This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||||
|
The results of the recent consultation have been published, with approximately 60% disagreeing with the overall purpose of the bill: https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee/gender-recognition-bill/equalities-committee-summary-of-short-survey-grr-bill-responses.pdf JezGrove ( talk) 23:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The content/sources on this article appear to take a clear political line and maybe should be reviewed and or/balanced. I find the use of the term "anti-trans" rather than, for example, "gender critical" particularly concerning 146.200.181.77 ( talk) 07:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
"Anti-trans campaigning efforts by these organisations that focus on perceived and manufactured concern for women's safety have effectively attempted to stir up public opposition to the proposals.since it does not add significantly to the information provided in the previous sentence:
A number of anti-trans organisations such as For Women Scotland, Fair Play for Women, LGB Alliance campaigned against the proposals.
A number of trans-exclusionary organisations such as For Women Scotland, Fair Play for Women, LGB Alliance campaigned against the proposals.
In short, JKR is an uninvolved individual, this is not a tabloid or a news site or worse a twitter replicator. The use of the term 'revolt' stinks or POV/ It is also PV to only include the SNP. "opposition to the changes' is wholly and could mean anything. The UN woman was also just one person wading in when her opinion was not asked for. Again another uninvolved person is being amplified by anti-trans media sources. This is again not a tabloid or news site. Aslo trying to coddle a source so it is softer and so on is POV selecting. the groups listed are straight-up anti-trans groups, and calling them anything else fails the duck test. Sparkle1 ( talk) 20:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah a couple of people over a few days where the edits violate Wikipedia policy on POV and undue weight. You wanna keep talking be my guest, but you cannot say this discussion freezes the article as we want it. Sparkle1 ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
just one person wading in when her opinion was not asked for. And the source was The Scotsman.
Aslo trying to coddle a source so it is softer and so on is POV selecting..
You wanna keep talking be my guest, but you cannot say this discussion freezes the article as we want itindicates that you have no intention of editing in a collaborative way. In addition, you have now made other edits to the article without agreement, knowing that the wording of this article is in dispute. This is not the proper way to behave.
Ok this is unnecessarily confrontational and everyone should walk off and come back afresh, no one owns this and getting heated over this helps no one. Sparkle1 ( talk) 23:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Each of them has been answered and I am presenting the data for the votes in the most neutral way possible. You want to shout REVOLT over 7 no votes by SNP members out of 64. If that isn't POV pushing nothing is. I am also not going to discuss getting your sign-off or approval before making edits to this article. I have significantly cleaned up the article and toned down a lot of unnecessary negativity in the article and a lot of POV pushing in the article. Members of the public saying things and wearing t-shirts is tabloid fodder not encyclopaedic, no matter who the member of the public is or how wealthy or famous they are. Elected members of the Scottish parliament are different, but it cannot be a laundry list of only those who say negative things. I also find the NPOV tag laughable. It is clear from your edits and editing history you oppose reforms and oppose this legislation and you cannot allow that to colour your judgement here. I am also pointing out that you have wildly thrown good-faith assumptions out of the window here with your demands and I am not going to play along with that. The article has changed I WILL NOT revert and if you do then you will be reported for edit warring and POV pushing. If you wish to make constructive edits then fine, but blanket reverts and revert demands are simply nonsense. The things you are demanding be reverted are standard and uncontroversial. Do you honestly want a discussion on adding an info box, calling it a bill instead of a proposed Act, and adding in a vote summary table? That would be a complete farce and I will simply not partake as it does not further the purpose of Wikipedia to discuss such basic uncontroversial items. Just because you had a discussion doesn't mean its outcome is fixed in stone and that you get to demand that the article remains like the discussion outcome. That is classic article ownership and is something I will not endorse.
In short, I suggest reading up on how Wikipedia works and how editing Wikipedia works and then I suggest you come back here. Otherwise, you will simply get nowhere. Sparkle1 ( talk) 18:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Being newsworthy and making newspaper inches does not make something worth going into an article. For it to be included there must be some relevance and connection as to why it is included. The Scottish Billionaire famous author is not an elected politician, did not give evidence on the bill and was not asked to participate in the legislative process. Rowling is just a member of the public in this context who wore a t-shirt and got n some newspapers. That is newsworthy but not encyclopedic. If she was an elected politician and she was a prominent politician campaigning against this then fine include away. That would be relevant, she is though not an MP, MSP, or Cllr. She is no different in this context to you or I. Neither of us warrants inclusion on this for opening our mouths on this subject on Wikipedia no matter how many newspapers give us a column. Rowling is the same. Celebrity may equal newsworthy but it does not equal encyclopaedic content. If it did then there would be no end of everyone who could be included from goodness knows what quarter and there would be no way of saying well this person was included but this person can't. It is just a total and utter farce to say being a celebrity and getting to be amplified by a newspaper (no matter how much one shouts about being so-called silenced) affords you influence and connection to a subject. Remember this is an encyclopaedia with standards, not a journalism-free tabloid giving whoever you are friends with space to spout whatever comes to mind no matter how devoid of truth, reality, or basic sanity it or they are. Wikipedia does not include opinion pieces outside specific articles on the people themselves or where there is a direct link, such as starting the MeToo movement. All Rowling is is an opinion piece and giving it inclusion in POV pushing and clear undue weight. Sparkle1 ( talk) 01:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Sparkle1:
a) I see you have deleted the POV dispute tag from the article i.e. you are disputing that there is a dispute. This means that there is a dispute. Stop denying this.
b) The current wording says: The bill is supported by feminist and LGBT and human rights campaign organisations, including Amnesty International, Stonewall, Rape Crisis Scotland, Equality Network, Engender and Scottish Women's Aid.
This implies that all feminist and LGBT and human rights campaign organisations support the bill, whereas the feminist organisations
For Women Scotland, and
Fair Play for Women, and the LGB rights organisation
LGB Alliance are opposed to the bill.
c) The Equality and Human Rights Commission has expressed concerns [4], but this is not mentioned in the article.
d) You have made a subheading ‘anti-trans groups’ specifically for the feminist and LGB organisations mentioned in (b), when the source predominantly speaks of them as ‘trans-exclusionary’.
e) You have deleted the information about the revolt by SNP MSPs [5] The fact that, as reported by the Guardian, this was the biggest revolt by SNPs, is highly significant. Your statement that describing a revolt as a revolt is POV makes no sense whatever.
f) You have changed the comment made by Reem Alaslem from Reem Alaslem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, expressed fears the proposals could be abused by predatory men.
to Reem Alaslem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, gave an opinion against the proposals.
This excludes the relevant information from the article, and biases the article.
Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
supported by several.
You clearly want reasoning here so here goes.
First of the only lack of neutrality is in your head, there isn't actually any, you are seeing a lack of neutrality because it goes against what you want to be portrayed in the article.
You hammer on about this 'revolt' crap; 7 I repeat 7 members of the SNP out of 64 voted against it. Leave the hysteria in the Guardian, the Scotsman and other news publications. This is not a news site. This is an encyclopaedia. Calling it a revolt is POV pushing and that is not going to happen in this article.
The group you mentioned, such as "for women Scotland" and "Fair Play for Women", have a single purpose of removing the rights of trans people and excluding them from society. LGB Alliance calls itself an LGB group but in court revealed it is mainly supported by straight people. They are also well documented in pushing anti-trans agendas, and in Australia were recently designated an anti-trans hate group. So they get called what the are Anti-Trans groups. The duck test says they are anti-trans Wikipedia is not for their propaganda. trans-exclusionary is just a fancy term for anti-trans. These are groups who bring lawsuits to try and exclude trans people from society and try and remove the rights of trans people in court.
You mention wading in by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, you mean the group that put out misinformation on trans people, as can be seen here. They are bad actors in this and are nothing to do with Scottish legal proposals as the information you want to put in was not put out by the Scottish committee. They can be found here. So they fall into another one of the wading in uninvited camp of people who Wikipedia do not give credence.
Your claim of 'support by all' is a dog whistle red herring to try and crowbar in groups who are anti-trans under the umbrella they think the public finds least hostile. The list of examples clearly set out who the groups are and who are in support. There is no suggestion of truth behind your ridiculous claims of it showing support by all.
As for the UN woman you are championing, this article is not for anti-trans dog whistles and that is all she spouted. She is mentioned, but the article is not for promoting the dog-whistle propaganda she is throwing out unasked for.
In short, this article is not going to promote an anti-trans agenda and nor should it, and nor should Wikipedia.
In conclusion, I find the laundry list of complaints to be ridiculous and I reject 100% of it. Sparkle1 ( talk) 22:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I have made clear how ludicrous this whole bent is of the article not being neutral on the forum shop you have gone down to. Sparkle1 ( talk) 12:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Sweet you are agenda pushing and it is transparent. You are also now engaged in personal attacks claiming things you are engaged in and have been warned to drop the boomerang as it will hit you hard on the face. Sparkle1 ( talk) 10:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
BBC News mentions heckling from the public gallery after the result was announced. The National confirms one protestor flashed her genitals at the Parliament.
It's currently going round Twitter that this was a member of the Scottish Feminist Network and the group was removed from the chamber. Relevant segment of the broadcast including the announcement of the result, the heckling, and business being temporarily suspended: https://scottishparliament.tv/meeting/meeting-of-the-parliament-december-22-2022?clip_start=15:01:38&clip_end=15:02:45
WP:NOTABLE? Appears there are secondary sources already. Treppin ( talk) 18:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The media in the UK is notoriously anti trans and is using this bill as an anti trans vehicle.The statement
If there is inclusion there must be the condemnation of these issues as well as views supporting this.is wholly inappropriate – it is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what views/actions should be condemned, and what should be supported. However, there is the question how much coverage of particular protests we should give in our article. The statement about flashing genitals is not, as such, particularly significant in the context of our article, which is about the Bill/Act itself, and the general reaction to it. What wording is proposed? Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The announcement of the result was accompanied by cheers from supporters in the chamber, and shouts of “shame on you” from protesters in the public gallery.Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 11:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Unproductive subthread; let’s focus on improving the article |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Drop it Sweet, your agenda and biases are clear. Stop posting unconnected things which distort what I have posted. You know full well I am only referring to the anti-trans garbage put out by the UK media. You know I was not commenting on one woman being a hypocrite for being a part of a group which demonises trans people, calls them perverts and mentally ill then decided to act like a petulant self-absorbed narcissist by shouting around and flashing her fanny even if it was covered by a merkin. I do not hold you to be a good-faith interlocuter on this article sweet.
Sparkle1 (
talk) 09:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Today I have made a few edits which restore deleted content by user Sparkle1 – again! However, I appreciate their view that the article wasn’t entirely balanced, so I added content onto the other side of the argument. In future though, it is better to add information instead of deleting it unless there are problems with referencing of it does not promote an unbiased opinion. Moreover, I have mentioned in the Opinion polls section the validity of such polls can be questioned as they are subject to sample size, sample area, demographic. Additionally, it is possible to manipulate results to push an agenda. Scientelensia ( talk) 12:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Questions have been cast on the validity of such polls….) is not directly related to the subject of this article. It is a comment which might be made if one were writing an essay, and is not really appropriate in the article, unless a source has made this comment in connection with these particular polls: I would delete it. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The content was not ‘randomly deleted’ please withdraw that claim, Scientelensia, it came with a clear edit summary and there are previous discussions. The issues with the article have been numerous. This article cannot be treated as a newspaper or a forum. The claim of ‘both siding’ is also not valid as there must be relevancy for the content, the content must be encyclopaedic, and must stay focused on the subject matter. This article is not a forum for trans rights in general and claims or comments made by Joanna, Joanna and Mhari are just Tom, Dick and Harry inclusions. I agree with the neutral inclusion on the supporters and protesters. I am though wondering why there is even a section on opinion polls in this article. Can someone give a good encyclopaedic reason for inclusion, which is not so and so did it and it was in so and so news outlet? The article is not ‘unbalanced’ as is bizarrely pushed by others. This article must not include every loud mouth or column inch opinion. The bill is very narrow and the process of the bill and the actual bill must remain a focus. Singling our one party no matter who they are IS massive POV pushing. I looked up the tuition fees vote from 2012 and people tried to single out the Lib Dem’s but that was deemed POV pushing even though they had the pledge. Same is here with singling out 7 and then 9 members of the SNP even though it was in the manifesto it is still POV pushing to single them out. The claim of ‘unbalanced’ is as far as I’m concerned deluded and others need to realise this is not a news site, campaign platform, commentary, or forum. Sparkle1 ( talk) 13:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Why the UK as a whole when this is only relevant to Scotland? Also is it Wikipedia’s job to inform ‘future readers’ of a few opinion polls? What is the relevance to the bill? This is not an historic time capsule. Sparkle1 ( talk) 14:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The fact the Westminster government can use a legal provision does not mean that it is sufficient a hook to include public opinion outside Scotland. This legislation will not apply outside Scotland so I ask again why the whole of the UK? A survey and a consultant are not the same here. Also the claims made by people on stereotypes are completely irrelevant to the bill in their entirety. The spin you put on it of ‘went ahead with it anyway’ shows a POV to include. You state ‘ Opinion polls are useful to document opinions on gender and sex over time.’ Lovely but that is not the purpose of this or any other article. Your claims of WP:Otherstuffexists/ Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments is a patent bad argument and should be avoided. You have not addressed why there is inclusion and the fact that other articles have opinion polls does not make it right, relevant or precedent for this article or for those articles either. I ask again why is this section in the article? Sparkle1 ( talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, Why are Care in any way relevant? Sparkle1 ( talk) 15:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you withdraw the second part of your claim as it is nonsense. I have equally removed Mhari Black and someone else you I think added it back. Additionally, this is not a repository for surveys and opinion polls. I ask again why is this a section on this article. Finally, you really must stop adding Rowing and Cherry. these sections are the worst kind of saccharin I have read in a long time. especially offensive about them is using Cherry's sexual orientation. Additionally, Rowling as I described in great detail above in another thread is just a member of the public and has nothing to do with this no matter how 'prominent' people think she is. Wikipedia is not a news site for the shoutings of popular people or famous people.
On an aside I would strongly recommend reading WP:NPOV Scientelensia and WP:MOS. Sparkle1 ( talk) 15:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I removed the section about CARE's polling on the GRR bill. There are a couple of concerns: the citation is to a press release on CARE's website, the polling question, company and results are not published. CARE are summarised as an "organisation working to prevent self-harm, abortion, gambling and suicide". I'm not sure that's an accurate way to summarise their work: CARE is short for 'Christian Action, Research and Education' and their work includes opposing this bill, opposing the Scottish Government's ban on the psychological torture of LGBT+ people, defending protestors who harass women accessing abortion services, opposing abortion in NI and various other culture war issues. If they are to be included, I would add CARE to the list of groups who opposed the bill.
I've also zapped the section about the 'Scottish Government's survey.' In my comments about the edit, I should have acknowledged this and I apologise that I did not. The link is not to polling, but to a document that tries to summarise the results of one of the Scottish Government's consultation exercises. Those exercises are touched upon in the body of the article. Due to their scale and variety the results of each exercise is going to be difficult to summarise without running into NPOV issues or editorial questions. In the draft I removed, the opposition talking points speak to anxieties that people have, but are AFAICS irrelevant as the bill does not alter clinical practice, or the circumstances in which individuals are judged competent to make clinical decisions. If this consultation response document is to be summarised, I feel we would have to engage in a similar exercise for the first consultation, the relevant Holyrood committee's open call for evidence and *maybe* some of the consultation exercises. [And we're stuck with the same NPOV issues at each stage] 81.79.240.98 ( talk) 16:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Earlier, I added content to both Support and Opposition sections of the Bill in attempt to add more content while preserving the neutrality of the article. This can been seen below. I also added some polls, including a poll conducted by the Scottish Government themselves. Most of the users I’ve talked to agreed with these. As this poll resulted in a negative result for the bill, user Sparkle1 removed most of the content opposing the bill, resulting in edits restoring and deleting these facts. However, I did make changes the user requested such as using sites like The Times instead of the Scottish Express and removing phrases previously in the article, such as “widely considered”. Despite this, when I pointed out that the user was removing only content opposing the bill, Sparkle1 decided to remove basically all of it, with still slightly more content on the Supporting side. You can read the previous support and opposition sections below. Do you all think any of this should be restored?
(N.B. user Special:Contributions/81.79.240.98 pointed out something about the CARE organisation, which I agree with. Obviously my edits below are not perfect, but I wanted to gain a general consensus over whether or not any of this content should be restored instead of mindlessly deleted.)
(N.B.2. the user Special:Contributions/81.79.240.98 also stated they disagreed with having the Scottish Government’s poll, but I felt this was useful, again, please let me know if you agree or disagree.)
(N.B.3. I couldn’t manage to display the references underneath, but you can click the link below to assure yourselves that they’re there!)
Any thoughts and replies would be warmly welcomed. Thank you all very much and have a very Merry Christmas!
The bill was supported by many feminist, LGBT and human rights campaign organisations, including Amnesty International, Stonewall, Rape Crisis Scotland, Equality Network, Engender, Scottish Trans Alliance, and Scottish Women's Aid.
The SNP, Scottish Greens, Scottish Labour and Scottish Liberal Democrats supported the bill.
The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has championed the bill, stating that she wouldn’t “apologise for trying to spread equality”. Sturgeon also insisted that nothing in the bill would produce any more threat to the safety of women.
Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner Dunja Mijatović described the bill as following international best practice.
Upon finding out that the bill could be revoked by the United Kingdom’s government, SNP politician Mhairi Black warned Rishi Sunak and his government that doing so would be an “attack on Scottish democracy”.
The bill was opposed by the Scottish Conservatives, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Scotland, and feminist and LGB organisations such as For Women Scotland, Fair Play for Women and the LGB Alliance.
Moreover, prominent figures, most notably author JK Rowling, opposed the bill, as did many other feminists.
Many members of the United Kingdom’s population also expressed concern that the Bill reinforced gender stereotypes and undermined the sexual orientation of homosexuals.
Ash Regan was one of 15 senior SNP politicians, a list including current Finance Secretary Kate Forbes and Business Minister Ivan McKee, who signed a letter in 2019 urging the Scottish leadership not to "rush" into "changing the definition of male and female". Additionally, Forbes commented in 2021 that her “hope would be that nobody’s voice is silenced in this debate”.
The SNP MP Joanna Cherry, a lesbian woman considered as an advocate of women’s rights, was sacked from her job as justice spokesman in 2021 after she opposed her the plans of her party. Moreover, Cherry claimed she later received “very threatening messages” SNP from a party member concerning her views.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gender_Recognition_Reform_(Scotland)_Bill&oldid=1129297192
Scientelensia (
talk) 18:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
In short the above will never get back in as it simply violates far too much of the purpose of Wikipedia. This article is not and will not be a laundry list of every Tom, Dick and Sally giving their tuppence. The above proposals are grotesque I mean it is disgusting to use a persons sexual orientation as a hook. Also trying to sugarcoat rabid anti-trans groups as anything else is vile. Leave it that the additions of some member of the public who is not a politician is irrelevant. The proposed changes have so many issues that it will never get into the article. NPOV, Relevancy, agenda pushing and most of all tabloid news reporting. As such the proposals are hopeless. Sparkle1 ( talk) 20:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The additions you are demanding are tabloid journalism and anti-trans dog whistles with a clear anti-SNP bias (no matter how much Nicola Sturgeon quoting you think offsets this). All of the proposed changes are hopelessly out of the understanding loop as to the purpose of Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. The article is not going to be a tabloid journalistic endeavour and no matter how much you try and use ink by the barrel it is not happening. "I have added content on both sides with politicians and organisations featuring on both sides." That is not how being unbiased works. Both siding is a clear misunderstanding of the policies. All this boils down to is a heated set of tabloid laundry lists. Both sides and unbiased are not the same, you are conflating the two. Adding what you have is some of the most biased additions that could be made to the article no matter how much 'both siding' is done. There is no compromise on the additions you are proposing. None of it in any form is getting in. Nothing on Cherry is getting in. Nothing on Rowling is getting in. Nothing on "the Bill reinforced gender stereotypes and undermined the sexual orientation" is getting in. Nothing on " Ash Regan was one of 15 senior SNP politicians" is getting in. Nothing from Black is getting in. Calling specific anti-trans groups "feminist" and claiming multiple "LGB organisations" when it is one prominent well-funded anti-trans group is getting in. " First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has championed the bill", is not getting in. The reason why? It is all POV-pushing, It is all agenda-pushing, it is all wholly unrelated to the topic, and it is all just tabloid newspaper copy. I will not in 'the spirit of compromise' allow crowbarred rubbish like this in, where it is clearly there to further biases, POV and agendas. You also seem incapable of realising the Council of Europe statement has been moved to a more appropriate section of the article, which shows you are blanketly reverting and not paying attention to edits which are actually being made by others. The horrific weasel words which are used throughout to push the POV and Agenda are also horrendous and make the additions unsalvageable use of phrases such as "considered as an advocate of women’s rights", "as did many other feminists", "Many members of the United Kingdom’s population" and "expressed concern". These are classic weasel words to try and slip things in through a veneer of claimability and so and so rumour mill said so. It is not happening. Finally the disgusting use of "The SNP MP Joanna Cherry, a lesbian woman" which utilises sexual orientation as a hook is just flat the prime example of how much this is just not fit to be included on Wikeidpia. In short, these proposed changes violate an incredible amount of Wikipedia policy and cannot under any format be added. Sparkle1 ( talk) 00:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
The only political parties that get to be included are parties with representation in the Scottish Parliament, otherwise, the list of who gets included could be endless.
A Rally or protest outside where a couple of fringe Westminster MPs spoke is not relevant enough to be included no matter who they are. It seems there is a heavy 'must crowbar Cherry in somehow' bent being pushed on this article. She is not getting in and nor is the Alba party or anyone from them. These rally/protest inclusions are just more POV pushing, agenda pushing and undue weight. It doesn't matter one iota how well-sourced something is, it is not getting in if it is POV pushing or undue weight. Cherry and the Alba Party are on the fringes and cannot be promoted as if they are mainstream, no matter how much media spewing about trans people is done.
Rishi Sunak, Shona Robinson and friends, and whatever they say is irrelevant when trying to pad and puff the Royal Assent section. What is relevant is when they actually do something. The fact Royal Assent is being awaited is currently covered in more than enough detail. There is no need for editorialising with lines like "never been done before" and including newspaper reports of politicians' media pronouncements. It just turns this article into a newspaper, so these inclusions cannot be allowed to slip their slimy way in.
Sourcing and verifiability do not trump the need for the article to be encyclopaedic and neutral without undue weight. As such there must be remembering when editing this article that no matter how many sources something has it does not mean it gets be included. Inclusions must not treat this article as a laundry list, tabloid newspaper, or a forum to promote fringe politicians and fringe political parties, with fringe views, being loud and having friends in the media does not mean the views aren't fringe views. Sparkle1 ( talk) 20:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The only parties that get to be included….You do not have a veto over which parties are relevant to this article.
A Rally or protests outside…where a couple of fringe Westminster MPs…There is no such thing as a
fringe Westminster MP
She is not getting in…You do not have a veto over who is mentioned in this article. Cherry is not ‘on the fringes’ – she is the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights
I also don't think you would ever be persuaded as you seem bent on not keeping this article focused on the legislation, but clearly want to crowbar it to being an open forum for the views of anyone and anything to be included. Sparkle1 ( talk) 21:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Cabinet members Alister Jack and Kemi Badenoch as well as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have made statements saying the Government is actively considering this.and
Shona Robison and LGBT+ Labour have criticised this as threatening the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament. There has been media speculation in The Guardian and Alex Cole-Hamilton that there will be legal challenges to the bill and any potential government use of Section 35., in support of the point above. Again, reported in reliable sources and completely relevant to the passage of the bill.
Victor Madrigal-Borloz, United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, supported the legislation., in the Support section. Again, reported in a reliable source.
Members of British Parliament Neale Hanvey and Joanna Cherry as well as former MSP Johann Lamont spoke against the bill at a rally in front of the Scottish Parliament building.. I'm not sure of the standard of Yahoo News as a reliable source, but the rally was also reported by the BBC so it seems perfectly reasonable to include in the section about opposition to the bill.
Talk from politiciansseems eminently relevant to an act of Parliament, but relevant opinions worthy of inclusion are not limited to politicians. We follow the sources.
The claim of "We follow the sources" misses the fact that the article is not driven by sources. That's the tail wagging the dog. The article must be neutral, free from POV and focused on the subject matter. I ask, why are non-MSPs being included? Inclusion is giving them undue weight. The sources cannot drive the article. The subject matter must drive the article. In this case, it is the legislation itself and not the circus and sideshows which came along with it trying to have a debate on trans rights.
A fringe politician is one who is outside of the mainstream and on this issue Cherry most clearly is a fringe politician within her own party and other politicians. Simply being promoted by anti-trans newspapers does not make one any more mainstream. That is though enough on Cherry and if she is a fringe or not. It has to be remembered that non-depreciated sources here cannot be used to include opinion pieces and agendas. "long-standing history of involvement with this bill" is POV and does not mean Cherry gets to be crowbarred into the article. By that metric, anyone could be considered to have "long-standing history of involvement with this bill" and get included. Cherry is like Rowling here, just one more voice from the outside shouting in. Her inclusion is not justified.
The POV being pushed regarding Section 35 is the whirls of speculation of will-they or won't-they, will-he or won't-he and so on. If they do use it then that is fine include it. If they don't use it fine include it but pushing the POV of wild speculation and including press coverage of he-said and she-said is just ridiculous and detracts from the focus of the article. This is not a debating society or a political Sunday show on TV. The article cannot get into the weeds of speculation. There must be a waiting to see what happens then the article can include what actually happens. Sparkle1 ( talk) 22:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The article does have a very narrow scope.but that’s not actually the position, which is that you want it to have a very narrow scope. The version of the article you want deprives our readers of relevant information, and in particular, it deprives readers of information about opposition to the bill.
POVbut you never say what the POV is, nor how the information concerned is POV in Wikipedia terms. I recommend that you read WP:NPOV. The nutshell says:
Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.Your attitude seems to be that we should not explain the sides. You have also said that the article should not be
driven by sourcesBut this is the opposite of what WP:NPOV says, which is:
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Other editors clearly have shown that they view you to have a clear bias and agenda, so I do not take your views as neutral on this when you are trying to crowbar everyone under the sun into the article. The claims of "deprives our readers of relevant information, and in particular, it deprives readers of information about opposition to the bill." Is code for including more and more in the opposition section, because it boosts the POV you are pushing. The claims of "so uninformative that it is not much use to readers" is again more code that your POV is being eliminated from the article. The claim of "Your attitude seems to be that we should not explain the sides." The article cannot take to "explaining sides" as that is straying into Original Research which Wikipedia bans outright. It also seems to be that you are trying with your quote from NPOV, to suggest that Anti-trans media sources get to be used as a crowbar to push in anti-trans slants. This is not an open forum on trans rights, a place for individuals' opinions or anything which is a general commentary on the bill, trans people, trans rights, conspiracies, or outright lies about what the bill does. The media in the UK such as The Times, Guardian, Telegraph, BBC (look at Women's Hour as a prime example), etc, are all rabidly anti-trans and on this topic cannot be in any way viewed as reliable, beyond nuts and bolts reporting on the legislation. They cannot be used for things such as reporting things like 'protests' as they are easily viewed as artificially boosting these events. This article is about the bill, not the so-called debate of opposition and support noise going on surrounding it. Reliable does not mean unbiased. Sparkle1 ( talk) 19:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
trying to crowbar everyone under the sun into the article.That suggestion does not make sense in itself, and you ought to be aware that I did not actually add the material which you dispute.
the article cannot take to “explaining sides”. This was a quote from WP:NPOV, to which I referred you. So you are opposed to the most fundamental policy of Wikipedia.
I draw your attention to the following demonstrating in particular how much of an anti trans bent the BBC is on. If one follows that thread, one finds the claim that "Five former members of staff spoke of how they felt “hidden” and “ashamed” during their time at the BBC, which eventually led them to quit. The most recent resignation was last week." . The number may be a bit higher, but the resignations related to ALL LGBQT coverage over a number of years, not simply trans. Getting from a small number of staff leaving because they disagreed with coverage to "how much of an anti trans bent the BBC is on" requires a massive amount of hyperbole. Pincrete ( talk) 13:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
This article needs outside input as this is just POV pushing in my opinion and trying to turn the article into a political forum. Sparkle1 ( talk) 12:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I can't fathom a good justification for retaining the section on opinion polls. It doesn't really add to the article and it seems to just be there for the sake of it. There were three public consultations on this bill which are covered, the inclusion of opinion polls as well seems pretty pointless. Sparkle1 ( talk) 21:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Being 'manifestly self-evident' is circular, it is not a reason for inclusion, please provide a reason and answer why when three public consultations are included opinion polls are also being included when this is not an election article. Sparkle1 ( talk) 23:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
This is not an election article….. Quite so. And these are not election opinion polls, so your statement is irrelevant. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
The above does not give any reason for inclusion. It is simply stating ‘they should’. Why should they be included is the question. The article does not ‘need’ them simply because they are different to public consultations. What next we ask people who are in the street and include that because that too is different from a public consultation. Sparkle1 ( talk) 09:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Dispute over the inclusion of information to the article regarding those in support and opposition to the legislation and the scope of the article in general. There are multiple discussions above that show the depth of difficulty in finding agreement on this article. Sparkle1 ( talk) 13:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Do however, restrict it to parties which have an MP only or are large enough in their substance, notability, and influence to exert such without any MP, if such parties exist.Reference to the views of Alister Jack, Kemi Badenoch, Rishi Sunak, Shona Robison, and Joanna Cherry has been deleted from the article. Regarding opinion polls, they say
… summarize the polls…rather than exclude them altogether. Regarding other supporters, they say:
Supporters that aren’t parties like unions, activism organizations, celebrities, etc can all be put into one sentence each, except if one organization’s activism was crucial. In other words, if an activist was like Nelson Mandela relative to a cause, by due weight they should have more written about them.This would appear to support the inclusion of a sentence about J K Rowling. Sweet6970 ( talk) 09:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Dispute over the inclusion of information to the article regarding those in support and opposition to the legislation and the scope of the article in general? What question is being asked that you want additional input on? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
P.S. I agree with Rhododendrites's concerns, the question here is poorly presented. If this RFC gets scrapped and restarted, I would advise more clearly specifying the content or categories of content that are disputed. Alsee ( talk) 19:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This RfC is so vague as to be pointless. There have been several discussions on specific points e.g. the latest discussion above, stated by Sparkel1 and entitled by them This is not a place for tabloiding or the opinions of every Tom, Dick and Sally. The consensus was strongly against Sparkel1. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I edited the lead earlier to describe the bill as "awaiting Royal Assent" with a sentence at the end of the paragraph explaining the government's recent announcement that they intend to block royal assent. Sparkle1 then changed this structure, describing the bill as "pending not being granted Royal Assent, by the use of a section 35 Order of the Scotland Act 1998, by the Westminster Government". I prefer my version for two reasons. a) The bill has not yet had royal assent refused, so it is technically still awaiting royal assent. Given how fractious this is, we do not yet know for certain whether royal assent will be denied, just that the government currently plans to do so. I think "awaiting royal assent" is the clearest way of putting this. b) I also think it is clearer to put the government's intention to block royal assent at the end of the paragraph. These two things (the current legal status of the bill and the government's announced intention) are different things and I think it would be clearer to keep them separate. Doing so would also resolve what I think at the moment is quite a clumsy opening sentence. What do others think? WJ94 ( talk) 19:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The bill is not awaiting royal assent anymore FFS. The government in Westminster have blocked Royal assent so to state 'awaiting Royal Assent' is flat-out wrong. Sparkle1 ( talk) 20:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
On 16 January 2023, the United Kingdom government announced that it would use section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 to block Royal Assent for the bill.Tomorrow it will be even clearer. 😁 Tewdar 20:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, I'd like to apologise for restoring my version of the lead when I did - I should not have been so hasty to do so and should probably have left someone else to do it. Nevertheless, I agree with Tewdar and Barnards.tar.gz. The government not yet blocked royal assent but have only announced that they intend to do so. With something as unprecedented and contentious as this, we should avoid assuming that things will pan out exactly as the government have planned - and avoid giving the impression that they will ( WP:CRYSTAL). At the moment, the bill is awaiting royal assent and the government has said they intend to block it; this should be made clear in the article. It is not "pending not being granted royal assent" because that is not a legal status that a bill can have, and that wording makes it sound like a done deal. WJ94 ( talk) 21:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This edit looks fine to me but it has been removed a couple of times for unconvincing reasons. Can anybody see anything wrong with it? It is currently back in the article. Is there any reason not to keep it? It seems relevant to the topic and neutrally written. DanielRigal ( talk) 20:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Sparkle1:, seeing as you have banned me from your User Talk page, please can I ask you here not to mark major edits as minor? If you are unclear about what constitutes a genuine minor edit please see Help:Minor edit. Thanks. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
How can an article be this long and never describe the content of the bill? There is more description of the English law than the Scottish one. All I can gather from the lead is it "makes it easier", and from the body of the article no mention at all. What a failure. Rmhermen ( talk) 00:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The bill lowers the age people can change their legal gender from 18 to 16, removes the requirement of a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and reduces the waiting time from two years to six months of living in an acquired gender.Perhaps this needs its own section instead. Tewdar 10:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The section on this says that a number of amendments were proposed [to be] made to the bill, but the majority were not passed. There is then a list of amendments, but there is no information about which amendments were passed, and which failed. I don’t have access to the National - can anyone help?
If not, then I think the whole of the list of amendments should be deleted. Sweet6970 ( talk) 17:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Sideswipe9th: Can you assist with this query? Sweet6970 ( talk) 01:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
More than 100 amendments were lodged in the billbut only that
The majority of proposed amendments made at Stage 2 were defeated by the committee.without giving specific numbers.
Just wanted to note that I've removed a paragraph added by Snokalok, that presented a specific quotation from the policy statement about the invocation of section 35 of the Scotland Act as original research as it was cited only to the text of the policy statement. If there are reliable secondary sources that could support this, it could potentially be restored.
However, given that this statement sets out the legal position of the Westminster government in blocking the legislation passed by Holyrood, I wonder if we might better be served in terms of content by waiting for legal scholars and commentators to make commentary on the statement? Given the significance of the invocation, I suspect there will be such commentary from all parts of the political spectrum over the coming days and weeks, as such analyses will feed into any challenge of the section 35 order by the Scottish government.
Also yes, this is the same message I left at Talk:Transgender rights in the United Kingdom#Original research on statement of reasons, but it was the same content on both articles, and the same question on legal analysis seems relevant here as well. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Jack and Badenoch have both argued it waters down protections for single-sex spaces and contravenes UK-wide equality legislation by imposing a different regime for just one devolved country.and
The statement of reasons, when finally published by Badenoch’s equalities office, sets out three reasons why the Scottish bill has UK-wide implications. The first warns of the supposed impact on single-sex clubs and others, and on equal pay, of having two “parallel and very different regimes” in the UK for deciding gender. The second argues that the Scottish system will bring “significantly increased potential for fraudulent applications” to change gender, while the third says it will affect the working of the UK-wide Equality Act.Sweet6970 ( talk) 00:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
[Secretary of State Alister Jack/Equality hub/Minister for Women and Equalities Kemi Badenoch/Westminster government?]released the
[Westminster government's/their?]policy statement on their decision to invoke Section 35. In the statement they set out three primary reasons for why
[they believed/the Westminster government believed?]the Scottish bill impinged upon reserved matters; the first
[warning/claiming/]of a
[possible/potential]impact on provision of single-sex services
[authorised/protected]under the Equality Act 2010 as a result of creating "two parallel and very different regimes" for issuing gender recognition certificates, the second
[warning/claiming]of a
[possible/potential]increased risk of fraudulent applications, and the third
[warning/claiming?]of potential impacts on the operation of the Equality Act 2010."
theirseems the correct choice for the second optional.
It may also be that providers find it more difficult to justify excluding increased numbers of people with GRCs or worry about an increased risk of operational and/or legal challenges. This could lead to an increase in the number of transgender people accessing single-sex services, spaces and roles(emphasis mine, source sentences paragraph 49 pages 11-12) Given this ambiguity in the document, and the intention for this to be brought before the Court of Session for a judicial review, I think we need these qualifiers or something similar to them in our prose to make it clear that the UK government's position is not a settled matter of law.
On 17 January 2023, the Westminster government released a policy statement on their decision to invoke Section 35. In the statement they set out three primary reasons why they believed the Scottish bill impinged upon reserved matters: firstly, a potential impact on provision of single-sex services authorised under the Equality Act 2010 as a result of creating "two parallel and very different regimes" for issuing gender recognition certificates; secondly, a potential increased risk of fraudulent applications; thirdly, potential impacts on the operation of the Equality Act 2010.Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Change made. Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This report by the BBC today [13] says that Lord Hope says that the Scottish government’s chances of success in a legal challenge to the section 35 order are minimal, whereas Lord Falconer has tweeted that the UK govt’s reasons are not justified. i.e. they have opposite views.
Is this worth a sentence?
Sweet6970 ( talk) 15:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Change made. Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a clear POV push to include the use of the phrase revolt and make out 9 SNP MSPs votes against this bill are far bigger than they actually are. I am not buying that 9 of 63 members votingg a certain way warrants such hysterical inclusion in this article. This is not a complete and utter hack-a-thon for talking heads and political campaigns. Sparkle1 ( talk) 19:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
taking sources agreed with and then inserting it verbatim- what, like
"Now, I understand that independence is the only way to achieve [progressive] goals in the face of a highly conservative UK government.😂 Tewdar 20:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
I see you engineered this and are now in full gloat and would appreciate you striking those gloating attacks from this page. Sparkle1 ( talk) 12:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
As stated in an edit summary by an IP user, Beyond Holyrood Magazine, their polling does not appear to have been covered, published or reported by other sources, and they do not appear to exist beyond this wikipedia page, Holyrood Magazine and pages that quote either.
Furthermore, the holyrood article doesn't have a byline, and how are you supposed to interpret 53% when 20% responded "don't know". A whole fifth of respondents were "IDK".
If this poll is to be included in the article, then someone needs to make a case for it. Why is this one-off 2021 poll commisioned Blackburn et al considered notable/verifiable for a
contentious topic? Another user pointed out Holyrood magazine doesn't even get the name of the three supposed analysts right. In my edit summary, I said maybe adding more context could make it right, but the more I look, the worse the source is. Maybe Holyrood magazine is OK when the author is willing to put their name to the piece, and doesn't mess up the name of the analysts they're reporting on. But this is not that article.
Sativa Inflorescence (
talk) 14:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
comes as the Scottish Government prepares to bring forward reforms to the laws around gender recognition, which is why it's relevant context for this article. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 16:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
haven't seen text proposed for this article that would be comparably clearhow about proposing a wording? Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC).
I was wondering wether it's really necessary to list the full names of all voters in the different stages of the legal process. I don't see the encyclopedic value of this, surely the totals per party are sufficient. Moreover, giving the sensitive nature of the subject, I think is also at odds with Wikipedia policy, i.e. WP:BLP. T v x1 22:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
It is essential to avoid any bias and to ensure that there is a neutral point of view. This is also standard for bills such as this. See Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and other legislation of a similar kind. Not including the vote breakdown tables leads to the OTT POV nonsense of the pushing of ridiculous and inflammatory narratives in wikvoice of the internal politics of individual groups in the parliament and other ludicrous POV's.
It in no way has anything to do with BLP or coming anywhere near this side of the galaxy of violating BLP. Such a fallacy is a whole cloth creation out of thin air. If including factually accurate and neutrally presented information is in any way a BLP violation then give up on Wikipedia entirely, as nothing could be included in the encyclopedia. There is ZERO, absolutely ZERO issues with BLP. To make such a claim and if it were true is a total inversion of BLP. Sparkle1 ( talk) 11:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill 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 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||||
|
The results of the recent consultation have been published, with approximately 60% disagreeing with the overall purpose of the bill: https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/equalities-human-rights-and-civil-justice-committee/gender-recognition-bill/equalities-committee-summary-of-short-survey-grr-bill-responses.pdf JezGrove ( talk) 23:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The content/sources on this article appear to take a clear political line and maybe should be reviewed and or/balanced. I find the use of the term "anti-trans" rather than, for example, "gender critical" particularly concerning 146.200.181.77 ( talk) 07:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
"Anti-trans campaigning efforts by these organisations that focus on perceived and manufactured concern for women's safety have effectively attempted to stir up public opposition to the proposals.since it does not add significantly to the information provided in the previous sentence:
A number of anti-trans organisations such as For Women Scotland, Fair Play for Women, LGB Alliance campaigned against the proposals.
A number of trans-exclusionary organisations such as For Women Scotland, Fair Play for Women, LGB Alliance campaigned against the proposals.
In short, JKR is an uninvolved individual, this is not a tabloid or a news site or worse a twitter replicator. The use of the term 'revolt' stinks or POV/ It is also PV to only include the SNP. "opposition to the changes' is wholly and could mean anything. The UN woman was also just one person wading in when her opinion was not asked for. Again another uninvolved person is being amplified by anti-trans media sources. This is again not a tabloid or news site. Aslo trying to coddle a source so it is softer and so on is POV selecting. the groups listed are straight-up anti-trans groups, and calling them anything else fails the duck test. Sparkle1 ( talk) 20:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah a couple of people over a few days where the edits violate Wikipedia policy on POV and undue weight. You wanna keep talking be my guest, but you cannot say this discussion freezes the article as we want it. Sparkle1 ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
just one person wading in when her opinion was not asked for. And the source was The Scotsman.
Aslo trying to coddle a source so it is softer and so on is POV selecting..
You wanna keep talking be my guest, but you cannot say this discussion freezes the article as we want itindicates that you have no intention of editing in a collaborative way. In addition, you have now made other edits to the article without agreement, knowing that the wording of this article is in dispute. This is not the proper way to behave.
Ok this is unnecessarily confrontational and everyone should walk off and come back afresh, no one owns this and getting heated over this helps no one. Sparkle1 ( talk) 23:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Each of them has been answered and I am presenting the data for the votes in the most neutral way possible. You want to shout REVOLT over 7 no votes by SNP members out of 64. If that isn't POV pushing nothing is. I am also not going to discuss getting your sign-off or approval before making edits to this article. I have significantly cleaned up the article and toned down a lot of unnecessary negativity in the article and a lot of POV pushing in the article. Members of the public saying things and wearing t-shirts is tabloid fodder not encyclopaedic, no matter who the member of the public is or how wealthy or famous they are. Elected members of the Scottish parliament are different, but it cannot be a laundry list of only those who say negative things. I also find the NPOV tag laughable. It is clear from your edits and editing history you oppose reforms and oppose this legislation and you cannot allow that to colour your judgement here. I am also pointing out that you have wildly thrown good-faith assumptions out of the window here with your demands and I am not going to play along with that. The article has changed I WILL NOT revert and if you do then you will be reported for edit warring and POV pushing. If you wish to make constructive edits then fine, but blanket reverts and revert demands are simply nonsense. The things you are demanding be reverted are standard and uncontroversial. Do you honestly want a discussion on adding an info box, calling it a bill instead of a proposed Act, and adding in a vote summary table? That would be a complete farce and I will simply not partake as it does not further the purpose of Wikipedia to discuss such basic uncontroversial items. Just because you had a discussion doesn't mean its outcome is fixed in stone and that you get to demand that the article remains like the discussion outcome. That is classic article ownership and is something I will not endorse.
In short, I suggest reading up on how Wikipedia works and how editing Wikipedia works and then I suggest you come back here. Otherwise, you will simply get nowhere. Sparkle1 ( talk) 18:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Being newsworthy and making newspaper inches does not make something worth going into an article. For it to be included there must be some relevance and connection as to why it is included. The Scottish Billionaire famous author is not an elected politician, did not give evidence on the bill and was not asked to participate in the legislative process. Rowling is just a member of the public in this context who wore a t-shirt and got n some newspapers. That is newsworthy but not encyclopedic. If she was an elected politician and she was a prominent politician campaigning against this then fine include away. That would be relevant, she is though not an MP, MSP, or Cllr. She is no different in this context to you or I. Neither of us warrants inclusion on this for opening our mouths on this subject on Wikipedia no matter how many newspapers give us a column. Rowling is the same. Celebrity may equal newsworthy but it does not equal encyclopaedic content. If it did then there would be no end of everyone who could be included from goodness knows what quarter and there would be no way of saying well this person was included but this person can't. It is just a total and utter farce to say being a celebrity and getting to be amplified by a newspaper (no matter how much one shouts about being so-called silenced) affords you influence and connection to a subject. Remember this is an encyclopaedia with standards, not a journalism-free tabloid giving whoever you are friends with space to spout whatever comes to mind no matter how devoid of truth, reality, or basic sanity it or they are. Wikipedia does not include opinion pieces outside specific articles on the people themselves or where there is a direct link, such as starting the MeToo movement. All Rowling is is an opinion piece and giving it inclusion in POV pushing and clear undue weight. Sparkle1 ( talk) 01:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Sparkle1:
a) I see you have deleted the POV dispute tag from the article i.e. you are disputing that there is a dispute. This means that there is a dispute. Stop denying this.
b) The current wording says: The bill is supported by feminist and LGBT and human rights campaign organisations, including Amnesty International, Stonewall, Rape Crisis Scotland, Equality Network, Engender and Scottish Women's Aid.
This implies that all feminist and LGBT and human rights campaign organisations support the bill, whereas the feminist organisations
For Women Scotland, and
Fair Play for Women, and the LGB rights organisation
LGB Alliance are opposed to the bill.
c) The Equality and Human Rights Commission has expressed concerns [4], but this is not mentioned in the article.
d) You have made a subheading ‘anti-trans groups’ specifically for the feminist and LGB organisations mentioned in (b), when the source predominantly speaks of them as ‘trans-exclusionary’.
e) You have deleted the information about the revolt by SNP MSPs [5] The fact that, as reported by the Guardian, this was the biggest revolt by SNPs, is highly significant. Your statement that describing a revolt as a revolt is POV makes no sense whatever.
f) You have changed the comment made by Reem Alaslem from Reem Alaslem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, expressed fears the proposals could be abused by predatory men.
to Reem Alaslem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, gave an opinion against the proposals.
This excludes the relevant information from the article, and biases the article.
Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
supported by several.
You clearly want reasoning here so here goes.
First of the only lack of neutrality is in your head, there isn't actually any, you are seeing a lack of neutrality because it goes against what you want to be portrayed in the article.
You hammer on about this 'revolt' crap; 7 I repeat 7 members of the SNP out of 64 voted against it. Leave the hysteria in the Guardian, the Scotsman and other news publications. This is not a news site. This is an encyclopaedia. Calling it a revolt is POV pushing and that is not going to happen in this article.
The group you mentioned, such as "for women Scotland" and "Fair Play for Women", have a single purpose of removing the rights of trans people and excluding them from society. LGB Alliance calls itself an LGB group but in court revealed it is mainly supported by straight people. They are also well documented in pushing anti-trans agendas, and in Australia were recently designated an anti-trans hate group. So they get called what the are Anti-Trans groups. The duck test says they are anti-trans Wikipedia is not for their propaganda. trans-exclusionary is just a fancy term for anti-trans. These are groups who bring lawsuits to try and exclude trans people from society and try and remove the rights of trans people in court.
You mention wading in by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, you mean the group that put out misinformation on trans people, as can be seen here. They are bad actors in this and are nothing to do with Scottish legal proposals as the information you want to put in was not put out by the Scottish committee. They can be found here. So they fall into another one of the wading in uninvited camp of people who Wikipedia do not give credence.
Your claim of 'support by all' is a dog whistle red herring to try and crowbar in groups who are anti-trans under the umbrella they think the public finds least hostile. The list of examples clearly set out who the groups are and who are in support. There is no suggestion of truth behind your ridiculous claims of it showing support by all.
As for the UN woman you are championing, this article is not for anti-trans dog whistles and that is all she spouted. She is mentioned, but the article is not for promoting the dog-whistle propaganda she is throwing out unasked for.
In short, this article is not going to promote an anti-trans agenda and nor should it, and nor should Wikipedia.
In conclusion, I find the laundry list of complaints to be ridiculous and I reject 100% of it. Sparkle1 ( talk) 22:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I have made clear how ludicrous this whole bent is of the article not being neutral on the forum shop you have gone down to. Sparkle1 ( talk) 12:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Sweet you are agenda pushing and it is transparent. You are also now engaged in personal attacks claiming things you are engaged in and have been warned to drop the boomerang as it will hit you hard on the face. Sparkle1 ( talk) 10:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
BBC News mentions heckling from the public gallery after the result was announced. The National confirms one protestor flashed her genitals at the Parliament.
It's currently going round Twitter that this was a member of the Scottish Feminist Network and the group was removed from the chamber. Relevant segment of the broadcast including the announcement of the result, the heckling, and business being temporarily suspended: https://scottishparliament.tv/meeting/meeting-of-the-parliament-december-22-2022?clip_start=15:01:38&clip_end=15:02:45
WP:NOTABLE? Appears there are secondary sources already. Treppin ( talk) 18:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The media in the UK is notoriously anti trans and is using this bill as an anti trans vehicle.The statement
If there is inclusion there must be the condemnation of these issues as well as views supporting this.is wholly inappropriate – it is not for Wikipedia editors to decide what views/actions should be condemned, and what should be supported. However, there is the question how much coverage of particular protests we should give in our article. The statement about flashing genitals is not, as such, particularly significant in the context of our article, which is about the Bill/Act itself, and the general reaction to it. What wording is proposed? Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The announcement of the result was accompanied by cheers from supporters in the chamber, and shouts of “shame on you” from protesters in the public gallery.Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 11:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Unproductive subthread; let’s focus on improving the article |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Drop it Sweet, your agenda and biases are clear. Stop posting unconnected things which distort what I have posted. You know full well I am only referring to the anti-trans garbage put out by the UK media. You know I was not commenting on one woman being a hypocrite for being a part of a group which demonises trans people, calls them perverts and mentally ill then decided to act like a petulant self-absorbed narcissist by shouting around and flashing her fanny even if it was covered by a merkin. I do not hold you to be a good-faith interlocuter on this article sweet.
Sparkle1 (
talk) 09:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Today I have made a few edits which restore deleted content by user Sparkle1 – again! However, I appreciate their view that the article wasn’t entirely balanced, so I added content onto the other side of the argument. In future though, it is better to add information instead of deleting it unless there are problems with referencing of it does not promote an unbiased opinion. Moreover, I have mentioned in the Opinion polls section the validity of such polls can be questioned as they are subject to sample size, sample area, demographic. Additionally, it is possible to manipulate results to push an agenda. Scientelensia ( talk) 12:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Questions have been cast on the validity of such polls….) is not directly related to the subject of this article. It is a comment which might be made if one were writing an essay, and is not really appropriate in the article, unless a source has made this comment in connection with these particular polls: I would delete it. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The content was not ‘randomly deleted’ please withdraw that claim, Scientelensia, it came with a clear edit summary and there are previous discussions. The issues with the article have been numerous. This article cannot be treated as a newspaper or a forum. The claim of ‘both siding’ is also not valid as there must be relevancy for the content, the content must be encyclopaedic, and must stay focused on the subject matter. This article is not a forum for trans rights in general and claims or comments made by Joanna, Joanna and Mhari are just Tom, Dick and Harry inclusions. I agree with the neutral inclusion on the supporters and protesters. I am though wondering why there is even a section on opinion polls in this article. Can someone give a good encyclopaedic reason for inclusion, which is not so and so did it and it was in so and so news outlet? The article is not ‘unbalanced’ as is bizarrely pushed by others. This article must not include every loud mouth or column inch opinion. The bill is very narrow and the process of the bill and the actual bill must remain a focus. Singling our one party no matter who they are IS massive POV pushing. I looked up the tuition fees vote from 2012 and people tried to single out the Lib Dem’s but that was deemed POV pushing even though they had the pledge. Same is here with singling out 7 and then 9 members of the SNP even though it was in the manifesto it is still POV pushing to single them out. The claim of ‘unbalanced’ is as far as I’m concerned deluded and others need to realise this is not a news site, campaign platform, commentary, or forum. Sparkle1 ( talk) 13:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Why the UK as a whole when this is only relevant to Scotland? Also is it Wikipedia’s job to inform ‘future readers’ of a few opinion polls? What is the relevance to the bill? This is not an historic time capsule. Sparkle1 ( talk) 14:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The fact the Westminster government can use a legal provision does not mean that it is sufficient a hook to include public opinion outside Scotland. This legislation will not apply outside Scotland so I ask again why the whole of the UK? A survey and a consultant are not the same here. Also the claims made by people on stereotypes are completely irrelevant to the bill in their entirety. The spin you put on it of ‘went ahead with it anyway’ shows a POV to include. You state ‘ Opinion polls are useful to document opinions on gender and sex over time.’ Lovely but that is not the purpose of this or any other article. Your claims of WP:Otherstuffexists/ Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments is a patent bad argument and should be avoided. You have not addressed why there is inclusion and the fact that other articles have opinion polls does not make it right, relevant or precedent for this article or for those articles either. I ask again why is this section in the article? Sparkle1 ( talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, Why are Care in any way relevant? Sparkle1 ( talk) 15:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you withdraw the second part of your claim as it is nonsense. I have equally removed Mhari Black and someone else you I think added it back. Additionally, this is not a repository for surveys and opinion polls. I ask again why is this a section on this article. Finally, you really must stop adding Rowing and Cherry. these sections are the worst kind of saccharin I have read in a long time. especially offensive about them is using Cherry's sexual orientation. Additionally, Rowling as I described in great detail above in another thread is just a member of the public and has nothing to do with this no matter how 'prominent' people think she is. Wikipedia is not a news site for the shoutings of popular people or famous people.
On an aside I would strongly recommend reading WP:NPOV Scientelensia and WP:MOS. Sparkle1 ( talk) 15:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I removed the section about CARE's polling on the GRR bill. There are a couple of concerns: the citation is to a press release on CARE's website, the polling question, company and results are not published. CARE are summarised as an "organisation working to prevent self-harm, abortion, gambling and suicide". I'm not sure that's an accurate way to summarise their work: CARE is short for 'Christian Action, Research and Education' and their work includes opposing this bill, opposing the Scottish Government's ban on the psychological torture of LGBT+ people, defending protestors who harass women accessing abortion services, opposing abortion in NI and various other culture war issues. If they are to be included, I would add CARE to the list of groups who opposed the bill.
I've also zapped the section about the 'Scottish Government's survey.' In my comments about the edit, I should have acknowledged this and I apologise that I did not. The link is not to polling, but to a document that tries to summarise the results of one of the Scottish Government's consultation exercises. Those exercises are touched upon in the body of the article. Due to their scale and variety the results of each exercise is going to be difficult to summarise without running into NPOV issues or editorial questions. In the draft I removed, the opposition talking points speak to anxieties that people have, but are AFAICS irrelevant as the bill does not alter clinical practice, or the circumstances in which individuals are judged competent to make clinical decisions. If this consultation response document is to be summarised, I feel we would have to engage in a similar exercise for the first consultation, the relevant Holyrood committee's open call for evidence and *maybe* some of the consultation exercises. [And we're stuck with the same NPOV issues at each stage] 81.79.240.98 ( talk) 16:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Earlier, I added content to both Support and Opposition sections of the Bill in attempt to add more content while preserving the neutrality of the article. This can been seen below. I also added some polls, including a poll conducted by the Scottish Government themselves. Most of the users I’ve talked to agreed with these. As this poll resulted in a negative result for the bill, user Sparkle1 removed most of the content opposing the bill, resulting in edits restoring and deleting these facts. However, I did make changes the user requested such as using sites like The Times instead of the Scottish Express and removing phrases previously in the article, such as “widely considered”. Despite this, when I pointed out that the user was removing only content opposing the bill, Sparkle1 decided to remove basically all of it, with still slightly more content on the Supporting side. You can read the previous support and opposition sections below. Do you all think any of this should be restored?
(N.B. user Special:Contributions/81.79.240.98 pointed out something about the CARE organisation, which I agree with. Obviously my edits below are not perfect, but I wanted to gain a general consensus over whether or not any of this content should be restored instead of mindlessly deleted.)
(N.B.2. the user Special:Contributions/81.79.240.98 also stated they disagreed with having the Scottish Government’s poll, but I felt this was useful, again, please let me know if you agree or disagree.)
(N.B.3. I couldn’t manage to display the references underneath, but you can click the link below to assure yourselves that they’re there!)
Any thoughts and replies would be warmly welcomed. Thank you all very much and have a very Merry Christmas!
The bill was supported by many feminist, LGBT and human rights campaign organisations, including Amnesty International, Stonewall, Rape Crisis Scotland, Equality Network, Engender, Scottish Trans Alliance, and Scottish Women's Aid.
The SNP, Scottish Greens, Scottish Labour and Scottish Liberal Democrats supported the bill.
The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has championed the bill, stating that she wouldn’t “apologise for trying to spread equality”. Sturgeon also insisted that nothing in the bill would produce any more threat to the safety of women.
Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner Dunja Mijatović described the bill as following international best practice.
Upon finding out that the bill could be revoked by the United Kingdom’s government, SNP politician Mhairi Black warned Rishi Sunak and his government that doing so would be an “attack on Scottish democracy”.
The bill was opposed by the Scottish Conservatives, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Scotland, and feminist and LGB organisations such as For Women Scotland, Fair Play for Women and the LGB Alliance.
Moreover, prominent figures, most notably author JK Rowling, opposed the bill, as did many other feminists.
Many members of the United Kingdom’s population also expressed concern that the Bill reinforced gender stereotypes and undermined the sexual orientation of homosexuals.
Ash Regan was one of 15 senior SNP politicians, a list including current Finance Secretary Kate Forbes and Business Minister Ivan McKee, who signed a letter in 2019 urging the Scottish leadership not to "rush" into "changing the definition of male and female". Additionally, Forbes commented in 2021 that her “hope would be that nobody’s voice is silenced in this debate”.
The SNP MP Joanna Cherry, a lesbian woman considered as an advocate of women’s rights, was sacked from her job as justice spokesman in 2021 after she opposed her the plans of her party. Moreover, Cherry claimed she later received “very threatening messages” SNP from a party member concerning her views.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gender_Recognition_Reform_(Scotland)_Bill&oldid=1129297192
Scientelensia (
talk) 18:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
In short the above will never get back in as it simply violates far too much of the purpose of Wikipedia. This article is not and will not be a laundry list of every Tom, Dick and Sally giving their tuppence. The above proposals are grotesque I mean it is disgusting to use a persons sexual orientation as a hook. Also trying to sugarcoat rabid anti-trans groups as anything else is vile. Leave it that the additions of some member of the public who is not a politician is irrelevant. The proposed changes have so many issues that it will never get into the article. NPOV, Relevancy, agenda pushing and most of all tabloid news reporting. As such the proposals are hopeless. Sparkle1 ( talk) 20:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The additions you are demanding are tabloid journalism and anti-trans dog whistles with a clear anti-SNP bias (no matter how much Nicola Sturgeon quoting you think offsets this). All of the proposed changes are hopelessly out of the understanding loop as to the purpose of Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. The article is not going to be a tabloid journalistic endeavour and no matter how much you try and use ink by the barrel it is not happening. "I have added content on both sides with politicians and organisations featuring on both sides." That is not how being unbiased works. Both siding is a clear misunderstanding of the policies. All this boils down to is a heated set of tabloid laundry lists. Both sides and unbiased are not the same, you are conflating the two. Adding what you have is some of the most biased additions that could be made to the article no matter how much 'both siding' is done. There is no compromise on the additions you are proposing. None of it in any form is getting in. Nothing on Cherry is getting in. Nothing on Rowling is getting in. Nothing on "the Bill reinforced gender stereotypes and undermined the sexual orientation" is getting in. Nothing on " Ash Regan was one of 15 senior SNP politicians" is getting in. Nothing from Black is getting in. Calling specific anti-trans groups "feminist" and claiming multiple "LGB organisations" when it is one prominent well-funded anti-trans group is getting in. " First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has championed the bill", is not getting in. The reason why? It is all POV-pushing, It is all agenda-pushing, it is all wholly unrelated to the topic, and it is all just tabloid newspaper copy. I will not in 'the spirit of compromise' allow crowbarred rubbish like this in, where it is clearly there to further biases, POV and agendas. You also seem incapable of realising the Council of Europe statement has been moved to a more appropriate section of the article, which shows you are blanketly reverting and not paying attention to edits which are actually being made by others. The horrific weasel words which are used throughout to push the POV and Agenda are also horrendous and make the additions unsalvageable use of phrases such as "considered as an advocate of women’s rights", "as did many other feminists", "Many members of the United Kingdom’s population" and "expressed concern". These are classic weasel words to try and slip things in through a veneer of claimability and so and so rumour mill said so. It is not happening. Finally the disgusting use of "The SNP MP Joanna Cherry, a lesbian woman" which utilises sexual orientation as a hook is just flat the prime example of how much this is just not fit to be included on Wikeidpia. In short, these proposed changes violate an incredible amount of Wikipedia policy and cannot under any format be added. Sparkle1 ( talk) 00:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
The only political parties that get to be included are parties with representation in the Scottish Parliament, otherwise, the list of who gets included could be endless.
A Rally or protest outside where a couple of fringe Westminster MPs spoke is not relevant enough to be included no matter who they are. It seems there is a heavy 'must crowbar Cherry in somehow' bent being pushed on this article. She is not getting in and nor is the Alba party or anyone from them. These rally/protest inclusions are just more POV pushing, agenda pushing and undue weight. It doesn't matter one iota how well-sourced something is, it is not getting in if it is POV pushing or undue weight. Cherry and the Alba Party are on the fringes and cannot be promoted as if they are mainstream, no matter how much media spewing about trans people is done.
Rishi Sunak, Shona Robinson and friends, and whatever they say is irrelevant when trying to pad and puff the Royal Assent section. What is relevant is when they actually do something. The fact Royal Assent is being awaited is currently covered in more than enough detail. There is no need for editorialising with lines like "never been done before" and including newspaper reports of politicians' media pronouncements. It just turns this article into a newspaper, so these inclusions cannot be allowed to slip their slimy way in.
Sourcing and verifiability do not trump the need for the article to be encyclopaedic and neutral without undue weight. As such there must be remembering when editing this article that no matter how many sources something has it does not mean it gets be included. Inclusions must not treat this article as a laundry list, tabloid newspaper, or a forum to promote fringe politicians and fringe political parties, with fringe views, being loud and having friends in the media does not mean the views aren't fringe views. Sparkle1 ( talk) 20:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The only parties that get to be included….You do not have a veto over which parties are relevant to this article.
A Rally or protests outside…where a couple of fringe Westminster MPs…There is no such thing as a
fringe Westminster MP
She is not getting in…You do not have a veto over who is mentioned in this article. Cherry is not ‘on the fringes’ – she is the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights
I also don't think you would ever be persuaded as you seem bent on not keeping this article focused on the legislation, but clearly want to crowbar it to being an open forum for the views of anyone and anything to be included. Sparkle1 ( talk) 21:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Cabinet members Alister Jack and Kemi Badenoch as well as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have made statements saying the Government is actively considering this.and
Shona Robison and LGBT+ Labour have criticised this as threatening the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament. There has been media speculation in The Guardian and Alex Cole-Hamilton that there will be legal challenges to the bill and any potential government use of Section 35., in support of the point above. Again, reported in reliable sources and completely relevant to the passage of the bill.
Victor Madrigal-Borloz, United Nations Independent Expert on Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, supported the legislation., in the Support section. Again, reported in a reliable source.
Members of British Parliament Neale Hanvey and Joanna Cherry as well as former MSP Johann Lamont spoke against the bill at a rally in front of the Scottish Parliament building.. I'm not sure of the standard of Yahoo News as a reliable source, but the rally was also reported by the BBC so it seems perfectly reasonable to include in the section about opposition to the bill.
Talk from politiciansseems eminently relevant to an act of Parliament, but relevant opinions worthy of inclusion are not limited to politicians. We follow the sources.
The claim of "We follow the sources" misses the fact that the article is not driven by sources. That's the tail wagging the dog. The article must be neutral, free from POV and focused on the subject matter. I ask, why are non-MSPs being included? Inclusion is giving them undue weight. The sources cannot drive the article. The subject matter must drive the article. In this case, it is the legislation itself and not the circus and sideshows which came along with it trying to have a debate on trans rights.
A fringe politician is one who is outside of the mainstream and on this issue Cherry most clearly is a fringe politician within her own party and other politicians. Simply being promoted by anti-trans newspapers does not make one any more mainstream. That is though enough on Cherry and if she is a fringe or not. It has to be remembered that non-depreciated sources here cannot be used to include opinion pieces and agendas. "long-standing history of involvement with this bill" is POV and does not mean Cherry gets to be crowbarred into the article. By that metric, anyone could be considered to have "long-standing history of involvement with this bill" and get included. Cherry is like Rowling here, just one more voice from the outside shouting in. Her inclusion is not justified.
The POV being pushed regarding Section 35 is the whirls of speculation of will-they or won't-they, will-he or won't-he and so on. If they do use it then that is fine include it. If they don't use it fine include it but pushing the POV of wild speculation and including press coverage of he-said and she-said is just ridiculous and detracts from the focus of the article. This is not a debating society or a political Sunday show on TV. The article cannot get into the weeds of speculation. There must be a waiting to see what happens then the article can include what actually happens. Sparkle1 ( talk) 22:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The article does have a very narrow scope.but that’s not actually the position, which is that you want it to have a very narrow scope. The version of the article you want deprives our readers of relevant information, and in particular, it deprives readers of information about opposition to the bill.
POVbut you never say what the POV is, nor how the information concerned is POV in Wikipedia terms. I recommend that you read WP:NPOV. The nutshell says:
Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.Your attitude seems to be that we should not explain the sides. You have also said that the article should not be
driven by sourcesBut this is the opposite of what WP:NPOV says, which is:
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
Other editors clearly have shown that they view you to have a clear bias and agenda, so I do not take your views as neutral on this when you are trying to crowbar everyone under the sun into the article. The claims of "deprives our readers of relevant information, and in particular, it deprives readers of information about opposition to the bill." Is code for including more and more in the opposition section, because it boosts the POV you are pushing. The claims of "so uninformative that it is not much use to readers" is again more code that your POV is being eliminated from the article. The claim of "Your attitude seems to be that we should not explain the sides." The article cannot take to "explaining sides" as that is straying into Original Research which Wikipedia bans outright. It also seems to be that you are trying with your quote from NPOV, to suggest that Anti-trans media sources get to be used as a crowbar to push in anti-trans slants. This is not an open forum on trans rights, a place for individuals' opinions or anything which is a general commentary on the bill, trans people, trans rights, conspiracies, or outright lies about what the bill does. The media in the UK such as The Times, Guardian, Telegraph, BBC (look at Women's Hour as a prime example), etc, are all rabidly anti-trans and on this topic cannot be in any way viewed as reliable, beyond nuts and bolts reporting on the legislation. They cannot be used for things such as reporting things like 'protests' as they are easily viewed as artificially boosting these events. This article is about the bill, not the so-called debate of opposition and support noise going on surrounding it. Reliable does not mean unbiased. Sparkle1 ( talk) 19:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
trying to crowbar everyone under the sun into the article.That suggestion does not make sense in itself, and you ought to be aware that I did not actually add the material which you dispute.
the article cannot take to “explaining sides”. This was a quote from WP:NPOV, to which I referred you. So you are opposed to the most fundamental policy of Wikipedia.
I draw your attention to the following demonstrating in particular how much of an anti trans bent the BBC is on. If one follows that thread, one finds the claim that "Five former members of staff spoke of how they felt “hidden” and “ashamed” during their time at the BBC, which eventually led them to quit. The most recent resignation was last week." . The number may be a bit higher, but the resignations related to ALL LGBQT coverage over a number of years, not simply trans. Getting from a small number of staff leaving because they disagreed with coverage to "how much of an anti trans bent the BBC is on" requires a massive amount of hyperbole. Pincrete ( talk) 13:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
This article needs outside input as this is just POV pushing in my opinion and trying to turn the article into a political forum. Sparkle1 ( talk) 12:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I can't fathom a good justification for retaining the section on opinion polls. It doesn't really add to the article and it seems to just be there for the sake of it. There were three public consultations on this bill which are covered, the inclusion of opinion polls as well seems pretty pointless. Sparkle1 ( talk) 21:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Being 'manifestly self-evident' is circular, it is not a reason for inclusion, please provide a reason and answer why when three public consultations are included opinion polls are also being included when this is not an election article. Sparkle1 ( talk) 23:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
This is not an election article….. Quite so. And these are not election opinion polls, so your statement is irrelevant. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
The above does not give any reason for inclusion. It is simply stating ‘they should’. Why should they be included is the question. The article does not ‘need’ them simply because they are different to public consultations. What next we ask people who are in the street and include that because that too is different from a public consultation. Sparkle1 ( talk) 09:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Dispute over the inclusion of information to the article regarding those in support and opposition to the legislation and the scope of the article in general. There are multiple discussions above that show the depth of difficulty in finding agreement on this article. Sparkle1 ( talk) 13:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Do however, restrict it to parties which have an MP only or are large enough in their substance, notability, and influence to exert such without any MP, if such parties exist.Reference to the views of Alister Jack, Kemi Badenoch, Rishi Sunak, Shona Robison, and Joanna Cherry has been deleted from the article. Regarding opinion polls, they say
… summarize the polls…rather than exclude them altogether. Regarding other supporters, they say:
Supporters that aren’t parties like unions, activism organizations, celebrities, etc can all be put into one sentence each, except if one organization’s activism was crucial. In other words, if an activist was like Nelson Mandela relative to a cause, by due weight they should have more written about them.This would appear to support the inclusion of a sentence about J K Rowling. Sweet6970 ( talk) 09:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Dispute over the inclusion of information to the article regarding those in support and opposition to the legislation and the scope of the article in general? What question is being asked that you want additional input on? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
P.S. I agree with Rhododendrites's concerns, the question here is poorly presented. If this RFC gets scrapped and restarted, I would advise more clearly specifying the content or categories of content that are disputed. Alsee ( talk) 19:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This RfC is so vague as to be pointless. There have been several discussions on specific points e.g. the latest discussion above, stated by Sparkel1 and entitled by them This is not a place for tabloiding or the opinions of every Tom, Dick and Sally. The consensus was strongly against Sparkel1. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I edited the lead earlier to describe the bill as "awaiting Royal Assent" with a sentence at the end of the paragraph explaining the government's recent announcement that they intend to block royal assent. Sparkle1 then changed this structure, describing the bill as "pending not being granted Royal Assent, by the use of a section 35 Order of the Scotland Act 1998, by the Westminster Government". I prefer my version for two reasons. a) The bill has not yet had royal assent refused, so it is technically still awaiting royal assent. Given how fractious this is, we do not yet know for certain whether royal assent will be denied, just that the government currently plans to do so. I think "awaiting royal assent" is the clearest way of putting this. b) I also think it is clearer to put the government's intention to block royal assent at the end of the paragraph. These two things (the current legal status of the bill and the government's announced intention) are different things and I think it would be clearer to keep them separate. Doing so would also resolve what I think at the moment is quite a clumsy opening sentence. What do others think? WJ94 ( talk) 19:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The bill is not awaiting royal assent anymore FFS. The government in Westminster have blocked Royal assent so to state 'awaiting Royal Assent' is flat-out wrong. Sparkle1 ( talk) 20:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
On 16 January 2023, the United Kingdom government announced that it would use section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 to block Royal Assent for the bill.Tomorrow it will be even clearer. 😁 Tewdar 20:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, I'd like to apologise for restoring my version of the lead when I did - I should not have been so hasty to do so and should probably have left someone else to do it. Nevertheless, I agree with Tewdar and Barnards.tar.gz. The government not yet blocked royal assent but have only announced that they intend to do so. With something as unprecedented and contentious as this, we should avoid assuming that things will pan out exactly as the government have planned - and avoid giving the impression that they will ( WP:CRYSTAL). At the moment, the bill is awaiting royal assent and the government has said they intend to block it; this should be made clear in the article. It is not "pending not being granted royal assent" because that is not a legal status that a bill can have, and that wording makes it sound like a done deal. WJ94 ( talk) 21:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This edit looks fine to me but it has been removed a couple of times for unconvincing reasons. Can anybody see anything wrong with it? It is currently back in the article. Is there any reason not to keep it? It seems relevant to the topic and neutrally written. DanielRigal ( talk) 20:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Sparkle1:, seeing as you have banned me from your User Talk page, please can I ask you here not to mark major edits as minor? If you are unclear about what constitutes a genuine minor edit please see Help:Minor edit. Thanks. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
How can an article be this long and never describe the content of the bill? There is more description of the English law than the Scottish one. All I can gather from the lead is it "makes it easier", and from the body of the article no mention at all. What a failure. Rmhermen ( talk) 00:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The bill lowers the age people can change their legal gender from 18 to 16, removes the requirement of a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and reduces the waiting time from two years to six months of living in an acquired gender.Perhaps this needs its own section instead. Tewdar 10:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The section on this says that a number of amendments were proposed [to be] made to the bill, but the majority were not passed. There is then a list of amendments, but there is no information about which amendments were passed, and which failed. I don’t have access to the National - can anyone help?
If not, then I think the whole of the list of amendments should be deleted. Sweet6970 ( talk) 17:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Sideswipe9th: Can you assist with this query? Sweet6970 ( talk) 01:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
More than 100 amendments were lodged in the billbut only that
The majority of proposed amendments made at Stage 2 were defeated by the committee.without giving specific numbers.
Just wanted to note that I've removed a paragraph added by Snokalok, that presented a specific quotation from the policy statement about the invocation of section 35 of the Scotland Act as original research as it was cited only to the text of the policy statement. If there are reliable secondary sources that could support this, it could potentially be restored.
However, given that this statement sets out the legal position of the Westminster government in blocking the legislation passed by Holyrood, I wonder if we might better be served in terms of content by waiting for legal scholars and commentators to make commentary on the statement? Given the significance of the invocation, I suspect there will be such commentary from all parts of the political spectrum over the coming days and weeks, as such analyses will feed into any challenge of the section 35 order by the Scottish government.
Also yes, this is the same message I left at Talk:Transgender rights in the United Kingdom#Original research on statement of reasons, but it was the same content on both articles, and the same question on legal analysis seems relevant here as well. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Jack and Badenoch have both argued it waters down protections for single-sex spaces and contravenes UK-wide equality legislation by imposing a different regime for just one devolved country.and
The statement of reasons, when finally published by Badenoch’s equalities office, sets out three reasons why the Scottish bill has UK-wide implications. The first warns of the supposed impact on single-sex clubs and others, and on equal pay, of having two “parallel and very different regimes” in the UK for deciding gender. The second argues that the Scottish system will bring “significantly increased potential for fraudulent applications” to change gender, while the third says it will affect the working of the UK-wide Equality Act.Sweet6970 ( talk) 00:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
[Secretary of State Alister Jack/Equality hub/Minister for Women and Equalities Kemi Badenoch/Westminster government?]released the
[Westminster government's/their?]policy statement on their decision to invoke Section 35. In the statement they set out three primary reasons for why
[they believed/the Westminster government believed?]the Scottish bill impinged upon reserved matters; the first
[warning/claiming/]of a
[possible/potential]impact on provision of single-sex services
[authorised/protected]under the Equality Act 2010 as a result of creating "two parallel and very different regimes" for issuing gender recognition certificates, the second
[warning/claiming]of a
[possible/potential]increased risk of fraudulent applications, and the third
[warning/claiming?]of potential impacts on the operation of the Equality Act 2010."
theirseems the correct choice for the second optional.
It may also be that providers find it more difficult to justify excluding increased numbers of people with GRCs or worry about an increased risk of operational and/or legal challenges. This could lead to an increase in the number of transgender people accessing single-sex services, spaces and roles(emphasis mine, source sentences paragraph 49 pages 11-12) Given this ambiguity in the document, and the intention for this to be brought before the Court of Session for a judicial review, I think we need these qualifiers or something similar to them in our prose to make it clear that the UK government's position is not a settled matter of law.
On 17 January 2023, the Westminster government released a policy statement on their decision to invoke Section 35. In the statement they set out three primary reasons why they believed the Scottish bill impinged upon reserved matters: firstly, a potential impact on provision of single-sex services authorised under the Equality Act 2010 as a result of creating "two parallel and very different regimes" for issuing gender recognition certificates; secondly, a potential increased risk of fraudulent applications; thirdly, potential impacts on the operation of the Equality Act 2010.Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Change made. Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This report by the BBC today [13] says that Lord Hope says that the Scottish government’s chances of success in a legal challenge to the section 35 order are minimal, whereas Lord Falconer has tweeted that the UK govt’s reasons are not justified. i.e. they have opposite views.
Is this worth a sentence?
Sweet6970 ( talk) 15:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Change made. Sweet6970 ( talk) 20:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a clear POV push to include the use of the phrase revolt and make out 9 SNP MSPs votes against this bill are far bigger than they actually are. I am not buying that 9 of 63 members votingg a certain way warrants such hysterical inclusion in this article. This is not a complete and utter hack-a-thon for talking heads and political campaigns. Sparkle1 ( talk) 19:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
taking sources agreed with and then inserting it verbatim- what, like
"Now, I understand that independence is the only way to achieve [progressive] goals in the face of a highly conservative UK government.😂 Tewdar 20:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
I see you engineered this and are now in full gloat and would appreciate you striking those gloating attacks from this page. Sparkle1 ( talk) 12:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
As stated in an edit summary by an IP user, Beyond Holyrood Magazine, their polling does not appear to have been covered, published or reported by other sources, and they do not appear to exist beyond this wikipedia page, Holyrood Magazine and pages that quote either.
Furthermore, the holyrood article doesn't have a byline, and how are you supposed to interpret 53% when 20% responded "don't know". A whole fifth of respondents were "IDK".
If this poll is to be included in the article, then someone needs to make a case for it. Why is this one-off 2021 poll commisioned Blackburn et al considered notable/verifiable for a
contentious topic? Another user pointed out Holyrood magazine doesn't even get the name of the three supposed analysts right. In my edit summary, I said maybe adding more context could make it right, but the more I look, the worse the source is. Maybe Holyrood magazine is OK when the author is willing to put their name to the piece, and doesn't mess up the name of the analysts they're reporting on. But this is not that article.
Sativa Inflorescence (
talk) 14:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
comes as the Scottish Government prepares to bring forward reforms to the laws around gender recognition, which is why it's relevant context for this article. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 16:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
haven't seen text proposed for this article that would be comparably clearhow about proposing a wording? Sweet6970 ( talk) 14:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC).
I was wondering wether it's really necessary to list the full names of all voters in the different stages of the legal process. I don't see the encyclopedic value of this, surely the totals per party are sufficient. Moreover, giving the sensitive nature of the subject, I think is also at odds with Wikipedia policy, i.e. WP:BLP. T v x1 22:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
It is essential to avoid any bias and to ensure that there is a neutral point of view. This is also standard for bills such as this. See Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and other legislation of a similar kind. Not including the vote breakdown tables leads to the OTT POV nonsense of the pushing of ridiculous and inflammatory narratives in wikvoice of the internal politics of individual groups in the parliament and other ludicrous POV's.
It in no way has anything to do with BLP or coming anywhere near this side of the galaxy of violating BLP. Such a fallacy is a whole cloth creation out of thin air. If including factually accurate and neutrally presented information is in any way a BLP violation then give up on Wikipedia entirely, as nothing could be included in the encyclopedia. There is ZERO, absolutely ZERO issues with BLP. To make such a claim and if it were true is a total inversion of BLP. Sparkle1 ( talk) 11:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)