Misplaced Pages

Talk:Women's Declaration International: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:09, 21 April 2023 editTomruen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers119,880 edits →Critics← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:40, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,960 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(42 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Old AfD multi |date=21 April 2023 |result='''keep''' |page=Women's Declaration International}}
{{talk header |age=60 |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |units=days |minthreadsleft=2}}
{{talk header }}
⚫ {{WikiProject banner shell |1=
{{WikiProject Gender studies|class=c|importance=low}} {{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|1=
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=c|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=c|importance=low}} {{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
{{WikiProject Women|class=c}} {{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=low}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Women}}
}} }}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=gg}} {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gg}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |archiveheader = {{Aan}}
Line 18: Line 19:


__TOC__ __TOC__

== Schubiner ==

Sideswipe9th restored my removal of Lindsay Schubiner. I believe her views are ]. I did not find evidence that she has academic expertise in a relevant field; rather, she seems to be treated as an authority by advocacy groups and 'progressive journalism' outlets. Her mention at her group's website says she has a master's in public health, but this isn't a public health matter. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 01:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
: Well, I would dispute the assertion that transphobia {{tq|isn't a public health matter}}. Anyway, the most relevant question is whether independent RS recognize her as an expert, not whether we as editors think her degrees are kewl. Lots of unreliable <s>idiots</s> idiosyncrats have impeccable degrees. ] (]) 01:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
::But this is about the connection between these trans-related views and other ideologies, which is more of a sociology or political science thing. And just because some degree-holders are fringe, it does not follow that a person lacking relevant degrees and quoted by a few journalists makes them an expert. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 01:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
::: Crossroads, in case you haven't noticed it - on Misplaced Pages we follow the sources, not your feelings. If the sources recognize her as an expert, then we do too. I would scarcely trust you judge what {{tq|is more of a sociology or political science thing}} - I'm confident that my degrees in that area are kewler than your credentials, but really the sources should be used to determine the question, not our opinions. ] (]) 02:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::It must be nice to have a kewl degree, Newimpartial. It would be even nicer if you would stop trying to stir up personal animosity on Misplaced Pages. But our qualifications (if any) are irrelevant on Misplaced Pages – we are supposed to be following the sources, not following your feelings. So your comment is irrelevant to this discussion. ] (]) 12:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
::::This seems like a ] issue. In other contexts, other reliable sources have cited Schubiner for her expertise on right-wing extremism. I would not for example describe , , or as {{tq|'progressive journalism' outlets}}.
::::We also know that right-wing extremists have been influencing and are linked to anti-trans activists; , , . And that Schubiner has been producing materials and comments on the link between right-wing extremists and anti-trans activism for some time , , .
⚫ ::::If our source cites Schubiner as an expert, and the source is reliable, then we have no reason not to follow the source. ] (]) 03:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::To Sideswipe9th {{tq| We also know that right-wing extremists have been influencing and are linked to anti-trans activists}} I have read the Independent article. It does ''not'' say this. It says that some right-wing extremist groups express anti-trans views. Neither does the article in the British Journal of Politics and International Relations support what you are claiming.
⚫ :::::Please tell me which of your sources refer to Schubiner as an expert on right-wing extremism. ] (]) 12:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::: I assume that would be ''The American Independent'', which is used as the relevant source in this article. ] (]) 00:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Curiously, that article doesn’t actually say that Schubiner is an expert; it reads as if the writer is trying to imply it, without having any grounds to do so. And ''Bloomberg News'', ''The Oregonian'', and ''The Washington Post'' treat her as a commentator, rather than as an expert. So I don’t think we should be giving so much attention to her views in our article.
:::::::Also, the comments about the right wing do not relate directly to WDI, so they do not qualify for a place in our article.
:::::::In fact, Schubiner’s comments are not fairly represented by the current wording {{tq| Lindsay Schubiner, an expert on right-wing extremism, said the event is part of a larger threat to democracy and an attempt to legitimize and spread transphobia.}} But as I read her comments in ''The American Independent'', she seems rather more concerned that right wingers are using protests about transgender issues in order to further right wing aims. e.g. {{tq| "I think we've seen from more overtly white nationalist groups some attempts recently to exploit the current increased focus on spreading homophobia and transphobia on the broader right and institutional environments to really build some bridges to more mainstream conservative groups and to recruit more people further into bigoted and white nationalists ideology and groups," Schubiner said.}} Whereas our article currently reads as if it is the reverse - as if the whole purpose of right wing political activism is just an {{tq|attempt to legitimize and spread transphobia}}. The full quote about ‘legitimizing’ transphobia is {{tq|There has been a clear increase in organizing to promote anti-LGBTQ and specifically anti-trans bigotry and I think that we can see that trend line moving up. This event in particular looks like '''an attempt''' to legitimize and elevate and spread their transphobia '''and especially to build political power around specific anti-trans policy goals." }}'''
:::::::So after consideration, I support {{u|Crossroads}}' deletion of the comment by her.
:::::::] (]) 13:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::: Maybe you should check your reading comprehension first. {{Tq|'We are seeing white nationalist groups use anti-LGBTQ bigotry to build political power,' said an expert on white nationalism}} is quoting Schubiner. That means they are referring to Schubiner - quite literally - as {{tq|an expert on white nationalism}}.
:::::::: I don't have the patience to read your ] at the moment; I was here for the <s>pizza</s> question of Schubiner's expertise. I am largely unconcerned with your or Crossroads' ] of that expertise. ] (]) 13:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::To Newimpartial: I observe that you prefer insulting me to engaging with what I have said. The quote you refer to above is part of the headline, not part of the text of the article. And accusing me of POV editing is not a substitute for demonstrating that your view is correct. If you don’t have the patience to engage seriously with what sources say, then why are you commenting here? ] (]) 13:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::: I don't believe that you are reading that phrase correctly by interpreting it as a headline. To me, it looks more like a bold floating quotation. And if you read {{tq|Maybe you should check your reading comprehension}} as an insult, it is clear to me that you must not be the object of actual insults very often, since that is not one. I would advise you, however, not to make non-factual claims about other editors' actions, whether that concerns "insults" or supposed "accusations".
:::::::::: I am not {{tq|accusing you of POV editing}} - in fact, I don't recall commenting ''on your editing'' at all, in this discussion. What I said was that you are engaging in original secondary interpretation based on your subjective perceptions (quite literally, your POV). You say: {{tq|But as I read her comments ... she seems rather more concerned that right wingers are using protests about transgender issues in order to further right wing aims.}} And then you add emphasis to her quote to promote your interpretation. But she does say that {{tq|This event in particular looks like an attempt to legitimize and elevate and spread their transphobia and especially to build political power '''around specific anti-trans policy goals'''}} (this time with my emphasis). You are placing the emphasis on a broader purpose, "{{tq|in order to further right wing aims}}" (your phrase), but the selection under discussion actually specifies those aims, '''{{tq|anti-trans policy goals}}'''. So, on a surface level, having this argument is tedious but I suppose it is necessary to show precisely how you are imposing your own interpretation onto the source - the source says that these right-wing actors are using transphobia to mobilize support for anti-trans policy goals, but you are interpreting the source as implying that the relevant goals are not necessarily anti-trans but more broadly right wing (which the evidence you are citing does not support).
:::::::::: On more of a meta level, though, I am not convinced that this kind of hermeneutics is really necessary: we should be ensuring that our article text communicates clearly what the source actually says (when the source is relevant, as in this instance it clearly is). Crossroads and yourself have both tried to preempt these questions of simple paraphrase and emphasis by trying to question the credentials of the expert cited, even though the independent, secondary sourcing is quite transparent in its attribution of expertise. I am not saying that you are making these ad hominem comments on the source because you object to their POV - I am simply saying that there is no basis in WP policy and guidelines for the questions you are raising about Schubiner's expertise, so you ought to stop. ] (]) 14:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Newimpartial has it right. The quotation {{tq|We are seeing white nationalist groups use anti-LGBTQ bigotry to build political power,}} appears twice in the article. Once at the top of the article in the summary field immediately after the social media buttons, and once in the body. In the summary field it adds {{tq|said an expert on white nationalism.}}. In the body it replaces that with {{tq|Schubiner said.}}
::::::::::Note that I say summary field because it is not the headline. The headline for that article is {{tq|Experts on white nationalism say anti-trans rally in DC part of larger threat to democracy}}. ] (]) 21:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
{{od}} To Newimpartial:
Regarding your comment that I {{tq| must not be the object of actual insults very often}} – well, it’s true that in real life I am rarely insulted. Misplaced Pages, of course, is another matter. But, either in real life or on Misplaced Pages, you are the only person who has insulted me by claiming that I have difficulty with reading comprehension. If you think that denigrating a Misplaced Pages editor’s reading competence is not an insult, then I suggest you try to imagine what the reaction would be if you did that to a colleague in real life. The degree of unpleasantness prevalent on Misplaced Pages has perhaps affected your assessment of what counts as insulting.

You say that you are {{tq|not accusing you of POV editing}}, but this - ] - links to ] which is about editing articles. So if you don’t want to accuse me of POV editing, you should be more careful in what you write.

I don’t want to get involved in a quarrel over this – but it’s tedious, and I wish you would stop.

Getting back to the main subject, you say: {{tq| the source says that these right-wing actors are using transphobia to mobilize support for anti-trans policy goals, but you are interpreting the source as implying that the relevant goals are not necessarily anti-trans but more broadly right wing (which the evidence you are citing does not support).}}

No, I am saying what Schubiner said: {{tq| "I think we've seen from more overtly white nationalist groups some attempts recently to exploit the current increased focus on spreading homophobia and transphobia on the broader right and institutional environments to really build some bridges to more mainstream conservative groups and to recruit more people further into bigoted and white nationalists ideology and groups"}}

I am not making any {{tq| ad hominem comments on the source}}, merely pointing out that there is no secondary source saying she is an expert. And I don’t know why you think that I {{tq|object}} to Schubiner’s POV – since I have not mentioned my attitude to Schubiner’s statements, that would involve you knowing my thoughts.

It's way past my bedtime. Thank you and Good Night. ] (]) 00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
: Well, saying that {{tq|there is no secondary source saying she is an expert}}, when a source has been presented to you that does make that assertion, could be a failure in reading comprehension, or could be a motivated interpretation (and I won't link POV policy there due to your expressed sensitivity to the distinction between editing articles and Talk page participation, but that interpretation would clearly be motivated by your POV). Perhaps there is another explanation, but if so it has not been presented here and I certainly can't think of one at the moment.
: As previously stated, I am not saying that you {{tq|object to Schubiner's POV}}, which would indeed be mind reading. I am saying that either you don't understand what you have read, or you are misinterpreting it because of your perceptual framework - and either way, your ensuing comments doesn't help us develop a policy-compliant article.
: Finally, I will try to AGF about your shift in the focus of attention from one Schubiner quote to the other, and instead I will ask you: why do you believe that the passage you just quoted is more relevant to this article than the one we were both discussing previously?
: <small>As an aside, I am quite puzzled that you seem to interpret "reading comprehension" ontologically, as a trait, when it seems quite obvious to me that I am referring to an activity, phenomelologically.</small> ] (]) 01:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
:I'll assume good faith here but it's difficult to understand the continued argument over this. It seems clear from the sources already given that she is considered an expert in this field. If another source would help, then for example https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-extremist-groups-80e309418abecd0b1d50ec4762e6d9c6 has "...Lindsay Schubiner, an expert in extremism with the Western States Center."
:With regards to "And I don’t know why you think that I object to Schubiner’s POV – since I have not mentioned my attitude to Schubiner’s statements, that would involve you knowing my thoughts", you've not directly stated your attitude to her statements but you'll hopefully understand that some people might worry your strenous objections to the inclusion of this content is motivated by your disagreeing with it. In the interests of ] it might be useful to elaborate on if you do disagree with her and if that's possibly a factor in why you're objecting to her inclusion in the article. ] (]) 08:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
::To Sideswipe9th: No, the statement you are relying on is not part of the article.
::To JaggedHamster: Thank you for providing the AP source. As you say, this does include {{tq|"...Lindsay Schubiner, an expert in extremism with the Western States Center."}} i.e. it does not say she is an expert in ‘right-wing’ extremism, as our article currently has it.
::To Newimpartial: {{tq| why do you believe that the passage you just quoted is more relevant to this article than the one we were both discussing previously?}} Well, I find it much more insightful and interesting than the quote which is currently somewhat misleadingly reflected in our article. But then, I’m interested in politics, which is one reason for my delay in replying here (the other reason being that I’ve been trying to watch Wimbledon – while checking the BBC website on the changeovers to see how many more people have resigned from the government).
::To all:
::Would anyone object if we just said that she is an expert in extremism?
::Also, the current quote we are using in our article {{tq|and Lindsay Schubiner, an expert on right-wing extremism, said the event is part of a larger threat to democracy and an attempt to legitimize and spread transphobia}} is truncated and misleading. I have to say that I think the inclusion of Schubiner’s comment is ]ING. But if it is to stay, would anyone object if we gave the full quote:{{tq| There has been a clear increase in organizing to promote anti-LGBTQ and specifically anti-trans bigotry and I think that we can see that trend line moving up. This event in particular looks like an attempt to legitimize and elevate and spread their transphobia and especially to build political power around specific anti-trans policy goals."}}?
::] (]) 19:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
:::I think these are both good, especially the inclusion of the quote rather than the Misplaced Pages editor's summary. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 18:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
:::{{tq|No, the statement you are relying on is not part of the article.}} What? The quotation from Schubiner is very clearly in that twice; once in the article summary where it clearly says {{tq|said an expert on white nationalism}}, and once in the article body attributed to her directly by name. White nationalism is a subset of ] and the ]. Are you sure you're reading the correct article here? ] (]) 18:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Sorry, Sideswipe, I thought you were solely referring to the second part of the headline, which is not part of the article. But if you are referring to {{tq|While the rally was focused on banning trans people from their appropriate sports teams, experts on right-wing extremism say that anti-LGBTQ organizing plays into efforts to spread white nationalism and other right-wing ideologies and is part of a larger overall threat to democracy.}} , then my point is that this does not say that Schubiner is an expert on right-wing extremism. It doesn’t say who the “experts” are, and the next sentence doesn’t say that Schubiner is one of them. It is possible to read into the text an implication that Schubiner is an expert on right-wing extremism and white nationalism, but this is not clear enough to use the article as a basis to say that she is an expert. But the AP source now provided does explicitly describe her as an expert in extremism. ] (]) 12:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
::::: Sweet6970, your view that the Schubiner quote attached to "an expert in right-wing extremism" is {{tq|the second part of the headline}} and therefore not part of the article is an idiosyncratic, minority view, and you can't use it as a major premise for any conclusion. If you can read this article and conclude that the authors of the article are ''not'' saying that Schubiner is, in fact, an expert on right-wing extremism, then I can only suggest that you are experiencing difficulties with reading comprehension, or engaging in strongly motivated exegesis, and neither of those scenarios is likely to help us in constructing and maintaining a policy-compliant article. ] (]) 14:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::So far, there may be disagreement about the way the ''American Independent'' article is to be interpreted, but no-one has actually objected to my proposed changes. Let’s try to stick to discussion about possible changes to the article, rather than my reading ability. ] (]) 11:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::: I do not object to "extremism" (rather than "right-wing extremism"), nor do I object to the longer quote. ] (]) 11:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I have now made the amendments. ] (]) 09:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

== Anti-trans rally ==

In June 2022 several groups opposing trans rights, including WDI USA, ], ] and ], organized an anti-trans rally in Washington D.C

I'm questioning why this event is referred to as "an anti-trans rally"? Is it neutral and balanced to describe it as such, when the news article referenced states that the rally was actually called "Our Bodies, Our Sports" and was held by several women's rights groups? Would it not be more neutral to describe it as "a rally called 'Our Bodies, Our Sports"? The "anti-trans rally" is clearly the point of view of this news article, and not the official name of the rally. ] (]) 17:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

: I agree - it is only the headline which refers to the rally as 'anti-trans'. Headlines are not to be used as sources: see ]. I am changing the text of the article accordingly. ] (]) 17:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


== Critics== == Critics==
Line 95: Line 27:
:: Labeling "hate group" as an opinion in the intro is NOT neutral language. It is language of ideaologues who think they know what is real and have no fear of being wrong and hateful themselves. ] (]) 20:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC) :: Labeling "hate group" as an opinion in the intro is NOT neutral language. It is language of ideaologues who think they know what is real and have no fear of being wrong and hateful themselves. ] (]) 20:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Describing an organisation as a hate group can be ] complaint, when the neutral point of view is that they are such. The same also applies for other descriptors like anti-trans and TERF. Remember that NPOV complaint text can ] when that POV is mainstream, which I think applies in this circumstance. ] (]) 20:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC) :::Describing an organisation as a hate group can be ] complaint, when the neutral point of view is that they are such. The same also applies for other descriptors like anti-trans and TERF. Remember that NPOV complaint text can ] when that POV is mainstream, which I think applies in this circumstance. ] (]) 20:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Its important to note that we are not labeling them as a hate group in wikivoice, but noting that they have been described as such. ] (]) 19:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


Any sensible reader wants to see two sides. I rearranged reasonable into a critics section. Clear thinking demands we see what we have, not force a reader to try to sort out on their own. Any sensible reader wants to see two sides. I rearranged reasonable into a critics section. Clear thinking demands we see what we have, not force a reader to try to sort out on their own.
Line 125: Line 58:
:::::If you want this article deleted, then there is a procedure for this : see ]. But I would suggest that you discuss possible changes here first - without making personal remarks about other editors. ] (]) 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC) :::::If you want this article deleted, then there is a procedure for this : see ]. But I would suggest that you discuss possible changes here first - without making personal remarks about other editors. ] (]) 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
:::::: It was rhetorical exasperation, but maybe it is the only way. If articles serve no purpose but help ideologues silence people who see problems, they are not worth having on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) :::::: It was rhetorical exasperation, but maybe it is the only way. If articles serve no purpose but help ideologues silence people who see problems, they are not worth having on Misplaced Pages. ] (])
:::::::Tomruen:Please, for heaven’s sake, stick to discussing possible changes to the article. I would suggest that you propose changes one at a time. (Spoiler: I am not much impressed by the state of this article, and I might even agree with you.) ] (]) 22:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)  

::::While that particular un-revdel happened at the same time, I'm actually referring to the edits by ] at 15:08, 17 March 2022, and 06:09, 18 March 2022. While lengthier, those edits contained significant amount of copy and pasted text from the declaration, and are still revdelled at the time of this reply. Likewise the edit by Tom that I've linked above contains a substantial amount of copied content that is licensed under the ] license. The length and format of Tom's content makes it not acceptable for inclusion per ]. ] (]) 22:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC) ::::While that particular un-revdel happened at the same time, I'm actually referring to the edits by ] at 15:08, 17 March 2022, and 06:09, 18 March 2022. While lengthier, those edits contained significant amount of copy and pasted text from the declaration, and are still revdelled at the time of this reply. Likewise the edit by Tom that I've linked above contains a substantial amount of copied content that is licensed under the ] license. The length and format of Tom's content makes it not acceptable for inclusion per ]. ] (]) 22:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
::::: I removed the copy&paste summary points from the declaration, but added the link to the full declaration, before it was reverted. ] (]) 22:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC) ::::: I removed the copy&paste summary points from the declaration, but added the link to the full declaration, before it was reverted. ] (]) 22:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

::: ] is hopeless. They have to control every aspect of the article This is not an encyclopedia content. This is just hate pretending to call out hate. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
::::Knock it off with the personal attacks, now, shall you? You'd think someone who's been here for so long would know about the ] policy. ] <sup>(] / ])</sup> 23:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

== Studnik and edits 31 July 2023 ==

to AAB: Studnik is a journalist – and there is nothing notable about her views. The material added does not give any factual information, only her views. Therefore it is UNDUE. And I do not use misleading edit summaries – the other bit also used Studnik as a source. See ]. When your edit has been challenged, you should start a discussion on the Talk page, not revert to add disputed material back into the article. ] (]) 14:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

:Firstly, there was no personal attack in {{diff2|1168044326|this edit summary}}. Your reversion of Amanda's edit removed content that was cited to two other articles without reason.
:You're correct in saying that Studnik is a journalist. However the piece in ] is factual reporting, and there's no requirement in ] that an individual journalist must be notable for such reporting to be included in an article. Der Freitag is a well renowned German language newspaper, and reporting from them would ordinarily contribute to due weight. Could you expand a bit on why you think this is piece is undue? If your objection is based on the attribution, we could simplify that to something like {{tq|Der Freitag reported that WDI openly...}} as that would keep attribution to the publication. ] (]) 14:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
::1) The other material is also cited to Studnik, and is similarly lacking in factual details – my edit summary was not misleading.
⚫ ::2) What facts? ] (]) 14:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
:::No, the other material was not cited to articles written by Studnik. It was also cited to two articles authored by Simon Strick, which have been in the article since {{diff2|1126230447|December 2022}}.
⚫ :::The facts, to quote from the reverted edits, is that WDI open promotes far-right views when it advocates for TERF policies and viewpoints. ] (]) 14:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
:Do we really need to have this same discussion here and at ]? Anyway, I don't see any intrinsic problem with the source here and I think that Sideswipe9th's suggestion is a good one. It would give the reader a better idea of how to judge the weight of the source. Giving a name means nothing to the reader while giving the name (and a link) of the paper lets them know that it is reporting in a newspaper. A reader will then know to rank this lower than a peer-reviewed academic publication but above some rando commenting from the peanut gallery. --] (]) 17:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)--] (]) 17:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

::I agree with DanielRigal and Sideswipe9th above. This is a detailed journalistic article written by a journalist for a well-respected national weekly newspaper from Germany, and as such it is a high-quality source. It can be attributed to the newspaper rather than the journalist personally. Many journalists who write for The New York Times, The Guardian etc. are not personally notable (to the extent that they have Misplaced Pages biographies) either. --] (]) 18:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
:::I concur with Daniel Rigal that it is better to have this discussion in one place - see my comment on the Gender-critcal feminism Talk page. ] (]) 10:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:40, 8 October 2024

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Women's Declaration International article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconGender studies Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Critics

This is a ridiculous introduction statement, It has been described as anti-trans, trans-exclusionary, trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) and as a hate group. whatever the clear ideologues editing this page think. It should be worked into a critics section. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, as reflists don't work very well on talk pages, I've refactored the quotation from the article into your original comment and removed the references from it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so on your proposed changes relating to this, firstly it falls afoul of WP:CSECTION. The criticisms of WDI, which are fair and reliably sourced, should be included naturally into the prose of the article, which includes the lead where appropriate.
Secondly, please do not cast aspersions about clear ideologues editing this page. It does nothing to help what you're advocating for, and immediately makes this discussion far more hostile than it needs to be. Editors can disagree over how and where to include content without it being ideologically based. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Labeling "hate group" as an opinion in the intro is NOT neutral language. It is language of ideaologues who think they know what is real and have no fear of being wrong and hateful themselves. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Describing an organisation as a hate group can be WP:NPOV complaint, when the neutral point of view is that they are such. The same also applies for other descriptors like anti-trans and TERF. Remember that NPOV complaint text can include a POV when that POV is mainstream, which I think applies in this circumstance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Its important to note that we are not labeling them as a hate group in wikivoice, but noting that they have been described as such. Filiforme1312 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Any sensible reader wants to see two sides. I rearranged reasonable into a critics section. Clear thinking demands we see what we have, not force a reader to try to sort out on their own.

Feel free to discuss. Don't revert simple edits. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, please self-revert this edit. It represents a pretty large change to the article, and clearly has no basis in consensus right now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
it is MOVING TEXT, NOT LARGE. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
It is a bold edit, that is largely redefining the article. That bold edit has been reverted, now is the time to discuss it while the previous consensus version remains in place. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Redefining the article?! How is that?!Tom Ruen (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Redefining it by creating a WP:CSECTION, something that is generally not compliant with the NPOV policy. Again though, it is a bold edit that has been reverted. Will you please self-revert to restore the long standing consensus version? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
You should also either self-revert this edit as you've added unverifiable text to the article, or support it with reliable sources.
Introductions don't need sourcing when it is a short article. It is a short NEUTRAL summary of what is below in critics section. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:LEADCITE tells us that where content is challenged or likely to be challenged, it must be supported by an inline citation. This content is both likely to be challenged, and it is not a neutral summary of the section that you've added that does not have consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
That said, based on my understanding of the sources surrounding this organisation, such a description would be largely unsupportable. This implies that the criticism of the organisation are only from activists and social commentators, and it is in fact wider spread. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Find a better summary description of who the critics are. The original sentence I moved down had NONE. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th and Tomruen: stop the edit warring. I have taken the article back to the pre-dispute version. Discuss the proposed changes here on the Talk page. Sideswipe9th - why are you asking for a copyvio revdel? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

My version reverted is more neutral, yet largely same content, and easier to read, but Sideswipe9th has other ideas and seems to need to control the article. How can any edit anything on Misplaced Pages with such behavior? Tom Ruen (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
In this revision Tomruen introduced copyright violating text, that was copied from the text of the declaration, and is incompatibly licensed. Content similar to this was, which quoted extensively from the declaration, was previously removed back in March 2022. Per Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations#All of article violates copyright and WP:3RRNO#5, my reverts on this point do not construe edit warring. And per Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations#All of article violates copyright, because of the large number of intervening edits that would have left the article text in an unreadable state, I restored the earliest stable revision that did not have the copyright violation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I didn't realize a section on declaration couldn't have summary points for what it contained. I tried shorting to a single sentence.
This is the most biased thing I've ready read. ZERO mention of the actual content of the declaration, just fear-mondering. It is is unsaveable. If this article wasn't crap, I might have some pity. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
--> The group is known for publishing the Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights, co-authored by Jeffreys and Brunskell-Evans, which called for the "elimination" of "the practice of transgenderism" and for the UK to repeal the Gender Recognition Act.
Sideswipe – I am pretty sure you have misremembered what happened. It was declared that extracts from the Declaration could be used, provided it was made clear that they were quotations. But there was no agreement at that time to add the extracts. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Here is the diff: I have undone the revision deletion as the content is actually a qupotation from here in the section "The shortest summary". Sorry for the mistake.— Diannaa (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Sweet6970 (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
My vote is this whole article is removed. Better to have no article than have it controlled by people without a neutral voice. We know now Deep Learning is training on Misplaced Pages so this sort of bias multiplies, which is of course the point of wiki-activism. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
If you want this article deleted, then there is a procedure for this : see WP:AFD. But I would suggest that you discuss possible changes here first - without making personal remarks about other editors. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
It was rhetorical exasperation, but maybe it is the only way. If articles serve no purpose but help ideologues silence people who see problems, they are not worth having on Misplaced Pages. Tom Ruen (talk)
Tomruen:Please, for heaven’s sake, stick to discussing possible changes to the article. I would suggest that you propose changes one at a time. (Spoiler: I am not much impressed by the state of this article, and I might even agree with you.) Sweet6970 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)  
While that particular un-revdel happened at the same time, I'm actually referring to the edits by Special:Contributions/176.236.212.14 at 15:08, 17 March 2022, and 06:09, 18 March 2022. While lengthier, those edits contained significant amount of copy and pasted text from the declaration, and are still revdelled at the time of this reply. Likewise the edit by Tom that I've linked above contains a substantial amount of copied content that is licensed under the incompatible CC-BY-NC-ND license. The length and format of Tom's content makes it not acceptable for inclusion per WP:NONFREE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I removed the copy&paste summary points from the declaration, but added the link to the full declaration, before it was reverted. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Sideswipe9th is hopeless. They have to control every aspect of the article This is not an encyclopedia content. This is just hate pretending to call out hate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomruen (talk • contribs)
Knock it off with the personal attacks, now, shall you? You'd think someone who's been here for so long would know about the no personal attacks policy. LilianaUwU 23:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Studnik and edits 31 July 2023

to AAB: Studnik is a journalist – and there is nothing notable about her views. The material added does not give any factual information, only her views. Therefore it is UNDUE. And I do not use misleading edit summaries – the other bit also used Studnik as a source. See WP:NPA. When your edit has been challenged, you should start a discussion on the Talk page, not revert to add disputed material back into the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, there was no personal attack in this edit summary. Your reversion of Amanda's edit removed content that was cited to two other articles without reason.
You're correct in saying that Studnik is a journalist. However the piece in Der Freitag is factual reporting, and there's no requirement in WP:RS that an individual journalist must be notable for such reporting to be included in an article. Der Freitag is a well renowned German language newspaper, and reporting from them would ordinarily contribute to due weight. Could you expand a bit on why you think this is piece is undue? If your objection is based on the attribution, we could simplify that to something like Der Freitag reported that WDI openly... as that would keep attribution to the publication. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
1) The other material is also cited to Studnik, and is similarly lacking in factual details – my edit summary was not misleading.
2) What facts? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
No, the other material was not cited to articles written by Studnik. It was also cited to two articles authored by Simon Strick, which have been in the article since December 2022.
The facts, to quote from the reverted edits, is that WDI open promotes far-right views when it advocates for TERF policies and viewpoints. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Do we really need to have this same discussion here and at Talk:Gender-critical feminism? Anyway, I don't see any intrinsic problem with the source here and I think that Sideswipe9th's suggestion is a good one. It would give the reader a better idea of how to judge the weight of the source. Giving a name means nothing to the reader while giving the name (and a link) of the paper lets them know that it is reporting in a newspaper. A reader will then know to rank this lower than a peer-reviewed academic publication but above some rando commenting from the peanut gallery. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)--DanielRigal (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with DanielRigal and Sideswipe9th above. This is a detailed journalistic article written by a journalist for a well-respected national weekly newspaper from Germany, and as such it is a high-quality source. It can be attributed to the newspaper rather than the journalist personally. Many journalists who write for The New York Times, The Guardian etc. are not personally notable (to the extent that they have Misplaced Pages biographies) either. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I concur with Daniel Rigal that it is better to have this discussion in one place - see my comment on the Gender-critcal feminism Talk page. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Categories: