Talk:Women's Declaration International

Critics

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

I hope you don't mind, as reflists don't work very well on talk pages, I've refactored the quotation from the article into your original comment and removed the references from it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so on your proposed changes relating to this, firstly it falls afoul of WP:CSECTION. The criticisms of WDI, which are fair and reliably sourced, should be included naturally into the prose of the article, which includes the lead where appropriate.

Secondly, please do not cast aspersions about clear ideologues editing this page. It does nothing to help what you're advocating for, and immediately makes this discussion far more hostile than it needs to be. Editors can disagree over how and where to include content without it being ideologically based. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Labeling "hate group" as an opinion in the intro is NOT neutral language. It is language of ideaologues who think they know what is real and have no fear of being wrong and hateful themselves. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Describing an organisation as a hate group can be WP:NPOV complaint, when the neutral point of view is that they are such. The same also applies for other descriptors like anti-trans and TERF. Remember that NPOV complaint text can include a POV when that POV is mainstream, which I think applies in this circumstance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Its important to note that we are not labeling them as a hate group in wikivoice, but noting that they have been described as such. Filiforme1312 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Per WP:BRD, please self-revert this edit. It represents a pretty large change to the article, and clearly has no basis in consensus right now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

it is MOVING TEXT, NOT LARGE. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a bold edit, that is largely redefining the article. That bold edit has been reverted, now is the time to discuss it while the previous consensus version remains in place. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Redefining the article?! How is that?!Tom Ruen (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Redefining it by creating a WP:CSECTION, something that is generally not compliant with the NPOV policy. Again though, it is a bold edit that has been reverted. Will you please self-revert to restore the long standing consensus version? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You should also either self-revert this edit as you've added unverifiable text to the article, or support it with reliable sources.

Introductions don't need sourcing when it is a short article. It is a short NEUTRAL summary of what is below in critics section. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE tells us that where content is challenged or likely to be challenged, it must be supported by an inline citation. This content is both likely to be challenged, and it is not a neutral summary of the section that you've added that does not have consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That said, based on my understanding of the sources surrounding this organisation, such a description would be largely unsupportable. This implies that the criticism of the organisation are only from activists and social commentators, and it is in fact wider spread. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Find a better summary description of who the critics are. The original sentence I moved down had NONE. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

My version reverted is more neutral, yet largely same content, and easier to read, but Sideswipe9th has other ideas and seems to need to control the article. How can any edit anything on Wikipedia with such behavior? Tom Ruen (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

In this revision Tomruen introduced copyright violating text, that was copied from the text of the declaration, and is incompatibly licensed. Content similar to this was, which quoted extensively from the declaration, was previously removed back in March 2022. Per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#All of article violates copyright and WP:3RRNO#5, my reverts on this point do not construe edit warring. And per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#All of article violates copyright, because of the large number of intervening edits that would have left the article text in an unreadable state, I restored the earliest stable revision that did not have the copyright violation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize a section on declaration couldn't have summary points for what it contained. I tried shorting to a single sentence.

This is the most biased thing I've ready read. ZERO mention of the actual content of the declaration, just fear-mondering. It is is unsaveable. If this article wasn't crap, I might have some pity. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

--> The group is known for publishing the Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights, co-authored by Jeffreys and Brunskell-Evans, which called for the "elimination" of "the practice of transgenderism" and for the UK to repeal the Gender Recognition Act.

Sideswipe – I am pretty sure you have misremembered what happened. It was declared that extracts from the Declaration could be used, provided it was made clear that they were quotations. But there was no agreement at that time to add the extracts. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is the diff:[1] I have undone the revision deletion as the content is actually a qupotation from here in the section "The shortest summary". Sorry for the mistake.— Diannaa (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Sweet6970 (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

My vote is this whole article is removed. Better to have no article than have it controlled by people without a neutral voice. We know now Deep Learning is training on Wikipedia so this sort of bias multiplies, which is of course the point of wiki-activism. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If you want this article deleted, then there is a procedure for this : see WP:AFD. But I would suggest that you discuss possible changes here first - without making personal remarks about other editors. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It was rhetorical exasperation, but maybe it is the only way. If articles serve no purpose but help ideologues silence people who see problems, they are not worth having on Wikipedia. Tom Ruen (talk)

Tomruen:Please, for heaven’s sake, stick to discussing possible changes to the article. I would suggest that you propose changes one at a time. (Spoiler: I am not much impressed by the state of this article, and I might even agree with you.) Sweet6970 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)  

While that particular un-revdel happened at the same time, I'm actually referring to the edits by Special:Contributions/176.236.212.14 at 15:08, 17 March 2022, and 06:09, 18 March 2022. While lengthier, those edits contained significant amount of copy and pasted text from the declaration, and are still revdelled at the time of this reply. Likewise the edit by Tom that I've linked above contains a substantial amount of copied content that is licensed under the incompatible CC-BY-NC-ND license. The length and format of Tom's content makes it not acceptable for inclusion per WP:NONFREE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the copy&paste summary points from the declaration, but added the link to the full declaration, before it was reverted. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th is hopeless. They have to control every aspect of the article This is not an encyclopedia content. This is just hate pretending to call out hate. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomruen (talk • contribs)

Knock it off with the personal attacks, now, shall you? You'd think someone who's been here for so long would know about the no personal attacks policy. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Studnik and edits 31 July 2023

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

Firstly, there was no personal attack in this edit summary. Your reversion of Amanda's edit removed content that was cited to two other articles without reason.

You're correct in saying that Studnik is a journalist. However the piece in Der Freitag is factual reporting, and there's no requirement in WP:RS that an individual journalist must be notable for such reporting to be included in an article. Der Freitag is a well renowned German language newspaper, and reporting from them would ordinarily contribute to due weight. Could you expand a bit on why you think this is piece is undue? If your objection is based on the attribution, we could simplify that to something like Der Freitag reported that WDI openly... as that would keep attribution to the publication. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

1) The other material is also cited to Studnik, and is similarly lacking in factual details – my edit summary was not misleading.

2) What facts? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the other material was not cited to articles written by Studnik. It was also cited to two articles authored by Simon Strick, which have been in the article since December 2022.

The facts, to quote from the reverted edits, is that WDI open promotes far-right views when it advocates for TERF policies and viewpoints. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need to have this same discussion here and at Talk:Gender-critical feminism? Anyway, I don't see any intrinsic problem with the source here and I think that Sideswipe9th's suggestion is a good one. It would give the reader a better idea of how to judge the weight of the source. Giving a name means nothing to the reader while giving the name (and a link) of the paper lets them know that it is reporting in a newspaper. A reader will then know to rank this lower than a peer-reviewed academic publication but above some rando commenting from the peanut gallery. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)--DanielRigal (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DanielRigal and Sideswipe9th above. This is a detailed journalistic article written by a journalist for a well-respected national weekly newspaper from Germany, and as such it is a high-quality source. It can be attributed to the newspaper rather than the journalist personally. Many journalists who write for The New York Times, The Guardian etc. are not personally notable (to the extent that they have Wikipedia biographies) either. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Daniel Rigal that it is better to have this discussion in one place - see my comment on the Gender-critcal feminism Talk page. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)