Talk:Helen Joyce

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV issue[edit]

Sorry; I was clearly confusing the discussion of POV at the book article with that of the author article (this one), but the issues are the same. Both present disproportionately the positive reception the book has received in certain quarters, while downplaying the negative mainstream reception of the book. Newimpartial (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than this edit I have since made where I recharacterized one source and added the only negative one I know of, I am still waiting on more RS that negatively received the book. Please present them. Per Template:POV, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor....This template should not be used as a badge of shame....The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. Your framing of "certain quarters" vs. "negative mainstream reception" is quite odd, since all the positive reviews are as "mainstream media" as it gets. Crossroads -talk- 19:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: I second the request by User:Crossroads for WP:RS. Aside from Publishers Weekly′s unsigned review, which seems like an outlier, can you please identify examples of the negative mainstream reception? Certainly there has been criticism in the blogosphere and social media, but mainstream sources are quite another matter. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that this discussion should mainly take place at Talk:Trans:_When_Ideology_Meets_Reality then the result can be applied to this article as well as that one. Thanks, The Land (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidation should be up to User:Newimpartial, who created this section. I will support whatever they decide. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's one set of issues and the discussion should be in one place. More ink has been spilt on Talk:Trans:_When_Ideology_Meets_Reality, so best to have the conversation there. Thanks, The Land (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section here differs significantly from that article. Thus, the issues differ. I think this will lead to greater confusion. Crossroads -talk- 21:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the criticism in this article comes from one source: the daily dot. Is the daily dot considered a reliable source on Wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1401:C5AB:1:1:9BF4:3736 (talk)

Yes. Per an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline, The Daily Dot is considered generally reliable for Internet culture. Basketcase2022 (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The book's been picked up by Simon & Schuster for US distribution and received a positive review in the New York Times, which is about as mainstream as you can get. God knows what the Daily Dot even is. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New review of Trans[edit]

There is now an additional academic review of Trans, which someone more patient than I could work into this article: [1] Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: This BLP briefly surveys reviews contemporaneous with the mid-July 2021 publication of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, but those such as Alex Sharpe's, which appeared three months post-publication, are more properly the subject of subsection 2.1 Reviews at Wikipedia's separate page devoted to the book itself rather than to its author. If you have the patience, I recommend that you create a new section at Talk:Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality and suggest inclusion there. Basketcase2022 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a website that self-describes as a blog. In light of WP:BLPSPS and WP:V, this isn't an acceptable source for information in a BLP article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP doesn't operate at the article level. This content concerns the book, not the person. Newimpartial (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a biography of a living person; if the material was not information about the living person that's the subject of this article, then why is it in that person's biography? The line in the article is explicit that the blogpost criticized Joyce for not giving more thought to which individuals she selected. That isn't a mere criticism of a book; that's a criticism of a living person's decision. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that criticism of a living person's writing is subject to WP:BLP evidence requirements? That takes WP:CRYBLP to a whole new level, I'd say. Newimpartial (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. At risk of repeating my comment above, what I am suggesting is that the phrase criticized Joyce for not giving more thought to which individuals she selected implies that there is criticism of Joyce herself for not being thoughtful enough, not merely a criticism of the dead tree book. The second part of the sentence given other large contributions to LGBT organizations made by gentile billionaires, such as MacKenzie Scott, makes it very clear that this is a personal criticism. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty transparently not the case that a book review is a criticism of the author for the purpose of WP:BLP. So for instance, in the Reception section for Outliers (book), we have the quote "The reasoning in 'Outliers,' which consists of cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies, had me gnawing on my Kindle.". You'd have to clear some pretty hefty barriers to be able to put that kind of language in a BLP. Maybe in an instance where the review goes further and criticizes the author in their personal life we'd have BLP issues, but not for criticism of the book itself. Otherwise, basically any creative work in the past 50 years would be a BLP.
I also have misgivings about using a source that describes itself as a blog, but since all the authors for the blog appear to be academics I think it probably counts under the subject-matter expert exception to WP:SPS. Loki (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this does seem to be a criticism of Joyce herself, as evidence by its presence on the article about her herself. As even an expert SPS is not allowed on BLPs, it should not be here. Crossroads -talk- 21:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022[edit]

The phrase "the donation was to another group with a similar name and purpose" isn't objective. "and purpose" should be removed, as it's subjective analysis. The donation in question was to the Human Rights Watch, an international human rights group. Human Rights Campaign is a US based LGBT advocacy group. Threedogsonmars (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the "purpose". "Similar name" is the way the source describes it, and I don't think that the names are similar can really be in doubt. Crossroads -talk- 06:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new heading[edit]

This material contains unsourced claims, citations to blog sources (per the URL), and citations to sources that don't mention Joyce and hence create WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK issues. Giving the allegations a whole heading also is WP:UNDUE to the allegations, and it is in general too long. If you want to add something it needs to be strictly from WP:RS specifically about Joyce. Crossroads -talk- 04:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Skeptic is not a blog source, it is a reliable source per WP:RS. The allegation was made by a lecturer at Rutgers University. Allegations of antisemitism are a topic separate from her views on trans people. Other public figures, such as Jeremy Corbyn, have similar headings. The subject of the article, Helen Joyce, also explicitly agrees with the allegations of antisemitism made against Jennifer Bilek in the rebuttal published to her website, so the Times of Israel blog is not the only source for that specific allegation. The Skeptic source also discusses Bilek's antisemitism. Bilek's antisemitism is relevant as she is the source Joyce cited for the claims made in her book.
Can you provide a justification for removing details of the allegations made against Joyce? The original article included only her rebuttal, without providing any details about the allegation itself. Edit of the material may be warranted, but total removal is unwarranted without consensus. Camcguffin (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you propose specific text that relies solely on WP:Reliable sources that are specifically about Helen Joyce? The material I and Newimpartial reverted contained poor and irrelevant sources and unsourced material. Crossroads -talk- 06:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be less contentious if the last paragraph were removed and if the line about Bilek being accused of antisemitism were removed? Those are the only parts containing text that links to the disputed sources. I know you took umbrage with the article about Bilek for being a Times of Israel blog post, I just didn't realize it would be controversial as a simple corroboration of the fact that allegations exist, since Joyce herself agrees that Bilek is antisemitic in the rebuttal posted to her website. I made a point of mentioning that Joyce denounced Bilek's antisemitism, even if she didn't denounce all of Bilek's claims.
The Skeptic source and the Critical Legal Thinking sources I believe are reliable for proving that such allegations against Joyce exist, as long as it is made clear that they are opinions, per NPOV. A label like "antisemitic" is hard to objectively ascribe to someone, it's inherently subjective, but objectivity isn't required on Wikipedia for including allegations made against public figures. Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, etc. have similar headings.
Anyways, both of these sources do reference Joyce directly. The fact that these allegations exist in multiple publications + the fact that Joyce saw a need to publish a lengthy essay addressing them makes them noteworthy. Both articles were also written by academic figures. The Skeptic article was written by a lecturer at Rutgers University (Aaron Rabinowitz), and the CLT source is a review of Joyce's book that was written by a professor of law at the University of Warwick (Dr. Alex Sharpe).
To reiterate: would the material be acceptable if reduced to only what is directly attributable to these two sources + Joyce's rebuttal? I believe it is fair to include a heading devoted to the controversy as long as equal attention is given to both perspectives. Camcguffin (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a page on my user sandbox to propose specific text. Let me know if there are any specific revisions you recommend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Camcguffin/sandbox Camcguffin (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, the first sentence, Several critics have accused Joyce of incorporating antisemitic canards in her work, goes beyond the source and is really quite vague. Who are these critics? What canards? Only one is mentioned. It would be best to take a framework like 'Source X said....Source Y said....In response, Joyce said....' This helps avoid WP:SYNTH.
Drawing a comparison to Corbyn or Trump isn't helpful since those are simply very different situations, and they have done and said many more and different things. This is nowhere near the same degree. A single paragraph should be sufficient. Crossroads -talk- 23:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
> "Who are these critics? What canards?"
The critics cited are Aaron Rabinowitz and Alex Sharpe, whose opinions are representative of a much larger backlash that Joyce herself acknowledged receiving in the rebuttal posted to her website.
The alleged canards per antisemitic canards are the following:
- World domination ("Shaping the global agenda")
- "Jewish control" ("The money comes in large part from the world's most powerful people") See economic antisemitism).
- Making people LGBT ("Promotes early childhood transition")
Quotations in parentheses are taken from Joyce's book. You do not have to agree with the interpretation of the critics to acknowledge that such criticism exists. Whether or not someone is "antisemitic" is largely subjective, and readers of her Wikipedia biography can be trusted to draw their own conclusions.
Feel free to propose better phrasing for the sentence, but it is supported by the citations given.
> "Drawing a comparison to Corbyn or Trump isn't helpful since those are simply very different situations, and they have done and said many more and different things."
Joyce has done and said many things. I think it's a serious matter that elements of her book were seemingly derived from the musings of a Neo-Nazi, per her own citation of Jennifer Bilek on Twitter. An editor for an outlet as big as The Economist collaborating on books with Neo-Nazis is no small accusation.
Something I never addressed in my contribution that is also significant is Bilek's allegation of plagiarism, which Joyce addresses in the rebuttal posted to her site. Joyce did give credit to Bilek on Twitter, but she did not formally credit Bilek's research in her book. The three individuals named in Joyce's article (George Soros, Jennifer Pritzker, Jon Stryker) were seemingly derived from a 2018 Federalist article by Bilek:
https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/rich-white-men-institutionalizing-transgender-ideology/
It is a strange coincidence if Joyce came up with this collection of names independently, especially given that George Soros is not particularly known for engaging in pro-trans activism and his donations were general donations made to broad civil rights organizations with non-trans focuses such as the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, with no evidence that any of this sum specifically went toward advancing trans causes. One has to wonder how Joyce could have independently come to make this bizarre assumption about Soros' intent based on seemingly no evidence. At least, she provides no elaboration in her book. The reader is seemingly meant to trust her on blind faith that donations by Soros to Planned Parenthood had obvious malicious intent.
More interesting is that out of all the donor names listed in Bilek's article, Joyce only selected the Jewish individuals to name in her book. An interesting side note is that Jon Stryker may or may not actually be Jewish, but Bilek published an article claiming he was in 2020. The article was entitled "The Homosexual Jewish Billionaire Funding the LGBT Movement - Jon Stryker":
https://russian-faith.com/homosexual-jewish-billionaire-funding-lgbt-movement-jon-stryker-n3076
The article really speaks for itself. It was published approximately a year before the publication of Joyce's book, and nine months before Joyce asked her audience on Twitter to "have a look at Bilek's pieces about the billionaire funders of transactivism".
These are, by the way, the criticisms made by the authors of the two articles I've cited for this section. I think they're worthy of the three or so paragraphs I've devoted to them in the draft proposed on my sandbox page, given that half of that space is dedicated to Joyce's rebuttal and denouncement of antisemitism. Camcguffin (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this seems to be your own arguments for importance, which I'll set aside per WP:NOR and WP:NOTFORUM. And I asked those questions to illustrate the problem with the text - it needs to specify things within the text, in accord with the RS being cited. So, again, what you should do is rewrite it so it simply presents, with WP:In-text attribution, what the newly presented reliable sources say, and then Joyce's response. Crossroads -talk- 00:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

It seems to me the choice of out of context quotes from the author are meant to make her look intolerant. If Wikipedia is to keep any semblance of impartiality, this selective quoting smacks of editorializing. 2601:602:9080:8D:7835:544B:6B0:B6 (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion?[edit]

I think the views on Trans section would benefit from removal of the paragraph on the first series of articles, and just become a section about the book, Trans. Mainly, that is because the content of the first bit about the articles says nothing really about the articles, but only a few reviews of them, and also because they have been superceded by the much longer statement in the book. If the first para was to be kept, better to put it in a "history of controversy" section, for example. As is, the first paragraph has no directly relevant content to the paragraph title, which is what her views are. However, I thought I would float it here first --BozMo talk 10:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. She is notable for her views overall, not solely for the book; the section provides vital context for that, but even beyond that it seems insufficient to only detail her views in the section on her book when there's substantial coverage of them elsewhere and when they make up a large part of her notability. --Aquillion (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Vital" context? is this a wind up? These are only "reported" views, not encyclopedic content. BozMo talk 21:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about "vital" but it is useful broader context and is sourced to reliable secondary sources, removing it seems like it would make the article less informative. I don't quite follow your point about it not relating to the title "Views on transgender topics", the quotes all seem to relate to her views on that topic? JaggedHamster (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that she has written a successful and well reviewed book about her views on Trans. That is the major notable point, and is the obviously source for her views on Trans. In addition to the book, we have fairly fringe, third party news sources making claims about her views which do not pass WP:Bio. Putting the book as a subsection of a "views of Trans" section from an editorial point of view looks very odd. BozMo talk 14:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any fringe, third party news sources making claims about her views which do not pass WP:Bio. Care to specify? Newimpartial (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well, the only things I know about Pinknews are the ones in the Wikipedia article on them. That article does not appear to present them as a substantial news organisation, doesn't give any idea of scale (eg number of full time staff, turnover etc) and describes what looks like a small, very recently established (2010?) online only news (or magazine style?) organisation. The content of that article mainly seems to be around establishing notability for Pink News (particular things they have published etc) which is different from the content of articles on established news outlets. So, if thats right then they are indeed not large or well established or if they are otherwise, please go and improve that article. That was all I meant by fringe. The quotation they gave appears to be accurate but is obviously highly selective, which is a form of editorial choice. I don't particularly think, based only on Wikipedia, that Pinknews, unless I have misunderstood their nature, are an authoratitive choice in selecting snippets of HJ's views on a complicated (and in some ways inflammatory) topic. BozMo talk 17:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PinkNews has been discussed repeatedly on Wikipedia's WP:RSN and is currently found to be gendeally reliable. If you disagree, the appropriate place to register your complaint isn't really this article's Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and as I said they were reliable in that their quote was accurate. Here there are two issues (a) are they authoritative enough to justify their selection determining the article content and (2) that a more encyclopedic way of discussing HJ's views would be looking majoring on the most credible reviews of her book (I take it there are some). whatever the status of the three snippets (is that fair?), they definitely don't read as part of a coherent section. I think it is a pity if we cannot write better articles because we are tied up about the contraversy (but I accept it often happens). BozMo talk 18:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced and recentism tags[edit]

PicturePerfect666 I am somewhat baffled by the tags you put on the article, especially the 'recentism' tag. The tags are placed specifically on the Views on transgender topics section. Joyce only came to public attention individually following the series of articles she curated for the Economist about 'trans matters' in around 2018. How can the content be recent when she had - AFAIK - never publicly voiced any opinion on the topic prior to that point.

The 'unbalanced' tag makes more sense since all of the response to the articles Joyce curated are critical and most are US and very much advocacy sources. I also question whether you can list the "Economist' as a 'notable work' of Joyce's. Isn't that parameter for books/films/documentaries etc created by the individual rather than notable employers? Pincrete (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like excessive tagging, and WP:DRIVEBY tagging to me. If the criticism indicating by the tag is not self-evident, then the onus is on the tagger to open a discussion on the talk page. Otherwise we should remove the tags. Hist9600 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I covered this with the edit summary but here goes.

The section makes out the only things which Joyce has done is write one book and be a gender critical activist.

The section goes into great detail giving critiques of the book, which are facsimile from the article on the book. The section also lists “talks” as a subsection going into detail about recent events and current cultural positions.

The section is longer than the rest of the article and gives excessive weight, detail, coverage and attention to Joyce’s activities since 2021.

This is why the section is tagged as such as one tag does not cover all of the above.

In relation to the Economist, failing to list it gives the impression of the only career Joyce has had is since 2022. The article needs to be all encompassing. Infoboxes include an individuals military service for example even if they only served a brief period or were a conscript. This needs to be holistic and The Economist is a notable publication and arguably the only reason she she got her book published.

Failure to include the activities before 2021 is recentism.

Individuals may pass the notability threshold for an article as a result of certain activities, but the information before that is just as notable in a biography where it is within the inclusion guidelines. Such as not being speculative, cruft, etc. information in and of itself in an article is not subject to notability if it is reliably and verifiably, sourced, accurate, and neutrally presented. Individuals who are only notable for one event, such as people who are high profile murder victims, are usually included in that event (there are some exceptions). If the individual as an individual, is notable then all of them is includable within the rules of Wikipedia.

The demonstration of recentism by going ‘but Joyce is only notable for things done since 2021’, clearly show that the tags are needed as the comments in relation to the inclusion of them demonstrate their need.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section makes out the only things which Joyce has done is write one book and be a gender critical activist err that's because the section is about her Views on transgender topics . If someone wants to write about any other notable areas of her activity, they are free to do so, but I doubt if much other coverage exists. Her long period working as a - relatively anon- journalist with The Economist are recorded.
'Notable Works' inevitably means published books etc - the clue is the word 'works', not 'work'. I did a quick comparative check with other journalist/authors (Douglas Murray, Boris Johnson, a few others) none has the journalism work listed as 'Works'. Journalists (eg David Aaronovitch), without any notable books etc don't have anything listed under works. I know of no journalist who has the publication(s) they have worked for - or edited - listed as 'Notable Works'. No one is going to think that the absence of the The Economist is going to give the impression that she wasn't a journalist for many years - since the text says so clearly. They are much more likely to think that The Economist is the name of a book Joyce has written.
If you can find third party coverage of her activities or views prior to 2018, you are welcome to include them, but AFAIK, they don't exist, because prior to that time she was a successful and accomplished - but relatively anon and technical - journalist.
As Hist9600 says - this looks like WP:DRIVEBY tagging to me. I'm sure the coverage of Joyce could be updated and improved, but almost all of it would be in the opposite direction to your tags, ie covering criticism and endorsement of the views in the 'trans' topic area and pruning some of the more trivial details.Pincrete (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, generally articles should follow WP:DUE, meaning that we give "due weight" according to what is published in independent reliable sources. Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. If the subject is known mainly for recent events, and the reliable sources on the subject are primarily about those events, then the article will reflect the weight of those sources as a matter of course. The claims of "recentism" don't seem to hold any weight from what I can see. The Wikipedia page that discusses "recentism" is also just an essay, not an editing policy. And it doesn't even say what the other editor here is claiming. Hist9600 (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the weight it gives and comments such as err that's because the section is about her Views on transgender topics, reinforce the failure to see the undue weight and undue in-depth coverage being given. I mean does this article need to be a facsimile of the reviews on the page regarding the book? It makes out that that is the only thing which Joyce is notable for in her entire life. It makes out that her views on trans issues which are the most recent should be a facsimile from her book and drown out and give undue coverage to the article. critisicms yes but this is not a review aggregator or quote farm.

The comparisons to Douglas Murray and Boris Johnson are disingenuous, as these individuals are not in the same class as Joyce. They wrote multiple books and wrote for multiple publications. Both articles refer to individuals whose articles are considerably more in-depth than Joyce's. In particular one was the Prime Minister of the UK so the comparison is a false equivalence. Joyce did write for multiple outlets, but this is not a list of all of them, it is just the one she became the editor of and the one she authored personally. I would understand and agree if it was a laundry list of everything she had written but it is the two most notable and relevant. Also excluding the Economist goes to further the points of recentism that Joyce's only existence is from 2021 onwards. I am actually in favour of not including any content in that parameter at all and leaving it empty. That way it avoids all confusion and all interpretations.

Additionally, the talks section reinforces an us v them 'warfare' style mentality. Which while showing both sides pushes that POV of the us v them mentality. which is not neutral. I would argue for the removal of that section entirely as it is just another individual being protested for their views. Which is ten a penny on a university campus and has been since the year dot. This is not a news site and not a running commentary of where Joyce opens her mouth in an organised talk and rent-a-mob shows up.

In short, the article has a lot of bloat and that adds to the recentism. The section on her views is valid but is a facsimile of another article at points, POV pushing of a 'culture war' at other points, and overt in-depth coverage of recent happenings at other points. That section needs a total overhaul, linking to the main article on the book, removal of the bloat, and news items.

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce did write for multiple outlets, but this is not a list of all of them, it is just the one she became the editor of and the one she authored personally. Joyce was never the editor of The Economist and had no significant journalistic work other than at The Economist (she was finally executive editor for The Economist’s events business - whatever that is - and prior to that a section editor, prior to that a correspondent). This is a bit like not recognising the difference between "Notable works" (ie books etc that have attracted widespread attention) and "notable work" (ie prominent employers). Of course I don't object to registering her long employment with The Economist, it is just that isn't one of her "Notable works" either in the ordinary understanding of that term, nor in WP terms.
Joyce's time with The Economist is obviously an achievement, but unfortunately sources don't write about the events editor of The Economist. Therefore there is nothing for us to write beyond recording that she held various posts there over approx. 15 years - which we do. It makes out that that is the only thing which Joyce is notable for in her entire life (are her views on trans issues) actually it is! I sympathise with your implied view that working for a major publication for many years ought to be more 'notable' than having got embroiled in the trans-debate with an unfashionable viewpoint, but in WP terms, where 'notable' means 'having been written about by sources', Joyce has done nothing else AFAIK. If you have discovered something I never have, by all means add it to the article. Equally update and improve the reviews and coverage of her book, but arguing for a theoretically different balance simply doesn't accord with the reality of Joyce's notability. She isn't a J K Rowling or Germaine Greer, both of whom have massive notability prior to their recent controversial standpoints on trans issues. Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended The Economist entry in the infobox, so that it is registered as an employer of hers, rather than as one of her "Notable works". Pincrete (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helen_Joyce&oldid=1215038529"