't see how it would be DUE to exclude. After reading the sources, Jonathan, what language do you feel would be BALANCEd? Newimpartial (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that you disagree with me: there is no need to repeatedly tell us about that. I have no objection to SprayCanToothpick's text which you have repeatedly removed, and I think it's up to you to suggest alternatives at this stage. But if you are asking what I think must be included, then as a bare minimum it needs to be made clear that Shepherd's comment was a response to an attack rather than a comment out of the blue. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no disagreement that Shephard's comment should be described as a response, but it isn't clear to me (per sources) that she was responding to an "attack"; I would call it a "provocation" (almost a taunt tbh). Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We may finally be in agreement here! Why not write up a proposed expansion on the talk page? I've already gathered the sources you wanted    and you're welcome to find more sources as well. Rather than providing interpretations of whether it was an "attack" or "not an attack", you could just state the comments made verbatim ie. “Shepherd tweeted _______ in response to a tweet to her saying ______”. Just the unbias facts, so readers can decide for themselves how to interpret it.
 * If you're busy right now, I wouldn't mind writing up the initial proposal on the talk page. It's up to you. If you're open to working through a proposal paragraph/sentences with me, I think that might actually be easier for us than going through the Noticeboard SprayCanToothpick (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuits
Is there anything known about the outcome of the lawsuits?2001:16B8:262A:3500:F523:B9F3:C1D1:419 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it at least decently sourced and neutral in my view at a quick glance. Definitely not only promotional or overtly. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the speedy delete. If the random IP editor wants to make a formal case go for it. Springee (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)