This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Wikipedia, 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. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
I'm reverting to the original formulation "feminist group that campaigns to preserve women's rights" because it is a summary of the Guardian article, which mentions "women's rights" in opening sentence, and I'm adding a citation to the Daily Record article which says "campaign group for women's rights". I'm deleting "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" because it is not mentioned in these articles; I did not find any reliable sources that use that term for FWS.
Similarly, I'm deleting "cisgender" because it is not mentioned in these articles.
My understanding is that its against WP:NOR to introduce terms like these, that are not mentioned in the sources: specifically, WP:SECONDARY says: "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." AndyGordon ( talk) 07:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd query the category 'Organizations that oppose LGBT rights' as L,G,B and T are all different, and FWS may have pro stances on some rather than others. Melissa Highton ( talk) 12:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I removed the page from Organisations which Oppose Transgender Rights. The organisation advocates for womens rights. By analogy, if my neighbour removes the grden fence, & I ask them to replace it, I am defending my boundary, not being anti neighbour Mattymmoo ( talk) 23:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I suppose the point is that the rights conflict. That's why FWS campaign. I've added a few more categories. Do we have a category for 'gender critical organisations' ? that might be more acceptable to both sides rather than 'anti-trans'. Melissa Highton ( talk) 21:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I removed opinions of non-notable individuals because Wikipedia is not a news source, but this was reverted by Newimpartial. If an organisation is to be commented on or criticised within Wikipedia articles, then these comments and criticisms should come from recognised groups and notable individuals, not just anyone who happened to attend a protest. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 18:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
quoting non-notable individuals as valid criticism of the subject- what I see is reliably sourced content, with in-text attribution, representing a significant view in a controversy as reported in reliable sources. If you see something other than that, perhaps you could explain why. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Mattymmoo, the group is cited in the Foundation section as trans-exclusionary radical feminist. That's why radical feminism was added to the categories. Helper201 ( talk) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Link to original non wikipedia reliable source is needed here for the discussion. Mattymmoo ( talk) 10:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The article relied far too much on sources that don't mention FWS at all. If an event happens and sources don't talk about FWS in relation to it, then its connection to FWS is probably not that significant anyway - we shouldn't eg. go into excessive detail on a blow-by-blow of the Marion Millar case here, only on the aspects of the case that relate to FWS specifically (ie. she works for the group, the group scheduled X rally in her support, etc.) This article is about FWS, not Millar. Similarly, legal cases that FWS has objected to should be covered only in the aspects that FWS touched on - if we have to rely on sources that don't mention FWS to cover the blow-by-blow of what happened, then we're probably going off-base anyway; this is an article about this one group in particular, not the entire legal struggle over trans rights and gender self-identification in Britain. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This is frankly an idiotic statement and it says nothing. "Changes to transgender rights" could be pro-trans (e.g. all trans are now allowed in all bathrooms) or anti-trans (e.g. it's now illegal to be trans). Those are both changes. So "the group campaigns against changes to transgender rights" tells us nothing about the group. Can we rephrase this in a sane way? I was already reverted. But please, I appeal to common sense, and the need to inform the reader. Equinox ◑ 14:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced by the arguments for inclusion of the final section of this paragraph "On 16th November 2022, the Courier newspaper ran an article claiming Marion Millar is being investigated for fraud.", which is currently suported by a single source [1]. If we assume that Marion Millar is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE then policy says "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (Emphaisis in original). If instead Marion Millar is not a public figure then WP:BLPCRIME says "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Either way I cannot see that inclusion of this sentence is justified without additional sourcing, which I have so far been unable to locate. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 17:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I have now deleted the sentence. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 20:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I find it smacks a bit of POV that this article opens with views critical to this group ("described as anti-trans" etc.) before reporting properly what the group stands for or what it thinks about itself. The anti-trans accusations really need to come under the lead in a section on criticism or controversy. Doric Loon ( talk) 13:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
criticism or controversy, I doubt the notability of this article's topic. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that this part
seems unnecessary given the following much stronger support shown by Rowling later in the paragraph. Also it seems to oversimplify the situation given that the address was widely publicised and that no crime was charged despite police investigation . Because of this I think it should be removed and the following parts ammended to link to J.K Rowling and to flow better. 86.4.243.52 ( talk) 20:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Wikipedia, 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. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
I'm reverting to the original formulation "feminist group that campaigns to preserve women's rights" because it is a summary of the Guardian article, which mentions "women's rights" in opening sentence, and I'm adding a citation to the Daily Record article which says "campaign group for women's rights". I'm deleting "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" because it is not mentioned in these articles; I did not find any reliable sources that use that term for FWS.
Similarly, I'm deleting "cisgender" because it is not mentioned in these articles.
My understanding is that its against WP:NOR to introduce terms like these, that are not mentioned in the sources: specifically, WP:SECONDARY says: "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." AndyGordon ( talk) 07:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd query the category 'Organizations that oppose LGBT rights' as L,G,B and T are all different, and FWS may have pro stances on some rather than others. Melissa Highton ( talk) 12:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I removed the page from Organisations which Oppose Transgender Rights. The organisation advocates for womens rights. By analogy, if my neighbour removes the grden fence, & I ask them to replace it, I am defending my boundary, not being anti neighbour Mattymmoo ( talk) 23:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I suppose the point is that the rights conflict. That's why FWS campaign. I've added a few more categories. Do we have a category for 'gender critical organisations' ? that might be more acceptable to both sides rather than 'anti-trans'. Melissa Highton ( talk) 21:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I removed opinions of non-notable individuals because Wikipedia is not a news source, but this was reverted by Newimpartial. If an organisation is to be commented on or criticised within Wikipedia articles, then these comments and criticisms should come from recognised groups and notable individuals, not just anyone who happened to attend a protest. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 18:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
quoting non-notable individuals as valid criticism of the subject- what I see is reliably sourced content, with in-text attribution, representing a significant view in a controversy as reported in reliable sources. If you see something other than that, perhaps you could explain why. Newimpartial ( talk) 19:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Mattymmoo, the group is cited in the Foundation section as trans-exclusionary radical feminist. That's why radical feminism was added to the categories. Helper201 ( talk) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Link to original non wikipedia reliable source is needed here for the discussion. Mattymmoo ( talk) 10:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The article relied far too much on sources that don't mention FWS at all. If an event happens and sources don't talk about FWS in relation to it, then its connection to FWS is probably not that significant anyway - we shouldn't eg. go into excessive detail on a blow-by-blow of the Marion Millar case here, only on the aspects of the case that relate to FWS specifically (ie. she works for the group, the group scheduled X rally in her support, etc.) This article is about FWS, not Millar. Similarly, legal cases that FWS has objected to should be covered only in the aspects that FWS touched on - if we have to rely on sources that don't mention FWS to cover the blow-by-blow of what happened, then we're probably going off-base anyway; this is an article about this one group in particular, not the entire legal struggle over trans rights and gender self-identification in Britain. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This is frankly an idiotic statement and it says nothing. "Changes to transgender rights" could be pro-trans (e.g. all trans are now allowed in all bathrooms) or anti-trans (e.g. it's now illegal to be trans). Those are both changes. So "the group campaigns against changes to transgender rights" tells us nothing about the group. Can we rephrase this in a sane way? I was already reverted. But please, I appeal to common sense, and the need to inform the reader. Equinox ◑ 14:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced by the arguments for inclusion of the final section of this paragraph "On 16th November 2022, the Courier newspaper ran an article claiming Marion Millar is being investigated for fraud.", which is currently suported by a single source [1]. If we assume that Marion Millar is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE then policy says "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (Emphaisis in original). If instead Marion Millar is not a public figure then WP:BLPCRIME says "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Either way I cannot see that inclusion of this sentence is justified without additional sourcing, which I have so far been unable to locate. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 17:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I have now deleted the sentence. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 20:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I find it smacks a bit of POV that this article opens with views critical to this group ("described as anti-trans" etc.) before reporting properly what the group stands for or what it thinks about itself. The anti-trans accusations really need to come under the lead in a section on criticism or controversy. Doric Loon ( talk) 13:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
criticism or controversy, I doubt the notability of this article's topic. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that this part
seems unnecessary given the following much stronger support shown by Rowling later in the paragraph. Also it seems to oversimplify the situation given that the address was widely publicised and that no crime was charged despite police investigation . Because of this I think it should be removed and the following parts ammended to link to J.K Rowling and to flow better. 86.4.243.52 ( talk) 20:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)