Talk:British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110518162144/http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/submissions/CASHRAsubmission?page=CASHRAsubmission-Evaluati.html to http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/submissions/CASHRAsubmission?page=CASHRAsubmission-Evaluati.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516070711/http://www.bchrcoalition.org/files/INFO_2.pdf to http://www.bchrcoalition.org/files/INFO_2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130513122736/http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Smith_and_Chymyshyn_v_Knights_of_Columbus_and_others_2005_BCHRT_544.pdf to http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Smith_and_Chymyshyn_v_Knights_of_Columbus_and_others_2005_BCHRT_544.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20110830031946/http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051129/tribunal_lesbiancouple_051129 to http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051129/tribunal_lesbiancouple_051129
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120802041048/http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/02/enough%E2%80%99s-enough/ to http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/02/enough%E2%80%99s-enough/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219030940/http://www.humanrightscommissions.ca/index.php/news/106-its-silly-season-at-the-bc-human-rights-tribunal to http://www.humanrightscommissions.ca/index.php/news/106-its-silly-season-at-the-bc-human-rights-tribunal

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

JY Section

Hello! It's been a while since I visited this article. I was surprised to see that the "JY" section has been largely re-written in a way that doesn't convey what RS state. (For example, there were sixteen cases filed, not one as the article currently reflects.) If there's no good reason for this, I'll be bold and put in much of the removed material. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Much of what was removed was excessive detail and poorly sourced— to primary sources or unreliable sources — and should not be restored without both better sourcing and consensus. (Much of it was also poorly written, with random scare quotes, etc, although that would be easier to fix.) If the bit about filing 16 complaints can be sourced, it might be worth re-adding, although currently I'm only seeing it in the Post Millennial, which seems like a weak and biased source (cited in all of seven articles at the moment), and sites like LifeSite which are unreliable per past discussions on WP:RSN, i.e. the sourcing for it seems weak. -sche (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The Economist article used in this article as Cite #12 states: "Over a dozen cases brought by jy against other women who offer Brazilian-waxing services continue." It may not specifically say 16 but surely it would be safe to state that there are over 12 cases filed and they are currently pending. I'll go through and make some revisions later. Well-sourced, of course. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's accurate that they are still pending at this point. I think it's a reach to include this in the first place. How is this important information for understanding the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal? Nblund ^talk 20:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources need not be accurate up to the minute. This means that from time to time, Wikipedia may be "behind the curve" of current events but that's not a bad thing - and entirely in line with WP's mission. That being said, I'll appropriately couch it... saying something to the effect that there were at least twelve cases still pending as of December 2018. As to why it's relevant - this is definitely a notable BCHRT case. In fact, it may be the *most* notable out of the listed cases if only because it received substantial coverage both inside and outside of Canada. I don't see any reason to tell a partial story when it comes to this case. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources need to be accurate, period. The dearth of reliably sourced coverage leads me to believe that it probably isn't all that prominent - and I'm actually kind of unsure that this case belongs. I'm struggling to find WP:RS coverage outside of a handful of news stories from last December, and none of them appear to include useful information related to the BCHRT like the outcomes of the other cases. Are you aware of some additional in-depth coverage? Nblund ^talk 20:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any issue with stating that, as of December 2018, there were at least twelve other complaints pending? This is directly from the source that's used in the article, The Economist, which is regarded as a reliable source. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess not? I'm still a little confused as to why it's informative to mention 1 suit that was dismissed and 12 others that are of indeterminate status. Nblund ^talk 21:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. The disposition status of the cases (one case was withdrawn, over twelve still pending) doesn't bear on whether it should be included in the encyclopedia. Pending suits are included regularly on Wikipedia, if they are notable, and there's no guideline or policy to the contrary. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. There's no specific policy prohibiting us from adding these cases to the entry for Canada, waxing or transwomen either, but I'm sure you can recognize why an otherwise notable event might not be WP:DUE in any tangentially related entry. The fact that the cases are pending (and no reliable sources appear to be following up means that this doesn't really tell us anything about the BCHRT. "There's no rule against it" is not really a justification for inclusion. Nblund ^talk 22:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't had time to try to ascertain the reliability of this source, beyond noticing that it too is little-cited (it's never been discussed at WP:RSN AFAICT; this is the staff), but this Nelson Star article from January says two things which may be of interest: that respondents reopened the withdrawn waxing case, and that there were "14 similar complaints against other waxing service providers at about the same time this one was filed in March 2018" of which "Cousineau noted that three cases are proceeding through the 'regular process,' while the 11 others are in abeyance pending resolution of these." I share Nblund's concern that because the coverage of this is scant, there could be questions about its importance ("due-ness"), but I don't see a problem with spending a sentence or two on it. -sche (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

NBlund, I don't understand your reliance on WP:DUE. WP:DUE addresses the weight we give to minority or fringe viewpoints. That's not the situation here. The JY case is notable (covered by reliable sources) and relevant to the topic, which is the BCHRT. I see no reason to hold off from covering the case to the extent that it is covered by reliable sources; which is really quite extensive for this type of case, by the way. You may be looking for the up-to-the-minute coverage of a high-profile entertainment star defendant (OJ Simpson, R. Kelly, etc) but those kind of situations are the exception, not the rule. We have articles for many pending lawsuits in which there are few "news ticker" updates, partially because lawsuits tend to move at a glacial pace and without rockstar drama there may well be nothing to report for long stretches of time. I've had cases where nothing happened for over a year. But in any event, there has been plenty of coverage for the various JY matters, and much more than you would expect from your "garden variety" lawsuit. It's made especially impressive because much of the business of the BCHRT is not open to the public, so coverage would be harder to come by. At the very least, I don't understand the proposition that one JY matter is notable but the existence of the other 12+ are not. It's kind of an all-or-nothing thing, right? Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, due weight/npov (along with WP:NOTEVERYTHING) caution against including barely-relevant information in articles. Notability isn't graded on a curve, and information shouldn't be included unless it tells us something encyclopedic about the subject. I still haven't seen any suggestion as to what exactly we should learn from the fact that someone filed one or several suits. I agree with -sche that there's probably not a major harm in including a couple of sentences - so go for it as long as you can keep it minimal. Nblund ^talk 14:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

There's far more that I could say than just this, but at a bare minimum, if you read this Wikipedia article as-is you would come to the conclusion that a single complaint was filed and that it was now withdrawn. That is not only an incorrect telling of these events, it's contradicted by the reliable sources we use in the article. That's reason alone to include this. There are plenty more reasons of course, including the fact that this is a core element of the story and not some barely-notable factoid. I'll probably get to revising the article sometime on the weekend. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason the person's name was removed? Every news article mentions the name. 75.162.216.6 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME Nblund ^talk 23:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

JY is an extremely high-profile individual. 75.162.216.6 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No, she isn't. She was identified only by her initials in the press, she is known only for a single event, and nothing is lost by simply not naming her at all. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. Nblund ^talk 00:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are quite a few articles that refer to JY. There are also RSes covering the litigation spawned against Twitter due to fallout from this incident, which may bear a mention. Cosmic Sans (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The two reliable sources we cite state that her name was intentionally concealed, and there's no reason to use it here. Are you saying we should now consider adding a lawsuit against Twitter to the entry for BCHRT? How is that relevant to this entry? Nblund ^talk 00:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I like how even on Wikipedia there are people that will bend over backwards to protect JY just because she has connections in the tech industry. 75.162.216.6 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If you have a policy violation you'd like to correct, please be conservative and only make the corrections necessary. 75.162.216.6 (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory, but i'm "bending over backwards" because Wikipedia has a responsibility to avoid needlessly publicizing the name of a private figure. Her name does not appear in any reliable source, and she is barely relevant to this article to begin with. BLP applies to talk pages, blogs and right-wing rags are not reliable sources. Save it for gab or 4chan or whatever - this isn't the place. Nblund ^talk 01:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Warning For clarity, everything here needs to remain as JY per the court's suppression. Any further use of anything beyond that will result in oversight and blocks. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

User:DeltaQuad, can you link me to the Wikipedia policy which states that we must censor an individual's name if that name is censored in a court proceeding, regardless of whether the full name is used in a reliable source? I also notice that you oversighted about 20 edits on this talk and I'm not sure why. JY's name was not used in any of them except my most recent one. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME seems to be fairly clearly applicable here. The mainstream reliable sources I've seen have only referred to her as JY, and we don't lose any useful context by following suit or leaving the name out entirely. A number of the oversighted edits came from an IP user trying to edit war the name onto the page. The relevant discussion is still all here, and the page now mentions the other suits, so I think we've addressed the core issue. Nblund ^talk 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME states that it's "often preferable" to omit names in a situation such as this. It does not say that including a name should result in immediate blocking and oversight of the edit. There's a pretty big gap between the preference described in WP:BLPNAME and a hardline policy position like that. So I'm wondering what, exactly, DeltaQuad is referencing in terms of policy here. There may be something I'm not familiar with. P.S. I hope DeltaQuad is a Star Trek Voyager reference, that was one of my favorite shows of all time! Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that, as far as (not) including the name in the article, this is textbook BLPNAME, ticking every box: "a private individual" "discussed primarily in terms of a single event" whose name "has not been widely disseminated" and "has been intentionally concealed", where omitting it "does not result in a significant loss of context". (For comparison, Dril's article doesn't name him as far as I see, and his name came out as part of a notable event, and the article on Mattress Performance didn't name the alleged rapist for years, until he'd made e.g. a media appearance and counter-case naming himself.) Under circumstances like this where there's little chance the name will get added, and because talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, I have seen names hidden (hatted, removed, revdeled, or oversighted) even off of talk pages, especially if they seem to have been added to try to out the person (and in this case caution seems important since there seems to have been an off-wiki effort to out the person). Perhaps revdeling or something would have been sufficient, but I dunno if quibbling over that is productive. Getting back onto the broader topic at hand, I'll see if I could find any more documentation of the re-opening of the case, or the abeyance of other cases, etc. -sche (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The concern I have, among others, is that even the initials for this individual have been scrubbed from the article. It's unclear if we can even use the initials to refer to this person, and I think that needs to be cleared up before we go much further. Aside from that, BLPNAME is framed in purely discretionary terms subject a weighing of factors involved, yet it seems that name mentions are being shut down without discussion. So I also wonder if there's another policy here that I'm not familiar with. For all I know, there may be, and if there is I wouldn't want to run afoul of it. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"JY" is still used all over the talk page, so the initials are definitely fine here. I also think they're fine in the article if they're needed for clarity, but I removed them because they seemed unnecessary once I rewrote the paragraph. I don't think you need to worry as long as you're sticking to information that appears in high-quality reliable sources. The IP editor was not blocked for merely using JY's name, and the deleted stuff was not anything that anyone could possibly construe as a good faith discussion about article content. Nblund ^talk 02:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

My comment refers solely to any full name. Oversight Policy #2 is the reason. Any mention in a source is considered unreliable as the original source (court document) did not even release the name. Just as if a child was arrested, the Youth Criminal Justice Act prohibits the publication of the name, and therefore no one has a reliable source. We frequently remove those also. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I don't think we should necessarily comply with a particular country's redaction laws but you make a good point about the name being unavailable through reliable sources. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• At a recent hearing, the ban on publication of JY's name has been lifted, and the court has identified JY as Jessica Yaniv. Can we add that to the article now that the name is available through RS? https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/accusations-fly-at-human-rights-hearing-into-transgender-womans-brazilian-wax-complaint Cosmic Sans (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve, exactly? Nblund ^talk 14:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The same purpose as using anyone's name on Wikipedia. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC) For the record, this is the court order that lifted the publication ban: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/jul/147_Yaniv_v_Various_Waxing_Salons_2019_BCHRT_147.pdf Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the BCHRT, how does a name add anything of substance to the article? I see that the publication ban has been lifted, but "we're legally permitted to do so" is not a reason to use someone's name. JY is still a person known for a single event whose name has not been widely disseminated. As -sche pointed out: we sometimes leave out names even when those names are public. Nblund ^talk 15:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the threshold would be for "wide dissemination" but a search for "Jessica Yaniv waxing" yields over 40,000 results on Google. If that's not wide dissemination then I don't know what is. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC) It should be noted that Jessica Yaniv is not a low-profile individual as that term would be understood on Wikipedia. They are a fairly well-known activist who recently appeared before the Canadian Parliament (I think it was that body.) In any event, this is hardly the case where Wikipedia would be naming some random individual that has not been in the media and will never be again aside from this one event. As a well-known activist, I don't think the BLPNAME criteria would apply. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Widely disseminated meaning "wide dissemination" in reliable sources. Again: this already seem tangential to the article at best, why are we going out of our way to publicly identify a person who has tried to keep their identity private? What substantive information would we be adding that is relevant to the BCHRT? What's the point? Nblund ^talk 17:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This case has been heating up recently because the hearings just concluded. (I'm not sure if all of them have concluded, but at least one did.) It's already being spread by reliable sources, and when the decisions come down, I'd like to expand the article with a more thorough summary of the cases. This is already shaping up to be the most notable issue addressed by the BCHRT to date. I don't see a reason why we need to censor Yaniv's name when the court unsealed it, when reliable sources are covering it, and when Yaniv themselves is in the public eye as an activist independently of this event. But of course, because people had been oversighted in the past over this, I wanted to hash it out on the talk page well before I make edits. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What does her name add to the entry? Nblund ^talk 03:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's right there in the case caption, and Wikipedia is not censored. It's also heavily covered in reliable sources, and Jessica Yaniv is also a well-known activist. I can't see any reason not to include it, policy or otherwise. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This essay sort of gets at why this isn't a reason to include something. There's nothing censorious about avoiding plastering a person's name all over Wikipedia for no reason. Maybe post at the BLP noticeboard if you really think this is essential, but if you can't think of any encyclopedic reason to include the name, then why are you worried about it? Nblund ^talk 01:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I did give you several encyclopedic reasons, though. "But it's true!" was never one of my points. What would be your rationale for keeping it out? Cosmic Sans (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it, but from what I can tell you've said: "Wikipedia is not censored", "it's heavily covered in reliable sources" and "I can't see any reason not to include it". None of those arguments address the fundamental question of how including her name would be informative. This article is about the BCHRT. What do readers learn about the BCHRT from knowing JY's full name?

The reasons not to include are that JY is a private individual who is known only for a single event, who has apparently tried to avoid having her identity publicized. Her case may be of some passing interest, but I don't see how her name is, and err in favor of privacy with BLPs - so that really places the burden on you to show why this is necessary information. Like I said: if you really think this is essential info, maybe take it to a noticeboard, but I'm not convinced of the need and I think it's pretty irresponsible to include it simply because we can. Nblund ^talk 01:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a presumption that we're going to talk about the "who, what, when, where, and why" when covering events, just as all other encyclopedias do. Of course, there are sometimes reasons to omit names, but I don't see a case for that here. WP:BLPNAME is designed to protect low-profile individuals who would never be known except outside of one event. In this case, Jessica Yaniv is a well-known activist who has spoken to the Canadian Parliament and who is apparently a Miss British Columbia contestant. It's hard to say that an outspoken activist who gives public comment at a legislative session is, in any way, a "low-profile" person. So I think that deals with (1) why names are important for articles and (2) why Jessica is not a low-profile individual to whom BLPNAME applies. But if you need more convincing on that first point, consider that this is easily the most high-profile case that BCHRT has dealt with so far, and that profile will only raise once the decisions come down. This is actually going to be a fairly influential case in Canadian law, which is why I'm holding off until we get the decision. As far as I know, this is the only BCHRT case that has ever featured allegations of discrimination in this type of intimate situation, and it will deal with the intersection of religious objections vs. non-discrimination law. Wikipedia would be a terrible research resource if we could talk about the case only in general terms, avoiding the discussion of names. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you point to any serious legal analyses of this case? The coverage I'm seeing seems fairly limited, and most of it is coming from questionable sources with a sensational bent. The entry for the Supreme Court doesn't mention the full names of most of the plaintiffs in landmark cases - it's clearly not a necessity to know that Jane Roe's real name was Norma McCorvey in order to understand the basics of how Roe V. Wade changed the law. Nblund ^talk 15:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

As a preliminary matter, the standard for notability and inclusion here is not whether there is "serious legal analysis" of the case, but rather whether reliable sources have covered it. I do think you'll get more legal analysis, though, when the decision is handed down. That's part of the reason why I'm waiting until the decision has been released and outlets have had a chance to cover that decision. I just wanted to get this name issue out of the way well in advance. In any event, the Row v. Wade article does include Norma's full name. I'm having a hard time finding any of these cases that don't contain the plaintiff's full name, in fact. Clearly the presumption is to include this information. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC) One last thought - Roe v. Wade isn't a representative sample because, well, Roe v. Wade is the name of the case. The Jessica Yaniv case is captioned "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons." If we can't say Yaniv's name, we can't use the official case caption, which would be silly. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The article on Roe V. Wade does include a full name, but the article on the judicial body that heard her case doesn't. The SCOTUS article doesn't really name any plaintiffs, or discuss their personal biographies, because they are sort of outside of the scope for an article on the judicial body.

Legal analyses aren't a prerequisite for notability, but if you intend to talk about the legal implications of the case, then you're going to need to provide sources that support those claims. I'm not seeing it. If that changes, maybe it would be a discussion worth having - but right now the article lacks a lot of general info about the BCHRT. Nblund ^talk 15:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, the reason you aren't seeing sources that discuss the legal implications is because there isn't a decision yet. Which is exactly why I'm waiting. Anyway, trying to draw an analogy between SCOTUS and BCHRT breaks down when you consider the nature of each body, the age of each body, and the relative number of cases each body has handled. Direct access to BCHRT by litigants came about in 2003; SCOTUS has been around since 1789. Of course the BCHRT article would contain a list of highlights, while such a thing would be impossible for SCOTUS. Also, SCOTUS addresses a wide variety of cases relating to constitutionality, while BCHRT addresses only human rights issues. We can't use the way the SCOTUS page looks as a template for the BCHRT page. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I've blanked the section in discussion here as it's an unresolved legal tribunal in which all parties have a right to WP:PRIVACY and for which WP:TOOSOON applies along with WP:NOTNEWS. Should the tribunal issue a decision I'd suggest very carefully revisiting this issue with the rights of all the individuals involved to privacy being respected. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I reverted that blanking because I don't believe your interpretation of our BLP/Privacy policy applies. Can you quote exactly what you're relying on? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

See WP:BLP/N. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is a specific quotation from a Wikipedia policy, as I do not believe your interpretation to be correct. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

---

I feel like this discussion ultimately went nowhere. The BLP policy protects information such as, and I quote from the policy, "full names and addresses." It does not, in any way, state that we should censor information if it could somehow be matched up with a living person with enough research. I've asked repeatedly for a direct quote from a Wikipedia policy stating such, and as of yet, nobody has been able to provide it. That's because it doesn't exist. Not only does it not exist in any Wikipedia policy, it's also a bad and unworkable idea. By that logic, we would be essentially unable to cover any subject in which a non-famous BLP is involved. I think we should follow Wikipedia policy. I don't think we should use tortured interpretations of policy.

I'm not conceding the point, by the way, on the public figure issue. I believe they are. They've given at least one media interview on the waxing cases recently, and they have released public statements about this cases. This is an individual who engages with the public on this topic and are, in no way, trying to keep their involvement in this case hidden or under the radar.

But, that's beside the point. Like I discussed earlier, I don't intend on adding more information to the article until the decision has been handed down. In the meantime, though, there has been coverage of this in Forbes and by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The amount of reliable sources have only increased and are clearly demonstrating that this is the most famous case that the BCHRT has dealt with.

I suppose we'll need to cross these bridges again when the time comes. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS - just because coverage exists in the media does not confer encyclopedic reliability on an event. Especially when BLP concerns are in play. Until a result is reached, this is WP:ROUTINE - a human rights tribunal hears a human rights case. That's not encyclopedically relevant; that's literally just the tribunal doing their job. When a decision is reached, if there is reliable coverage, it might be WP:DUE - until then it's literally nothing Wikipedia should comment on. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my last post, "I don't intend on adding more information to the article until the decision has been handed down." Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You're right that there's no explicit policy prohibiting this content, but WP doesn't really provide exhaustive lists of what not to do. The general idea behind BLP and policies like WP:AVOIDVICTIM is "when in doubt, leave it out" - and this is consistent with that approach.

For what it's worth: the CBC story is helpful, but opinion pieces (like the one in Forbes) are generally not considered reliable sources for statements of fact. I agree that waiting for a decision is probably the best way to approach this, and there's very little harm in waiting for solid sourcing. Nblund ^talk 15:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ontario

An editor recently reverted my addition of information in the BC Waxing cases claiming my info was from some case in Ontario. I'm unaware of someone from Ontatio filing complaints against 16 salons and the news article cited both referred to JY and the identified information. No, the information was not related to this editor's original research into a case in Ontario. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It's in the Calgary Sun source: "In May, it was reported that a transgender woman was seeking $50,000 after being denied service at Mad Wax, a body hair removal business in Windsor, Ont. Jason Carruthers, Mad Wax’s president, told the Windsor Star at the time that the only employee working that day was a Muslim woman who refrains from physical contact with men outside family. And the only staff member who did male waxing was on sick leave." - this is a different case. Nblund ^talk 04:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

As you would have seen if you bothered to actually read the revision comment, citation 14 contains the information I introduced and is about the BC cases. Next time read before you revert. Thank you for wasting my time. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Then why did the sentence cite the Calgary sun? In any case: reiterating the hearing, including speculation about JY's genitals, is really gratuitous here. This entry is about the BCHRT. Nblund ^talk 12:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I have to disagree. Information about pertinent cases is perfectly relevant to the BCHRT article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I opened a thread at the BLP noticeboard to request outside input, but I'm removing it in the mean time until a consensus develops. Frankly, its seems like were devolving in to a WP:COATRACK and WP:NOTNEWS issue here by trying to include a blow-by-blow account of the hearings. Nblund ^talk 14:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussing the factual and legal issues that were raised in a case doesn't constitute a "blow-by-blow account of the hearings." It's basic, fundamental information that you would expect to find in relation to any case. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, these are comments made by the subjects of the complaint during a single day of hearings. They're not facts so much as disputed claims by one party in a heated dispute that were repeated by a right-leaning news outlet without any apparent fact checking. I can't find any other mainstream coverage of this, and we're far afield of anything relevant to the BCHRT. I wouldn't expect to visit the entry for this tribunal and read a full page of detailed anecdotes with no substantive information on structure or case law. Nblund ^talk 15:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The allegations in a case are important to a discussion of the case, even if they were only made on a single day of hearing or if they're disputed. It's far more than just an anecdote. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear I find it hilarious that you moved the goal posts, nblund. First you feigned concern that the citation didn't contain the information given and now you feign concern that the information given is improper under BLP. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. It's almost like the edit had more than one problem. Nblund ^talk 18:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You didn't raise more than one problem. You waited until your non-issue was addressed then panicked and came up with another hours later. 75.162.75.252 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case

A current case with a lot of media attention, but too little meaningful case related content to justify an article, when the varied and colourful personal pundit opinions about the trans woman raising the case are excluded. Fæ (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd probably support merging that article, but not here. It's too little about the BC HRT, too much about Jessica Yaniv. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Once you exclude all the transphobic abuse and allegations against Yaniv, there's precious little to justify an article about the person themselves. I believe they are not known publicly for anything other than the tribunal case. Correct me if I've missed something. --Fæ (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Collapse discussion about hearsay about a living person

You say "transphobic abuse", others say "dangerous predator, discrediting the entire issue". I think they have a point. As noted elsewhere, I doubt if WP can do anything useful with this subject, as the constraints it has for good broad reasons make it incapable of dealing approporiately with a narrow case such as this. But dig deeper - there's a whole lot more than waxing involved here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Please provide a link to the child abuse prosecution case you appear to be referencing. If you are just making allegations, please comply with BLP instead. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Your deletions to an article whilst at AfD are skating very close to BLANKING. Your accusations of "vandalism" about any editor who happens to disagree with you are likewise very close to NPA. When you've alienated every editor on WP who might support your general case, then ANI gets to be a lonely place. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC) To complain that something is "unsourced" because you removed the source is highly disingenuous. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC) I have no idea why you think your complaints about me justify using this talk page to make child abuse allegations against a living person. Please comply with BLP, you have made a serious allegation that the subject is a "dangerous predator", which matches online allegations that I have seen on Twitter and dismissed as transphobic abuse that I see no reason to be reproduced on Wikipedia. Please provide the reliable sources to back up your allegation made above which you have not retracted. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Postmedia in Canada is a reliable source and has reported on the allegations here. The facts remain unsubstantiated beyond the original muckraking, but reporting at Postmedia is generally reliable and is not on the same level as "online allegations". Newimpartial (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC) As far as I'm concerned, this isn't an RS issue. It's an issue of WP:BLP1E, WP:ROUTINE and WP:EVENTCRIT. The postmedia article is reporting on the most routine thing possible - a government organization doing the job it was intended for. When the tribunal actually issues findings it'll possibly be notable. Until then, it doesn't matter how many watercooler articles Canada's favourite conservative news conglomerate publishes. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Newimpartial: I also have a decent perception of the National Post, but the Post Media corporation owns a lot of papers, and they're not all good. This article initially appeared in the (far less reputable) Toronto Sun, and the author (Graeme Gordon) seems to blend quite a bit of commentary in to his "reporting". He's got three stories on this case, and they're all extremely tabloid-y. Ultimately, the source here is the Post Millennial - which is shit, as far as I can tell. I think it's telling that Gordon's reports don't appear in the seemingly more reputable (though still conservative) National Post. In any case, it's irrelevant to this article. Nblund talk 14:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Sorry, you must be misunderstanding the content here. The story is headlined with a photograph by Dan Dicks, famous for conspiracy theory garbage, notable for creating that garbage to get clickbait, known for being banned from Facebook and using Twitter to post abusive faked photoshopped images of trans women and to write outrageous homophobic/transphobic shit to get retweets like "The Prime Minister thinks it’s appropriate to lead children into the pride parade! CHILDREN!!! I asked “can a man be a woman” and “is it responsible of you to have children with you?!”" (posted yesterday). Take some time out and reconsider where the threshold can and should be set for who Wikipedia should be requoting or promoting as evidence about living people. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC) I think I understand the content fine. The "Dan Dicks screengrab" may headline the story, but the story goes not depend on the (rather drab) picture, and to discredit the story based on the credited photographer (or on one of the multiple subjects interviewed for it) is a weird kind of magical thinking IMO. AFAICT, theguardian.pe does indeed provide valid evidence for BLPs, though of course RSN would be a steonger authority. In any event, Fae, none of your "clickbait" argument has anything to do with the validity of theguardian.pe as a BLP source. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Let's take a closer look at the "valid evidence for BLPs" that this article by the tabloid hack journalist Graeme Gordon promotes as "fact": <racist bile> claimed to be written by <BLP subject> as evidenced by the (highly unreliable, no edit policy and 1/2 of the editors is fictional) postmillennial website based on their hearsay of a conversation on Facebook. Cut and paste op-ed material from Calgary Herald <not stated is that this is also owned by the Post Media network> which deliberately misgenders <BLP subject> for no good reason. <BLP subject> "told the Sun" various scandalous things, but clearly they did not tell this publication anything, as the same quotes appear in multiple Post Media network publications as if they were exclusive interviews. It is not clear who <BLP subject> was told they were speaking to, if in fact they were speaking to Gordon directly this is not actually stated in writing (plausible deniability?). Lawyer Jay Cameron is quoted as saying various things that support the case they are making, it is never made clear where these quotes came from. Clearly they are not 1st person interviews because that would be stated as a win for "the SUN" "The Post Millennial also reported" <series of completely unverified hearsay statements of serious criminal conduct, published by a website with no editorial policy and at least one fictional editor> * Closes with "Copyright Postmedia Network Inc." which is surprising as most of the material in the article is not their copyright, by definition. Huh, how does any of this show "theguardian.pe does indeed provide valid evidence for BLPs"? It's the sort of stuff that will get you banned from Twitter or Facebook, let alone Wikipedia. * - As more time passes and there continues to be no verifiable evidence whatsoever that the much shared on social media hearsay about extremely serious criminal conduct has actually been reported to any proper authority, and no statement exists that the police have ever been contacted, this very damaging hearsay (which the BLP subject has been reported as firmly denying) has not been touched by any respectable newspaper, the more this seems very highly likely to be the sort of complete fictional fabrication that is a common experience for all trans women who find themselves subject to a flood of abuse on social media. The fact that it is posted as click-bait, a joke or similar, and gets reported by a tabloid trash paper as something-seen-by-someone-else-on-Facebook, and then much reported in "below the line" comments by the normal internet trolls, does not mean that there is a level of being "popular" that makes it "evidence" or sufficiently "fact" for Wikipedia. The material is disgusting, and it is a BLP violation and a breach of Arbcom discretionary sanctions to post it or any part of it on Wikipedia. The fact that it is the apparent norm that these allegations have been repeatedly linked to and partly repeated here on Wikipedia, directly against the name of the BLP subject, should be a source of alarm and concern for all administrators. I do not see administrators lining up to collapse or remove this material, not one. --Fæ (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

*Oppose as it is too long and notable in its own right. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• • Clarifying given the other article's AfD discussion. I prefer that the other article should remain on its own, but I do not oppose a merge here, as it is greatly preferable to deletion. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Collapse discussion about hearsay about a living person

*Oppose agree with Andy and Crossroads. I think it should become an article about Jessica Yaniv based on the additional information Andy found from before the genital waxing times. There's also some RS material on a child exploitation allegation and at least one RS about Meghan Murphy being banned from Twitter for calling Yaniv by male pronouns. Rhino (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Request @Andy Dingley and Rhinocera: both of you have chosen to use Wikipedia to publish serious allegations relating to child abuse against Yaniv. Both of you have been informed that Arbcom discretionary sanctions apply to this article on your talk pages, and presumably you were previously aware of them as you editing this page due to the very large notices at the top of the page. Please provide reliable sources that support these serious criminal allegations or retract your allegations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC) * Maybe someone uninvolved in any transgender-related topics should help us decide whether the combination of The Post Millennial and The Daily Mail is sufficient. For the record, the two have them have also been re-reported by National Review, The Daily Wire, Feminist Current, PJ Media, Christian Post, Sputnik News, and several other less notable sites. According to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, Daily Mail is "deprecated." There is no entry for Post Millennial. I agree that the sources are very thin by standards of general reliability, but on the other hand I see no indication that this story in particular was made up. As such I think it would be best for uninvolved third parties to help us decide what to do. I'm genuinely unsure. Rhino (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC) You are throwing up ridiculously poor tabloid junk and hearsay* to justify a very serious criminal allegation against a living person. Unless this is fixed through retraction or credible reliable sources which to Wikipedia's standards show that the subject has committed serious crimes or is under current prosecution for these serious crimes, this has to be a matter for WP:AE later today as it must be read that you have both refused to retract or correctly source your allegations published on Wikipedia. These allegations are the worst sort of damaging attacks against the person, I do not believe it benefits Wikipedia in any way to have them hanging about as unsourced "fact" for hours, let alone days, so action is urgently needed. @Andy Dingley and Rhinocera: Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC) * Addendum OMG, the Daily Mail (?!) just cut & pastes material from thepostmillennial, so you are effectively single sourcing to a conspiracy theory website with no editorial policies and where one of the two named editors for the site is, based on their own publication about themselves, using a false name. --Fæ (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Rhino. No. Sputnik News and The Daily Mail are both already listed at RSP as unreliable. We already discussed the Daily Wire. The Post Millennial looks pretty brand new, but it doesn't look promising so far. If you sincerely need additional explanation as to why this won't fly, ask me on my talk page and I can lay out more details, but I think this is so patently obvious that it doesn't really warrant discussion on an article talk page. WP:BLP material requires high-quality sourcing. Nblund talk 14:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC) "WP:BLP material requires high-quality sourcing." -- In that case could you please help remove the content on the Meghan Murphy article which, as I've just found out, is not reflected in a single reliable source? I'm seeing very severe double standards here. Rhino (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC) That page is fully protected. You can read my views on the sourcing here. I agree that Media Matters is too weak for claims of fact, but it is light years better than the Daily Mail, so you're really lobbing stones from a glass house here. Nblund talk 17:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Surely you could contact an administrator or something, given that it's a WP:BLP article and the non-RS statement in Wiki-voice is in the lead section? The Media Matters piece is an opinion piece. Rhino (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Yeah, Media Matter is pretty close to an opinion piece. What do you think the National Review and PJMedia articles you linked to above are? I can't do anything you can't do. Discussions about Murphy should take place at Murphy's talk page. Discussions about user conduct should take place at those user's talk pages, or (even better) should just not be discussed at all unless you're prepared to go to WP:ANI with supporting evidence and diffs (and you should read this first).Nblund talk 18:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC) There's a misconception that the only gate an event has to pass through to be notable is WP:RS this is a problem, especially as there are so many sources grasping for so much content churn that non-notable events (such as crimes, human rights tribunals, etc.) become overblown with clickbait opinion and pseudo-opinion pieces. However the reality is that a remedy exists through the additional criteria that exist under WP:BLP and WP:EVENTCRIT. And this is where this issue fails. The subject of this article is a private individual known for precisely one thing: a human rights complaint. That's basically exactly what WP:BLP1E is talking about. And as for the complaint itself, well, WP:EVENTCRIT item 4 is pretty clear that routine events, gossip, etc. are not inherently notable unless there's a demonstrable lasting impact on society. So if the complaint is taken up and it leads to a decision with a major impact on beauty salon business, THEN it'd be a notable event. But a human rights tribunal hearing a human rights complaint? That's just any given Monday. It's not even news. And, of course, being news is even not enough for Wikipedia.Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Comments by Rhinocera struck as from a blocked sockpuppet account, per WP:EVADE. --Fæ (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• It should stay a stand-alone article, but we can merge if the article is deleted. This is easily the most-publicized case of the BCHRT and is therefore appropriate either on its own page, or part of this one. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I may be mistaken here, but I think "merge" is one of the possible outcomes of AFD. If the discussion favors "merge" then we can merge it here, but if it favors "delete" then merging would seem to run counter to that consensus. Nblund ^talk 19:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A deletion result in an AfD does not preclude a merge result here. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you know that to be the case or are you speculating? "Merge" is one of the five possible outcomes of a deletion discussion. I realize there are some gradations (partial merges etc.), but "merge if the consensus favors delete" sounds like you're playing Calvinball. Nblund ^talk 20:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll direct you back to the policy you quoted, which was Guide to Deletion. As it states, "If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article" provided that you improve it to address the concerns. A "delete" outcome is not a permanent ban on the content that was in the article. It may very well be appropriate in some other article, or even as a "round two" of the same deleted article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see where it says "delete = merge". I would recommend running that interpretation by a third party before you try it. If the community consensus favors delete rather than merge, then your attempt at merging will simply be deleted - at best it seems like a waste of time. Nblund ^talk 20:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I never claimed that it said "delete = merge." I'm saying that if the underlying concerns regarding the content are addressed, this policy does not prevent the creation of the same article. That's right there in the policy. Similarly, the same content can be used in another article if improved. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, sure, but if you can think of a way to address the underlying content concerns in a way that might persuade the community to favor merging rather than deleting this article, then you should just make those improvements now and present that case in the ongoing deletion discussion. Nblund ^talk 21:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be Kept, so that's what my vote is going to be. My point still stands, however, that deletion is not a perpetual ban on content and my intention would be to merge some or all of the article into this article should it be deleted. With the caveat that I, personally, do not plan on doing so until the decision is rendered. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You have made that perfectly clear. However attempts to game Wikipedia will be challenged. Simonm223 (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you really believe that merging some information into an article after an AfD is an "attempt to game Wikipedia"? Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

If the AFD closes as an unambiguous "delete" and you respond by literally merging the entire article here, then, yeah, I think that would be clear-cut gaming the system. You can vote "keep" and still make a case for merging, but merging is one of the options currently being considered, and you're going to have a much harder time persuading people to support that outcome after an AFD has closed. Whatever you do is going to require consensus. Nblund ^talk 14:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that I was going to "literally merge the entire article here." In any event, please consult the Wikipedia policy regarding deletions. It allows for the recreation of deleted articles if improvements are made. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you misspoke? my intention would be to merge some or all of the article into this article should it be deleted. If you merge the article here after a clear-cut deletion close, you'll be reverted. If you can make improvements, make them now. Nblund ^talk 14:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, any material that will be readded will be readded in accordance with Wikipedia policy. There is no reason why I need to make those improvements now, and in fact, if the article is deleted then I would need to see the final deletion discussion in order to address whatever the deletion rationale was. Please try to cooperate in the editorial process instead of simply reverting everything. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Info Content published on this page has been raised for discussion at BLP/N. --Fæ (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"Six employees accuse UBC of discrimination"

I've removed a couple of cases from the "Notable cases" section, one because it did not have a secondary source to establish significance, and one because the secondary source indicated it was only a potential Tribunal case. I'd also support removing the section about the UBC complaints. The Global News article doesn't provide a lot of information, so it is difficult to tell which cases these are referring to, meaning we may not be able to update the section with information about their outcomes. Giving the framing of the cited news report, I think the complaints are notable because they are against UBC, but not (at this time) notable as significant BCHRT decisions.--Trystan (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems legit. I thought about deleting that one too, but figured I'd bit off enough with the waxing issue. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It's about the waxing case.

Is there any objection to including a 2 to 4 sentence summary about Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons in the same manner as the other cases referenced in this article? Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support as it is noteworthy enough to warrant a mention. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:TOOSOON - this is just a routine matter for the Tribunal notwithstanding Postmedia's short-lived tantrum and the associated sturm un drang. Let's wait until we see if this case has lasting relevance to the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

TOOSOON is an essay, and has to do with the notability policy, which applies to articles, not short passages within an article. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Do we have to re-litigate this every five minutes. See your "that's an essay" and raise you WP:BLPPRIVACY. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a single phrase in BLPPRIVACY applies, as that is about not posting stuff like "full name" (evidently meaning first, middle, and last), date of birth, address, etc. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Look. This went to WP:BLP/N the decision there was that the material should be removed from this article. Then a blocked sock created the fork article. That got deleted. Then there was the deletion review. Now we're circling back here again. This is getting WP:TEND. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The sock is irrelevant, and TEND does not apply, because many editors have been involved in this matter on both sides. And let's not forget the heavy involvement in these past discussions of a user who is now topic-banned for bullying and driving other editors away. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

When we now have a complete circle of varying attempts to insert potentially damaging material about WP:BLP protected persons that has looped back around to the first tactic, yes WP:TEND very much does apply. Perhaps stop whipping this WP:DEADHORSE and find something other to do with your time than attempting to advance a stale political talking point from last month on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

BLP/N did not reach a decision on this material. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure the other cases mentioned in this entry are particularly notable either. I think this is pretty inessential, but a bare bones account along the lines of: In 2019, a trans woman filed discrimination complaints against 13 waxing salons alleging that they refused to provide Brazilian Waxes to her because she is transgender. The tribunal said it expected to have a decision on the case by October, 2019 seems reasonable. Coat-racking a bunch of other stuff about Yaniv (her tweets, her genitals, her name etc.) would be a problem. Nblund ^talk 15:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason whatsoever to not include Yaniv's current first name (not the deadname). It has already been used in RS. WP:BLPNAME allows it and people will be searching for it. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

"Why not?" is not a reason for including someone's full name. What does it add? Other cases in the section do not mention names, and they seem to work just fine. Nblund ^talk 15:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Because the whole point of this distraction is to try and put the same content we deleted last month back in since the attempt to dispute the AfD failed. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I am not trying to "distract" anyone from anything. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been trying very hard to assume good faith. But it's difficult when the same people try to start the same discussion four times in the course of a month, picking a new venue every time they get shut down in the previous one. WP:SEALION applies. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not the same discussion at all, actually. The question of whether there should be a stand-alone article is a very different question from whether it deserves a mention in this article. And I'm assuming you're counting the DRV in your count, which is different from this one. Please refrain from casting aspersions in the future. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You can count me as stridently opposed per all the same rationales that were expressed during the initial discussion of this topic in this article at WP:BLP/N, at the subsequent AfD and at the DRV. We've trodden this ground. We need not do it again just because you don't want to let it go. Simonm223 (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, you've made your position perfectly clear and if you do not want to participate any further, you don't have to. Your voice will still be counted. Between the last time we revisited this issue on this page and now, there has been a substantial development in sourcing - even if you completely ignore all Postmedia sources. So it's a good topic to revisit as the situation has materially changed. If you're done trodding this ground then you don't have to any further. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm going nowhere. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That's entirely up to you, but please refrain from making comments to the effect that I'm trying to distract people from something (whatever that might be - it's not as if this page is heavily edited) if you do decide to continue to participate. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop pushing to include information about non-notable BLPs before they have any encyclopedic relevance. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

For a supposedly non-notable person, they have coverage in quite a few reliable sources including the Economist, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Global News, Yahoo! News, The Glasgow Herald, The Globe and Mail, The Australian, PinkNews, and more. That's not even touching the Postmedia sources. The case has been cited in political debates in Scotland and Australia. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The option to merge was considered at the AFD, and it didn't gain significant support, so I think its valid to ask what changes are being proposed that would address those concerns in a way that would achieve consensus. The notability standards are somewhat different, but the same BLP and NPOV concerns that applied to that article apply here. Nblund ^talk 20:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of commenters at the AfD did not indicate whether they were for or against merging. So, I don't think there's any consensus either way on that. I'd be happy to address and BLP and NPOV concerns but I'm not sure what part of those policies would apply. Personally, I'd be okay with something like what you've suggested above, Nblund. I might want to explain a little more of the relevancy and some of the notable coverage, but I couldn't see how that would violate BLP or NPOV. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

What additional context are you suggesting? There's no sense pretending that the outcome is going to be any different if you fail to address those problems here. The same editors will likely participate in the same discussion about the same content. Nblund ^talk 20:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• This isn't a BLP. Now much of WP:BLP will still apply, as will WP:BLPRS (which this would easily meet), but WP:BLPNOTE doesn't apply. WP:N for BC HRT is easily met (surely you're not challenging that?) and this would them come down to WP:UNDUE, not WP:BLPNOTE. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

BLP applies to all content related to a living person. Do you mean WP:NBIO? Has anyone cited WP:BLPNOTE? Nblund ^talk 20:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Describing this as " pushing to include information about non-notable BLPs" is attempting to apply BLPNOTE to this article, which isn't a BLP. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Notability (in the colloquial sense rather than the jargon WP:GNG sense) is part of BLP. WP:BLPPRIVACY and the related sections talk about questions of noteworthiness. Essays like WP:COAT are also related to questions of notability, and the core of BLP is that the three pillars (including NPOV/DUE) are imperative when dealing with material related to living persons. Pushing irrelevant and unimportant information about a BLP on to a page is a problem regardless of where we do it. Nblund ^talk 21:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: - Well, to be more specific, I don't see how this content would be violative of BLP or NPOV. (I'm not saying that these policies would never apply to this article at all.) I would say something like this under the heading of "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons": In 2018, a trans woman filed discrimination complaints against 13 waxing salons alleging that they refused to provide Brazilian Waxes to her because she is transgender. In response to the complaints, several of the estheticians said that they lacked the training required to wax what they considered to be male genitals, or that they were not comfortable doing so for religious or personal reasons. Oral argument was heard in July 2019, and the tribunal expects to issue a decision by October, 2019. The case garnered significant international attention. I think that's a fair summary of the complaint, the response to the complaint, the current status of the case, and the coverage of the case - all in four sentences. It also does not mention their full name (although the last name is in the case caption), which is something of a compromise although I don't think there's anything wrong with using the full name. What do you think? User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^{talk to me} 21:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC) PS, I changed my username. This is Cosmic Sans. User:May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^{talk to me} 21:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the BLP issue with discussing a person's genitals on Wikipedia should be fairly self-evident at this point. The inclusion of the name and the inclusion of "male genitals" were the two issues I raised at BLPN previously. Nblund ^talk 22:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there any way to express the estheticians' objections that you would find agreeable? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 22:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably not given the current coverage. For one, we don't know the significance or the weight to accord to that objection because there's no decision and no serious legal analysis, and there's barely enough reporting to verify any of those claims. Secondly, we don't include additional information on Yaniv's complaints (she mentions elsewhere that she was denied other services) and we probably can't do so without further extending the article. We don't have enough factual information to cover that stuff neutrally and in a way that respects privacy. Nblund ^talk 22:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: - Thank you for continuing to discuss this with me. As for weight, we do have reliable sources which articulate the position so I don't think there's a weight problem. We don't need the final court decision to say that the defendants argued X, Y, and Z. As for Yaniv's other complaints, those could be included very easily with a few extra words. I hear your problem with "male genitalia" but perhaps we can re-word that to be more accurate and also less invasive. None of the estheticians actually saw Yaniv's genitalia but rather assumed that she had male genitalia. Perhaps if it was worded to the effect of "lacked the training required to wax what they assumed to be male genitalia"? Because in that case, we are not claiming it one way or the other. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we're making an assertion about what someone else believed - which we can't really prove. Why not note that the Brazilian wax involves removing hair around the genitals and pubic area? I'm pretty sure readers can get the picture. We don't necessarily need to include X, Y, and Z. Sometimes "Z" is some humiliating but legally insignificant detail that is released in order to win a PR battle. Nblund ^talk 14:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need to say that they believed it; we can be clear that this was their argument in court. (What they really believed is up to them - but we can report on what they argued through RSes.) So perhaps something like they "argued that" instead of that they believed it? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is the discussion of her genitals in general. Several of the other cases listed here don't really mention defenses from either side. Surely this can at least wait for a decision. Nblund ^talk 15:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the situation will become clearer once a decision is reached -- which will also undoubtedly generate more reliable source references as well. I'd be fine with omitting the response in the interim if we could reach a consensus on everything else. I suppose we'd have to address the BLP/POV concerns down the road. The part that I find hard to deal with is the idea that BLP prevents any mention of the defenses at all. I just don't see anything like that in WP:BLP. I suppose it could perhaps be embarrassing to some extent, but that's not a reason to scrub an article. (There are plenty of BLPs that contain information that the subject would love to delete.) But even in this case, I'm not sure they would. Yaniv has been very active on Twitter talking about this case, as well as giving several media interviews. It's not exactly hush-hush information. So I'm still just not quite getting how BLP is violated by talking about the defenses, but in the interests of compromising and working together I'd skip that for now. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Aside from my (pretty obvious) frustration with the repeated attempts to re-open this debate by a committed group of editors, my main concern is that I remain concerned that this will be used as a WP:COATRACK to speculate on the shape of Yaniv's privates. Furthermore I remain unconvinced that Yaniv rises above the WP:BLP1E bar, and I don't believe that our responsibility to respect the privacy of living people is absolved just because they share things on Twitter. Frankly she controls her Twitter account. She doesn't control Wikipedia content about her. And that difference in locus of control matters - we have a responsibility to be more careful with her privacy than she is. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: - WP:BLP1E is concerned with whether an individual known for one event should have their own article as opposed to a mention in the article about the event. It does not, in any way, suggest that individuals who are known for only one event should not be mentioned anywhere. So really, including this information in BCHRT is precisely what WP:BLP1E would want us to do should all the criteria be met. I'm hoping you could elaborate a little more on what you consider to be "speculating on the shape of privates." Certainly, there are accusations in this case that directly implicate that issue and I personally would not consider a neutral and factual description of the allegations on both sides to be improper speculation. But I'd like to know more about what you mean by that so that we can work together toward a resolution. Finally, the primary reason for inclusion of material is not that Yaniv has been public on Twitter about the case but rather the coverage in publications like The Economist, Canadian Broadcasting Company, PinkNews, and so on and so forth. I'm not sure how Yaniv's privacy would be improperly compromised. (Improperly being the operative word because, to some extent, writing anything about a living person is infringing on privacy - but if that's the rationale, we might as well delete everything about any living person.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's just say that certain gendered language regarding her anatomy has been argued to be of central importance to this subject in the past three go-arounds with this. And this language is in turn based on statements from news outlets and blogs that don't necessarily have any means to know these things with any evidence. When combined with the explicitly transphobic character of many of the postmedia editorials that made the central case for the supposed notability of this incident, it creates a problematic position for Wikipedia. And I've long maintained it doesn't serve the encyclopedia project to be a salacious regurgitation of media causes célèbres. Just because journalists talk about something doesn't mean it's encyclopedically relevant. In this case, I don't believe that a human rights tribunal agreeing to hear a human rights complaint is inherently encyclopedic. When combined with the salacious nature of the case, the environment in which it arose (an election year,) the clear source of the coverage (a media empire known for its consistent enthusiastic support for one of Canada's political parties,) and the privacy concerns of the otherwise non-notable individual at the center of the complaint, I've argued all along that the best thing for Wikipedia to say about this issue, until such time as there's some evidence that it's relevant to the human rights tribunal in a non-routine way is nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a fine but important distinction between saying that Yaniv has certain genitalia (which we are NOT saying) versus stating that the waxers assumed Yaniv had certain genitalia and declined to wax on those grounds. You are right to say that news outlets have no idea what's in Yaniv's pants, but that's beside the point because nobody is trying to add that into the article. So I agree with you there. As for the rest of your reply: you can take all the Post Media sources out (which I assume is the "clear source of the coverage" that you're referring to) and you will still have many excellent sources like The Economist or PinkNews or the Canadian Broadcasting Company. In fact, I would propose that no Post Media sources be used in this BCHRT article if only to avoid the argument surrounding them. You could build an entire article on this case just from The Economist, Yahoo! News, PinkNews, The Australian, The Glasgow Herald, or the CBC. Let me ask you: what kind of proof would you require for this to be encyclopedic in your eyes? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 18:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for Simonm223, but the kind of sourcing I would want to see, ideally, is high-quality coverage that explores the legal and political significance of the case, and that attempts to answer basic factual questions. Its possible that kind of sourcing will emerge, but it hasn't yet. It's also possible that the case will be dismissed on a technicality and no one will ever talk about it again, at which point we would probably just remove this section all together. For my part, I'm okay with a brief mention provided that we're willing to hold off names and genitals, but I'm still pretty bearish on the long term significance here. Nblund ^talk 18:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

What I would like to see is some evidence that there is lasting significance to the BC human rights tribunal coming out of this case. After all, they're who this page is about and per WP:BLP1E we've already established that Yaniv herself doesn't warrant a dedicated page. As it stands what the tribunal is doing is literally just their job and none of the erstwhile coverage of this issue has suggested anything other. We don't have RSes saying this is a change in scope, or that this is an unusual case for them to take on, or anything like this. Yaniv's case made for decent media hay. And Postmedia is powerful enough that other outlets kind of had to pick it up and run with it. But see again my point about how Wikipedia shouldn't be an agregator of newspapers, and I feel it's an unfortunate diminishment of the concept of notability to treat it as being nothing more than a matter of counting newspaper clicks. What notability, in this case, would look like is largely similar to what Nblund proposed above, only slightly more broad. A discussion of the impact in law this case had would certainly count; but I would also be satisfied with sources that showed that there'd been some impact on the tribunal itself. Furthermore, I'd reject any proposal that either tried to explore Yaniv's pre-transition identity, whether she'd had surgery before, after or during this matter or the identities of the defendants in this case (as their privacy is just as important as hers). Frankly, none of that information is likely to be part of the future locus of notability for this incident since the locus of notability for the incident on this page would have to be the impact of the case on the tribunal itself. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I should note that Yaniv did not have a dedicated page; at least not in recent memory. The deleted page was Jessica Yaniv waxing case. It was not Jessica Yaniv and did not contain biolographical information except as it related to the case. (I think there was a Jessica Yaniv page under her old name that was deleted sometime in the past, but that's not relevant to his discussion.) In any event, I disagree with your interpretation of policy insofar as you say that "the locus of notability for the incident on this page would have to be the impact of the case on the tribunal itself." I don't see the authority for that kind of statement, nor does it make sense because I can't think of any court case that had an impact on the tribunal that issued the decision. I'm a little puzzled by that standard. Are you getting it from somewhere? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC) Update: I did think of one case - Marbury v. Madison. But for the most part, court cases are relevant for their effect apart from any specific effect on the tribunal. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the part where I said that I'd accept that as well as the criteria Nblund proposed. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm just trying to parse out where the objections are so that I can propose a compromise solution. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

My preferred solution is to wait until after a decision is reached by the tribunal for inclusion. Barring that - zero mention of genitalia or the identities of plaintiff or defendant. Anything beyond "a transwoman initiated a complaint against N beauty salons for refusing waxing services" is not only WP:UNDUE (which I maintain this whole thing is) but also at risk of being used as a transphobic WP:COATRACK.Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. I'll have to think about how to best accommodate your position once we reach a conclusion of this discusion. I think it's untenable to exclude relevant content found in reliable sources because someone might, hypothetically, at some future date, use it as a WP:COATRACK. (That could apply to anything I suppose.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary and irrelevant detail that has been reported on extensively in deeply transphobic editorials. Inclusion of discussion of that is already effectively a transphobic coatrack as it's sufficient to say a service was requested and declined with the person to whom the service was declined claiming this was a violation of her rights as discrimination under a protected category. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Since we're talking about a court case, I think the definition of Materiality (law) is a good reference point for whether a fact is necessary or relevant. A fact is material if "it has some logical connection to a fact of consequence to the outcome of a case" (as the Wiki article puts it.) Certainly the reason for refusal of service is material to every case involving discrimination. Is the defense a complete negation of fact? (e.g. "I never got a message from someone named Jessica Yaniv, I have no idea what this is about") Or was it because the esthesticians disliked transgender people? Or was it because Jessica Yaniv had some reputation in the community? I could go on all day with hypotheticals, but my point is that unless we state what the defense is, there could be many many different options, each of which would make a difference. All controversy aside, this is a court case and it's customary to summarize court cases by stating (at the very least) what the allegations are and what the defenses are. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a court case; this is an encyclopedia about a yet-to-happen human rights tribunal. Frankly we should be treating anything about the substance of the tribunal per WP:CRYSTAL. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• CRYSTAL? Despite the fact that there are already two published reports by the Tribunal (and were used as sources on the waxing article). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Simonm223: The Yaniv case is not yet-to-happen; it did happen. There was a full hearing on the merits. Discussing the defenses asserted in the case is not speculative (as contemplated by WP:CRYSTAL) but rather something that was actually raised in front of the tribunal and therefore can be discussed. While it's true that the tribunal has not rendered a final decision, the fact remains that the defenses were asserted and are now firmly in the "past tense" - whatever the tribunal decides does not change what the defense argued at the hearing. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 18:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry MHSFUY - I was under the assumption it had not yet happened. Thank you for providing a polite correction here. I will strike through the crystal statement. Has the tribunal issued a ruling while I was not looking? Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. The decision has not yet been rendered but we should expect it sometime before the end of October. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 18:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Then I would contend it remains speculation whether claims regarding the shape of the plaintiff's genitals have any bearing whatsoever on the decision. As such, I maintain that information infringes too severely on her privacy without serving any encyclopedic relevance. I would also contend that the privacy of the defendants should be maintained until at least after the decision is reached. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you unpack exactly what you mean by "privacy"? I want to address your concerns because we're talking about reporting on the most fundamental details of this case, specifically the position offered by the defense. This is all a matter of public record at this point, supported by many reliable sources, and articulated by Jessica Yaniv in at least two media interviews (that I'm aware of) and many public statements made online. As for the defendants - have we ever identified them by name? I don't think we have, as there are so many of them. I think we've only referred to them collectively as "the estheticians." May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I think I've made my objections abundantly clear at this point. A hard line in the sand about posting any details about the shape of genitals on a Wikipedia page adjacent BLPs. Allowing transmisogynistic coat rack phrases like the (laughably unscientific) "genetically male" into our article is a gross violation of WP:NPOV and WP:PRIVACY and I'm out of patience for a thousand requests for further clarification. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand your hard line, but I understand that you have it and not why you have it. The presumption for discussing court cases on Wikipedia is that they would include, at the minimum, a description of what the allegations were and what the defenses were. Contravening that on privacy grounds, especially when all that material is in the public record and has been discussed openly by the person whose privacy we are purporting to protect, doesn't past muster for me. From what I can tell, you and perhaps Nblund might be the only two people here who have taken this position, and I would honestly like to understand it so that I can try to propose a compromise. But at the same time, I hear you when you say you're out of patience and will stop that line of questioning. As for the "coat rack phrases" - I personally don't have an issue with "genetically male" (is that unscientific? I was always told that sex is different than gender, and this term seems to be describing sex) but if you had some other way to phrase it, that would be okay too. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been very patient with this WP:GREENCHEESE. Enough. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's enough. You are the only Opposer, and everyone else has expressed a position for Support - although to be fair, Nblund's support is conditional upon restrictions. I think consensus is clear that there should be a mention in this article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The current version seems like a reasonable compromise. I think it would be sufficient to say that "the case garnered international attention" without mentioning Carlson or the Liberal-National coalition in the last sentence, but that's really a minor point. Nblund ^talk 18:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as by far the most prominent case the BC HRT has yet heard. Also we have plenty of sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. There is clearly a great deal of information and RS discussion related to this case. The case also perfectly illustrates one of the concerns that has been raised by opponents of some of the related equality laws. Springee (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging editors who previously participated in this conversation here or at WP:BLP/N and who have not yet participated in this thread: @Masem: @JzG: @DIYeditor: @Zaereth: @Halo Jerk1: @Newimpartial: @-sche: @DeltaQuad:. I've excluded IPs and accounts I believe to be either indeffed or t-banned from this area. I've endeavored to capture everyone else. Please feel free to ping additional involved editors from this discussion previously. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Missed two @Govindaharihari: and @Mattnad:. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not ping me further about this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support Clearly a notable case with a short summary being appropriate. --Masem (t) 14:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. There's no way we're going to stoip people wanting to include it, and this has the merit of context. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Given that everyone has expressed support for inclusion except for Simonm223 (and inclusion with restrictions by Nblund), I have added a paragraph on the Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons case. In deference to the concerns raised by Nblund and Simon, there is no mention of genitalia. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Crux of the case

The summary of the Yaniv case currently has the line “The crux of the case has been described as whether businesses should be allowed to refuse services on the basis of gender identity.” While sourced, this is so oversimplified as to be misleading. The BC Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in services customarily available to the public based on gender identity, unless there is a bona fide and reasonable justification. There is an interesting question as to how that legal test will be applied to these facts, but the current description of the "crux of the case" only asks the rather obvious question of whether such a law exists at all.

I know sourcing with legal analysis is rather thin for this case, but I’m hopeful we can find a better summary of the legal issue than this.--Trystan (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it could be worded better. Do you have any proposal? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 19:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that description of "the crux of the case" was copied over from the deleted article, but the original sourcing was from the National Post. The Economist article that is currently cited gives a slightly different summary of "the crux of the case". Ultimately, I don't think either is particularly good source for that kind of legal judgement. Instead of this, why not cite the CBC and say that the complainant is seeking: "financial remedies of $25,000 from at least one corporate salon and $7,500 from an independent esthetician. She also wants the B.C. Human Rights tribunal to issue a statement declaring the refusal of waxing services to be discriminatory and prohibited." Nblund ^talk 19:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• What's the source for that? (as that's clearly a "legal opinion" in the full sense of the phrase)

I would disagree with this. The crux of the case is whether the crux of the case is whether businesses should be allowed to refuse Yaniv services on the basis of their gender identity. Canadian law is that they cannot. So a case on that basis would appear to be a strong one.

However no business appears to have done this. They have refused service instead on the basis that Yaniv was asking for their scrotum to be waxed, and that they were not in the business of scrotum waxing. Now that is a far more subtle legal question and there are many worldwide who would support such a refusal (whilst accepting the law against discrimination otherwise). Now you can dress this up how you like. You can call it a lady's "tanuki pouch" if you prefer, like a dubbed Ghibli film. But a key part of evidence for this case is that Yaniv is offering a scrotum for waxing, not any other body part. Whether they have one or not (their own tweeted claims are various, implausible and contradictory) is immaterial. AFAIK, no such scrotum has as yet entered a waxing studio or been displayed ready for waxing – all discussion of services offered has been over the phone, based on Yaniv's description, not the actual organ. But the key to the studios' refusals is still their refusal to perform their services on scrotums, no matter who they're attached to, or how they identify.

Accordingly, the presence (or possibly not) of said scrotum is key to this case, even if it is no more than a hypothetical one in a phone conversation. But the crux of the case is whether the salons are refusing service on the basis of the item (which they claim is a legitimate reason), or whether they are instead doing so on the basis of a claimed gender identity (which would be unlawful, yet also far from demonstrated as factual).

So we can't make a literally prejudical legal judgement here. We can't claim to know the "crux of the case" unless that is either in a recorded judgement of the court, or if we report it as the opinion of one of the legal advocates involved.

Also, the presence, or claimed presence, of a scrotum is still germane to the case and so should remain. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Just drop it. This is not necessary for the article. We're already giving this right-wing talking point of a story far more space than it deserves in an encyclopedia thanks to the WP:BLUDGEON campaign we've endured. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think Andy Dingley makes a very strong case for inclusion. I think we should be very delicate in how it is stated but if the actual objections raised are that the businesses in question do not perform services on male genitalia and that the businesses reasonably believed that was what was being requested then that should be included. It is the elephant in the room. Springee (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't even refer to "male genitalia". As biologically confusing as it is, then under prevailing legal definitions Yaniv may indeed be asking for their female scrotum to be waxed. Such times that we live in! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said above: that characterization of the case comes from this National Post story. I'm not aware of any reliable source has indicated anything remotely resembling your personal characterization - we don't know what the salons thought, we don't know the intimate details of Yaniv's genitals. If you have sourcing for that claim, provide it. Conjecture isn't adding anything. Nblund ^talk 14:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Jessica Yaniv discussion

There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv. -Rob (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

BCHRT as its own source

While it is good to have links to relevant rulings by the BCHRT, we should not actually rely on them as a source of facts in an article about them. If the bchrt makes a statement or ruling that's not covered, we shouldn't be covering that thing. Going directly to court (or quasi-judicial) documents verges on OR, as the Wikipedia editor is interpreting meaning, in writing what's meant for lawyers to process. Something could seem to say something at one spot, and but be altered by something else somewhere else. We should rely on 3rd party sources, to say what's important, and what does it mean. I'm not challenging the truthfulness of any claims, and that's why I haven't removed content. I just think our goal should be to have third party reliable source citations for everything, and not rely on primary sources, at least on a go-forward basis. --Rob (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)