This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Amanda A. Brant I'm removing whole section on "Criticism for anti-trans positions" because its written in one-sided tone that violates NPOV.
Happy to try to help with this but we need to be neutral.
Regards, Andy AndyGordon ( talk) 08:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
"No clearly reliable source, like a newspaper, picked up on the open letter and its response": Untrue, a clearly reliable, very respected academic journal did. Alsalem herself published an official statement on a UN website on it. And so on. WP:SELFPUB addresses "anyone [creating] a personal web page", forum postings, social media and related topics. The relevance of this policy here is dubious at best. We are talking about an official statement on a UN website by a mandate holder, in response to an official statement on the website of a major, established reputable organization, that was also discussed in a peer-reviewed article in a well-established scholarly journal. This is different from some random guy creating a personal website or forum post. I see no evidence on that page that those sources cannot be used to support the positions of the respective parties here. The Xarxanet source isn't really needed at this point. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 14:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
"note that its a primary source for Theilen's opinions about Alsalem - we can't use them unless there is a secondary source": That is not true, that is not how we use academic journals as sources. Theilen's article, a peer-reviewed article in a widely recognized journal, is a high-quality third-party secondary source offering independent analysis by an expert, a legal scholar with his PhD on human rights law, of the actions of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls in the field of transgender rights. We don't need any other source to cite his article. We have hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles using sources in this way, and they tend to be viewed as high-quality sources. News media rarely if ever discuss the material in social science, humanities or law journals, particularly not in any detail, and a tabloid news story about the analysis of a legal scholar or a gender studies scholar published in a scholarly journal (which seems like a fantastic, unrealistic scenario; I've never seen such an article) wouldn't be preferable to a scholarly source. The source is the highest quality source that is available in a field like this. In fact, it is clearly stated that peer-reviewed journals are among the most reliable sources, and that whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. Primary sources are sources that are often accounts written by people who are directly involved, but Theilen isn't writing about himself or his experiences in any way, he is offering independent analysis of a UN mandate in a scholarly context, published in a high quality venue with editorial oversight, on a topic he is an expert on.
The paragraph is poorly sourced.
The first source is an Unherd article: MeToo unless you're a Jew - UnHerd Unherd is a dubious source generally seen as opinion pieces. See this discussion.
We rely on a PDF published by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. According to our article this annual list of top-ten anti-semitic incidents is controversial, with one person describing it as "fake news". I don't think we can consider it a reliable source in a BLP.
Then we have this which is a self-published press release.
And also this is another self-published press release.
I think the final source, from The Algemeiner, does count as reliable, as its from an established newspaper. That's the only one of these that is reliable, albeit with a clear POV, so we need to adjust the paragraph to only summarize the contents of that article, or find more reliable sources. AndyGordon ( talk) 14:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Amanda A. Brant The New Statesman source says: Alsalem’s insistence on recognising the difference between sex and gender has landed her in trouble. She has been on the receiving end of two open letters signed by NGOs and women’s groups, accusing of her being “anti-trans”, an allegation she forcefully rejects. “Why is it so problematic for women, girls, and also men, to say, ‘This is important; many of our needs emanate from being female, or male, and there are certain instances where it’s proportionate, legitimate and perfectly necessary to keep a space single sex’?” While “that doesn’t apply to everything in life”, it is important, Alsalem believes, for prisons, women’s shelters and sport.
This is not reflected in your recent amendments to the article. Maybe her critics consider that her attitude that it is important to recognise that sex and gender are distinct is automatically ‘anti-trans’, but Wikipedia should be neutral and informative. Your version does not explain why she was accused of being ‘anti-trans’. The wording Her call to recognise that sex and gender are distinct led in 2023 to open letters…..
has been in the article for some time, and you have not provided any justification for removing the information which I reinstated.
Sweet6970 (
talk) 16:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
In 2023 an open letter published by the Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) [...] accused her of being " anti-trans", which she denies. The sentence still includes the key point that is highlighted both by the letter itself and in the description of it in The New Statesman. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 01:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Amanda A. Brant I'm removing whole section on "Criticism for anti-trans positions" because its written in one-sided tone that violates NPOV.
Happy to try to help with this but we need to be neutral.
Regards, Andy AndyGordon ( talk) 08:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
"No clearly reliable source, like a newspaper, picked up on the open letter and its response": Untrue, a clearly reliable, very respected academic journal did. Alsalem herself published an official statement on a UN website on it. And so on. WP:SELFPUB addresses "anyone [creating] a personal web page", forum postings, social media and related topics. The relevance of this policy here is dubious at best. We are talking about an official statement on a UN website by a mandate holder, in response to an official statement on the website of a major, established reputable organization, that was also discussed in a peer-reviewed article in a well-established scholarly journal. This is different from some random guy creating a personal website or forum post. I see no evidence on that page that those sources cannot be used to support the positions of the respective parties here. The Xarxanet source isn't really needed at this point. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 14:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
"note that its a primary source for Theilen's opinions about Alsalem - we can't use them unless there is a secondary source": That is not true, that is not how we use academic journals as sources. Theilen's article, a peer-reviewed article in a widely recognized journal, is a high-quality third-party secondary source offering independent analysis by an expert, a legal scholar with his PhD on human rights law, of the actions of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls in the field of transgender rights. We don't need any other source to cite his article. We have hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles using sources in this way, and they tend to be viewed as high-quality sources. News media rarely if ever discuss the material in social science, humanities or law journals, particularly not in any detail, and a tabloid news story about the analysis of a legal scholar or a gender studies scholar published in a scholarly journal (which seems like a fantastic, unrealistic scenario; I've never seen such an article) wouldn't be preferable to a scholarly source. The source is the highest quality source that is available in a field like this. In fact, it is clearly stated that peer-reviewed journals are among the most reliable sources, and that whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. Primary sources are sources that are often accounts written by people who are directly involved, but Theilen isn't writing about himself or his experiences in any way, he is offering independent analysis of a UN mandate in a scholarly context, published in a high quality venue with editorial oversight, on a topic he is an expert on.
The paragraph is poorly sourced.
The first source is an Unherd article: MeToo unless you're a Jew - UnHerd Unherd is a dubious source generally seen as opinion pieces. See this discussion.
We rely on a PDF published by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. According to our article this annual list of top-ten anti-semitic incidents is controversial, with one person describing it as "fake news". I don't think we can consider it a reliable source in a BLP.
Then we have this which is a self-published press release.
And also this is another self-published press release.
I think the final source, from The Algemeiner, does count as reliable, as its from an established newspaper. That's the only one of these that is reliable, albeit with a clear POV, so we need to adjust the paragraph to only summarize the contents of that article, or find more reliable sources. AndyGordon ( talk) 14:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Amanda A. Brant The New Statesman source says: Alsalem’s insistence on recognising the difference between sex and gender has landed her in trouble. She has been on the receiving end of two open letters signed by NGOs and women’s groups, accusing of her being “anti-trans”, an allegation she forcefully rejects. “Why is it so problematic for women, girls, and also men, to say, ‘This is important; many of our needs emanate from being female, or male, and there are certain instances where it’s proportionate, legitimate and perfectly necessary to keep a space single sex’?” While “that doesn’t apply to everything in life”, it is important, Alsalem believes, for prisons, women’s shelters and sport.
This is not reflected in your recent amendments to the article. Maybe her critics consider that her attitude that it is important to recognise that sex and gender are distinct is automatically ‘anti-trans’, but Wikipedia should be neutral and informative. Your version does not explain why she was accused of being ‘anti-trans’. The wording Her call to recognise that sex and gender are distinct led in 2023 to open letters…..
has been in the article for some time, and you have not provided any justification for removing the information which I reinstated.
Sweet6970 (
talk) 16:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
In 2023 an open letter published by the Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) [...] accused her of being " anti-trans", which she denies. The sentence still includes the key point that is highlighted both by the letter itself and in the description of it in The New Statesman. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 01:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)