Talk:Women's Declaration International/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Disruptive edits

User:Nero Calatrava has been cautioned about disruptive edits to transgender-related articles by several editors today/yesterday and most of their edits have been reverted by different editors. On their talk page they promised to stay away from the topic, but then continued that pattern on this article. A mere 14 minutes after their unhelpful edit was reverted, User:Wikionego who has not edited since 2016 (and who has just made a few edits over half a decade ago) suddenly appears here to continue reinstating the biased version preferred by Nero Calatrava. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If you suspect sockpuppetry is happening, WP:SPI is the place to report it. I'd recommend reading all the information pages before you make a report though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

"Declaration on women's sex-based rights" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Declaration on women's sex-based rights and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 3#Declaration on women's sex-based rights until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Qwerfjkltalk 12:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 3#Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Qwerfjkltalk 12:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

POV edits

I have removed extreme POV edits that seem to use the article as a propaganda vehicle, based entirely on parroting extremist and low-quality sources (including threads on Mumsnet!). Examples:

• "praised their work in leading a global resistance against attempts to undermine women's sex-based rights"; this sentence is so extreme that it speaks for itself, but let me just point out how it unironically posits "sex-based rights" (a TERF fringe term invented on Twitter a few years ago) as a recognised concept, discusses WHRC in Wikipedia's voice as "leading a global resistance", based on a self-published extremist fringe source, a blog post by Graham Linehan (known for extremist/bizarre views as his article with discussion of his Twitter ban etc. illustrates), and obviously only refers to (self-)"praise" by members of their own movement, not any "praise" by recognised mainstream sources
• "Those who have signed have been subject to public attacks"
• description of everyone who isn't a WHRC member/supporter (i.e. the mainstream view as User:Newimpartial previously noted) as merely "detractors"
• excessive soapboxing; endless details about signatories, endless, irrelevant details about the founders' careers and qualifications
• addition of what one of the sources used described as an anti-LGBT conspiracy theory, which is instead portrayed as factual ("after exposing that over 200 intersectional feminist groups..."). This is one of the bizarre conspiracy theories about the LGBT movement being "paedophiles" or "pro-paedophilia" popular among the more extreme conspiracy theorists and the far right.

These are just some examples from the horrible content added to the article. Essentially these edits turned the article about WHRC into the website of WHRC.

This is a very aggressive and also very extreme group with ties to the far right, so I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone would attempt to whitewash the group and make it into an article about "a global resistance against attempts to undermine women's sex-based rights". We as editors must vigorously reject such efforts. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Page Objectivity

This page does not come across as objective. The lead article only includes the groups name and a host of negative references.

Subsequent sections "history and views" and "Declaration on sex based rights" are also a very light on detail with a host of negative references.

I intend to edit the page to provide a more objective article. I will not remove any of the negative references but will move the ones in the lead article to other sections.

I believe the subjective content is the cause of the frequent defacing.

I am happy to engage in dialogue here. Bartleyo (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Um, I don't think someone describing themselves as a "gender-critical person" who seemingly (for all practical purposes) created an account just to "fix" this article is the right person to complain about a lack of "objectivity" or drastically rewrite this article; a reminder: "gender-critical" ideology is the fringe ideology that was just condemned by the Council of Europe as a "highly prejudicial" hate ideology that dehumanises transgender people, in the resolution on combating anti-LGBTI hate, including "gender-critical" ideology[1]. Someone describing themselves in such a way can expect to be met with a high degree of scepticism.

We are definitely not going to make this into a puff piece for this fringe group. I'm aware that the group has recently attempted to recruit people to influence the article, and we've already seen the results. So I'm going to be extremely sceptical of any edits from IPs and new accounts that attempt to drastically rewrite this article, particularly from editors using that kind of fringe language.

The goal of this article is to present a mainstream perspective based on how mainstream sources portray the group and its "gender-critical" ideology. It is not to reflect the group's self-understanding, or give such fringe views equal weight (WP:FALSEBALANCE). The same applies to all fringe/extremist groups. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I included some personal information on my user page to enable people to better understand my motivations and enable them to interact with me in a more effective manner. This talk page is for use in discussing aspects of the associated article, as such I would request you to refrain from making further personal attacks against me (WP:PA).Bartleyo (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Back to the article. The WDI is an advocacy group, it is to be expected that they will draw significant negative press from certain groups/areas who do not agree with their goals or perceive them as a threat. 25% of the negative reviews are from a single publication, PinkNews. I would suggest that this would qualify more as a "pile-on" rather than a balanced article (WP:BALANCE). Additionally, significant parts of one of the PinkNews references are reproduced unchanged in the article.Bartleyo (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I caution you against removing sourced content from this article and using false edit summaries, including your false claim that the AWID source doesn't mention this group when it in fact includes a thorough discussion of the group, its declaration and its ideology, and other edit summaries that simply aren't true. Also, PinkNews is a reliable high-quality source providing in-depth coverage of this group, and there is no reason to remove any sources. WDI is a fringe group advocating an extremist ideology—the ideology condemned as a hate ideology this January by the Council of Europe—and clearly most sources are going to be critical of the group. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources and quotations

@Amanda A. Brant: As you must surely have noticed, I left the wording ‘extreme anti-trans group’: that is because this is actually stated in the source. The original wording did not reflect the source.

Your edit summary implies that I am liar [2]. I think you know very well that I do not tell lies – I am someone who tries to make sure that articles reflect their sources.

The wording you have now added does bear some relationship to the source, but it is really too vague to be worth including in an encyclopaedia. I suggest that you self-revert.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed it entirely. As I said: Not an WP:RS - seems to be a blog, not any sort of peer-reviewed paper or widely recognized authority. Authors do not have credentials in political science or another directly relevant field. We as editors may personally like certain blogs to read or find them convincing, but that doesn't make them suitable sources for an encyclopedia. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I have undone this. They are named as one of the major LGBTQ+ organisations by Stonewall in their recent call for a review of the EHRC, and have been used by PinkNews for statements multiple times. Sideswipe9th. They've also been used as a source in articles by Vice, The Guardian, and Insider, as well as this opinion piece by Dr Charlotte Galpin and Dr Gina Gwenffrewi. (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Additional sources added Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd also point out that Mallory Moore, the author of the piece has been cited for her research by academics on at least two occasions 1 2. I believe this does satisfy the criteria per WP:SPS of being a subject-matter expert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My point still stands: the ‘crossover’ wording is meaningless, and I am deleting it. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My comment in the last sentence of the edit summary referred to the earlier wholesale removal of the source, via multiple edits,[3] that included a false edit summary that claimed that the quotes supported by the source "does not exist", which is demonstrably false, by a different editor with a history of using false edit summaries in this very article. The edit summary addressed all attempts to remove this particular source or parts of it, not just your specific edits. I wasn't able to clarify this in more detail due to the character limit in the edit summary, but I'm glad I had the opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings about the comment here.

In general, the source is a recognised authority in this specific area in the United Kingdom, as pointed out by others, and the Trans Safety Network has been used as a source by The Guardian[4], Vice[5], PinkNews[6][7] and other other mainstream RS. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Amanda. I don't think this removal is justified. The source very clearly states WHRC - a key point of convergence in bold as a paragraph header, as well as One key point of crossover is the primarily UK based but internationally active Women's Human Rights Campaign (WHRC). I believe it to be misleading semantics to state that the wording removed in this diff is not reflective of the source which is titled Transphobic Feminism and Far Right Activism Rapidly Converging and contains numerous sourced examples of this convergence. It is verifiably true, per the text of the source, that the source has described WDI/WHRC as both a key point of convergence and a key point of crossover. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

To Amanda A. Brant: Thank you for clarifying that.

To Sideswipe9th: ‘Convergence’ is not in the text, only in the headlines. As I’ve said, the wording in the text about ‘crossover’ is meaningless. The source is trying to associate WDI with the far right, but does not come up with any evidence of a connection – in fact, it does not even come up with a definite accusation. So there is no information to note on Wikipedia in respect of this part of the source. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

To Amanda A. Brant: Upon further investigation, there were two urls included in the reference to Trans Safety Network. The first to a missing Wiki page, and the second an external link to the Trans Safety Network website. I did not notice the second link and removed the whole reference after checking that the first link was not valid. Please ensure that references only include single references in future to avoid further confusion. Bartleyo (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Traditionalist?

I'm not sure why two different editors have added the unsourced description "Traditionalist Catholic" to The Catholic World Report. CWR is run by hermeneutic-of-continuity types, not by rad trads. Fessio was a student of Ratzinger. I suppose it is more trad-leaning than, say, National Catholic Reporter, but it's still well within the mainstream. gnu57 02:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You might want to check the article for the publication, which plainly states that it's associated with the Traditionalist Catholic movement, and has done so since August 2020. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, reverted as unsourced. I'll try to check tomorrow whether ATLA has any decent secondary sources on the magazine's editorial line. The problem with saying "Traditionalist Catholic" is that readers will think it means "Sedevacantist". Cheers, gnu57 04:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Edits 17 & 18 March 2022

There is no consensus for the unhelpful IP edits, that included a lengthy, WP:UNDUE and irrelevant quote from 2014 (years before the group was founded with no direct connection to it), changing to the group's statements to Wikipedia's voice, and low-quality "sources" (e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

1) I have changed the reference for the resignation of Kathleen Stock from the Daily Mail , which is a deprecated source, to the Guardian, which is considered a reliable source. Please see WP:RSP

2) There is a problem with this article, in that, prior to the edit adding 5,307 characters, it is uninformative about the subject of the article. In fact, the article consisted mostly of statements from organisations who are hostile to it. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a host for the views of the subjects of articles, but it is inappropriate that an article should have no information on the views of an organisation whose purpose is to propagate its views.

I think that the wording including the 5307 edit is too extensive on the views of WDI. If readers want that amount of detail, they should go to WDI’s own website. But there needs to be something to give readers some information about the actual Declaration. I propose to replace the current long summary of the Declaration with the following:

(Redacted)

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that we should we should include their declaration in this article. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service and we normally only discuss such material, based on third-party sources, instead of reproducing lengthy parts of a group's own website. In addition, the word-salad there doesn't really add much information since it's politically-laden and misleading, e.g. "sex-based rights" which needs to be discussed in context as the fringe concept that it is. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If we don’t give some information about the Declaration, then our article is useless. My proposal is brief. You say the ‘word-salad’ is ‘politically-laden’ – well, for heaven’s sake of course it’s ‘politically-laden’ it’s a political declaration! And whether ‘sex-based’ rights is a ‘fringe concept’ is irrelevant, because this article should give information about the subject of the article; this is not an article about ‘sex-based rights’. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It's really not normal to reproduce political declarations in Wikipedia articles, perhaps except in rare cases where the declaration itself is highly notable and the subject of the article (e.g. the US Declaration of Independence). This is not even an article primarily about the declaration, but about the anti-trans group. Their declaration is really only notable in the context of the group's anti-trans activism and its use of the term "sex-based rights" which is and needs to be discussed in context. The other sentences you highlighted above don't strike me as particularly notable parts of the declaration; i.e., they haven't received any kind of third-party commentary (unlike "sex-based rights"). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please explain why it is not appropriate to include a summary of the declaration? If you search for "declaration" in the wiki search bar it brings up a host of pages of which the majority include a summary and many a full and detailed analysis of their declarations. Bartleyo (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bartleyo: The general reasons for not reproducing declarations are (a) Wikipedia’s function is not to provide a hosting service for the views of organisations and (b) Wikipedia relies on reliable independent sources for information which it is worthwhile to set out in an encyclopaedia. In the case of WDI, all of the comment in independent sources seems to be critical. If you can provide suitable reliable independent sources which have not yet been used, please present them here.

Regarding your search of Wikipedia: I don’t seem to get the same results as you do. Please provide some examples of articles which reproduce declarations, or summaries thereof.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) (amended Sweet6970 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC))

Searching for "declaration" and arbitrarily choosing the first five items which actually have "Articles" as opposed to "Declaration of War": 1- Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia - Contains all the articles of the declaration, 2- Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Wikipedia contains a summary of the rights in the declaration,3- Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Wikipedia contains a summary of a number of the articles,4- Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen - Wikipedia lists all the articles, 5- Declaration of Independence of Ukraine - Wikipedia contains the full text of the declaration.

I agree that Wikipedia should not provide a hosting service for other organisations but an encyclopaedic article should contain enough information for the reader to have a reasonable understanding of a subject at the end of the article and either decide to move on or have piqued their interest enough to read more deeply. The organisation exists to promote the declaration, it seems that the article is lacking for not including some part of it. Bartleyo (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Where is the secondary sourcing for the content of the declaration? Surely this is what we must rely on for WP:DUE - bringing up any aspects of the declaration that independent secondary sources do not would be WP:OR and not what we do here. But an explanation of the declaration itself, based on RS, would be helpful for the reader. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

To AAB: The Declaration is, in effect, the subject of the article. And the article is not about an ‘anti-trans’ group – it is about a group which has been described as ‘anti-trans’. There is no need to discuss the term ‘sex-based rights’ – it is not up to us to engage in political argument about the subject of the article. The article includes statements that various groups are opposed to the views of the subject of the article, but since the article doesn’t say what those views are, the article is almost meaningless. As I said in my previous post: WDI have published a summary of their Declaration on their website, which reads as follows: … – I have not drafted the summary myself.

To Newimpartial: Since the hostility to the subject of the article is what makes the group notable, the actual Declaration itself must, logically, be notable and DUE. The article does not make sense as it stands.

As regards secondary sources – there is material from critics making assertions about e.g. what the declaration means ‘when [the declaration] talks about violence against women, freedom of expression, and children's rights’but there is no inf in the article about what the Declaration actually says.

You say But an explanation of the declaration itself, based on RS, would be helpful for the reader. Are you able to provide one?

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Normally it is expected that people who want to see content included in an article will provide reliable (generally independent) sourcing for that content, per WP:SEALION. If the only aspect of the declaration that can be reliably sourced is the criticisms (and I'm not saying it is), then that is the only aspect DUE for inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Something important for editors to note, earlier this afternoon an admin had to hide the three revisions which contained the summary/text of the declaration drafted by the IP editor due to WP:COPYVIO. The source text from WDI is incompatible with enwiki's copyright policy, and summarising it ourselves would be a textbook case of WP:OR. I believe that Newimpartial is correct in their assertion that any summary of it included here must be provided by a reliable source.

As for You say But an explanation of the declaration itself, based on RS, would be helpful for the reader. Are you able to provide one? WP:ONUS clearly states that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. and any time I've seen that policy cited it has been done in the context that the requirement includes sourcing. As such, the onus is on either Sweet6970 or the IP editor to provide that sourcing and not those editors who are saying that policy requires this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Also just to note that I've asked the admin who hid those revisions if the quotation above is also a copyvio or not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The source on the Declaration itself is WDI – this counts as reliable per WP:ABOUTSELF. So I have provided a reliable source. I don’t know why you are referring to marine life.

To Sideswipe9th: the material which was hidden was the extensive reproduction of the Declaration, which I have already said I am not in favour of including. The proposed summary, being much shorter, would not be a significant part of the text, and would, in any event, be in quotation marks, so there should not be a problem with copyright.

Sweet6970 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was not marked as a quotation, so I removed it as a violation of our copyright policy, and even the revised version is copyvio according to Wikipedia standards. (You can't post it here on the talk page either.) Regardless of the copyright issue, we don't normally include vision statements, mission statements, or goals. See WP:MISSION— Diannaa (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970: as I pointed out more briefly earlier, the text of the declaration may be usable per WP:ABOUTSELF (if paraphrased), but if secondary sources exist, they are preferable and if they don't, an OR summary does not seem DUE.

And the relevant marine mammal reference related to WP:FINDSOURCESFORME. I now see that this mention is found on WP:TEND rather than WP:SEALION; apparently the Venn intersection has been large enough for me to treat the pages interchangeably. I am now better informed. Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The essay raised above by Dianna, WP:MISSION, I think is important here. If our readers want to read the original text, then a link to it in the external links section could be in order. The declaration itself does not tell us anything about the impacts enacting it would have, nor anything about the views and beliefs of those who support or oppose it. For that content and context, we need reliable secondary sources, ideally academic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of Newimpartial, Sideswipe9th and Dianna above here. This is really a classic mission statement, and readers who want to read the original mission statement can read it on their own website. The third party RS that are the basis of the group's notability discuss the group's anti-trans activism. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Thank you to Bartleyo for their response of 27 March above. I see that the articles they have linked to provide the text, or a summary, of the relevant declaration. (I have no idea why my search failed to find these.)

I support the inclusion in this article of the summary of the declaration published by WDI, [8] , because if there is no information on the content of the Declaration, this article is meaningless. This is admissible per per WP:ABOUTSELF, and it is much better than a summary prepared by any of us, which, as pointed out by Newimpartial, could constitute WP:OR. It has now been established that including the summary verbatim would not be a copyvio, provided that it is cited, and that it is made clear that it is a direct quotation.

Therefore, I propose that the summary be added in the section Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights. This would then read:

The group is known for publishing the Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights. WDI have published a summary of their Declaration on their website, which reads as follows: [text of the actual summary, in quote marks] [link] The declaration was co-authored by Jeffreys……’ etc

Any comments?

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I am still not seeing any policy-relevant justification for why the inclusion of this material would be WP:DUE. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Though not policy, I think the subsection on when to include from WP:MISSION is the most relevant point I know of off hand. That said, posting the summary in this manner would not fulfil Tell the reader why and how reliable secondary sources view portions of the mission statement as an important part of how the organization works and reference not just the mission statement itself (which is, by definition, a primary source) but also third party sources that provide that analysis of the mission statement. as it doesn't explain why the declaration, even in summary form, is notable nor what has been said about it in reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial I do not see that WP:DUE applies as the articles of the declaration are not commentary about the group, it is the very articles of the declaration which this Wikipedia is about.

I am minded to agree with @Sideswipe9th as the summary does read like a mission statement. I would propose to include the articles, in their shortest form, as mentioned in the content page Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights: Full Text - Women's Declaration International (womensdeclaration.com). Article 1: Reaffirming that the rights of women are based upon the category of sex, Article 2:..... this treatment aligns with other declarations on Wikipedia.

It would seem appropriate to include them under the already existing heading "Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights". Bartleyo (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:DUE specifies that Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. This isn't limited to commentary about the group but includes in its scope all manner of description. It is unclear to me why a primary-sourced description of the Declaration would be of Encyclopaedic value, much less a verbatim extract. The declarations and mission statements that Wikipedia quotes or discusses at greater length have (or ought to have) reliable sources available that discuss them in some detail. We do not have that, here. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial the articles of the declaration do not form a 'primary-sourced description' they are the thing which the Wikipedia article is about. WP:DUE does not apply as the articles of the declaration are the reason for the groups existence and consequently the reason for the Wikipedia Article(I wish they weren't both called articles :( )

As mentioned above, the first 5 instances of Declaration in Wikipedia (Searching for "declaration" and arbitrarily choosing the first five items which actually have "Articles" as opposed to "Declaration of War": 1- Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia - Contains all the articles of the declaration, 2- Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Wikipedia contains a summary of the rights in the declaration,3- Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Wikipedia contains a summary of a number of the articles,4- Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen - Wikipedia lists all the articles, 5- Declaration of Independence of Ukraine - Wikipedia contains the full text of the declaration.) All these wikipedia articles, as a necessity, include the actual articles of the declarations they cover. Bartleyo (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that any of these other Declarations are lacking in discussion of their articles by independent sources to the degree that is true of this Declaration? If you aren't then I'm bit sure what you are suggesting, and if you are, the claim seems WP:EXTRAORDINARY and I would like to see some evidence, please. Newimpartial (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Take the first mentioned Wikipedia article Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia it contains the full list of the articles of 17 articles which make up the declaration. There is no citation for them, they are included as the Wikipedia article would be non-sensical not to include them.

The second mentioned Wikipedia article Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Wikipedia this does not include the individual articles of the declaration but does include a summary of the articles, again, with no citation as it refers to the content of the declaration.

I believe the above demonstrates that it is appropriate for a Wikipedia article about a declaration to include either the articles of the declaration or a summary of them. You highlighted above, the potentially problematic nature of summarising as WP:OR. which is why I suggested we include the shortest version of the articles from the contents page.

This wikipedia article is critically lacking if the articles of the declaration are not included. Bartleyo (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a Wikipedia article about a declaration. It is an article about an anti-transgender group that is mainly notable because it has received some critical coverage and third-party analysis. Some of that commentary has focused on the group's "sex-based rights" rhetoric, which is the primary idea advocated in their declaration (it's even its title) and which is therefore discussed in this article. But the rest of the declaration is not really notable, it's just a mission statement. We are under no obligation to act as the website of this group, this is an article about them. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The whole of the Declaration cannot be included in this article, because that would be a copyright violation. I also consider that it would be UNDUE. I think that it would not be a good idea to try to paraphrase it, because of its contentious nature: we would never agree on the wording of the paraphrase. But the Summary published by WDI is not a paraphrase, and it is has been established that including the Summary in the article would not be a breach of copyright (provided it is properly cited and clearly shown as a quotation). At present, readers are left in the dark about what all the criticism is about, so our article is a failure.

If the criticism of the Declaration is notable, then the actual Declaration must also be notable.

Re WP:DUE specifies that Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. This is not applicable here: the Declaration itself is not a ‘minority’ view about the WDI, it is the Declaration itself.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: WP:DUE - the Declaration itself is a minority view about the topic of its intervention. In the examples given by Bartleyo, like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, there is a voluminous RS literature discussing the text of each respective declaration and that is what makes it due to include. If we have, as in this case, a declaration where the reliable sourcing consists almost entirely of criticism, and this criticism is "global" in nature rather than focusing on detailed articles of the Declaration, then it would be UNDUE (a departure from the reliable sources) to discuss the articles in detail, whether by means of paraphrase or of quotation. I really don't see how I can be any more clear about this - what policy requires seems quite clear. Newimpartial (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

For clarity if you check the WDI website, the declaration is published under the Creative Commons license CC-BY-NC-ND which means that it may all be included in the Wikipedia Article unchanged, provided it is credited. Which shouldn't be a problem as we are writing an Article about WDI.

@Newimpartial I am unable to agree with your interpretation of WP:DUE in this case. As stated by myself and @Sweet6970, WP:DUE does not apply to the articles of the declaration as they are the detail of the subject of the article. A view, minority or otherwise, must be held by an external party in order to be a view.

The articles of the declarations I mention above are included without citation because they constitute the detail of the article not because there may be some voluminous or otherwise literature analysing them. If the discussions were the justification then they would be cited in the articles.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers - Wikipedia is a lobby group, their constitution is summarised in their Wikipedia article. Once again, there is no citation for including this. It is present because a summary of the groups actions without it is meaningless. I can find no reference to assessments of their constitution anywhere.

If it were not for the articles of the declaration, the group would not exist. If the Articles were an entreaty to care for the environment they would still be a lobby group but would have a completely different external presentation and appearance. The details of the articles are needed to convey this in the Wikipedia article. Bartleyo (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, even in the case of the CAPP article, the sourcing related to the organization is much better than anything you have offered for this article. Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS relates to the existence of other articles not to an accepted structure for Wikipedia articles. Help:Your first article - Wikipedia - "Prior to drafting your article, it's a good idea look at several existing Wikipedia articles on subjects similar to yours to see how such articles are formatted.".

I am afraid I do not understand your reference to sourcing. Bartleyo (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments, then. I thought the principle was clear enough; not all examples are good examples. Newimpartial (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial I agree that "not all examples are good examples" but as I stated above when all arbitrarily chosen examples align you have to ask whether you might be going off track. Bartleyo (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The coverage (and thus criticism) of this group is not focused on the articles of the group's declaration, but on the group's anti-transgender stance and activism in general, and the group's "sex-based rights" hypothesis. The rest of the declaration is just an obscure document of little importance even to the critics. The fact that we discuss the criticism of the group's anti-transgender activism in general, and the group's "sex-based rights" hypothesis, does not mean that we have to include the group's mission statement here. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article on WDI. It is not a page to criticise WDI. The repeated use of we in the preceding statement smacks of WP:OWN and Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. I have cited many articles on Wikipedia about declarations which include their associated articles. If you are unable to come up with an objective reason not to include it I will make the change as suggested earlier.

@Amanda A. Brant I have reverted your disruptive edit to my addition as it did not include any justification in the edit summary. You do not WP:OWN this page and your edits must be supported objectively in the same way as all other editors. Bartleyo (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Neither adding the wikilink for the name of the magazine, nor an accurate description of its liturgical leanings is disruptive.

More generally @Bartleyo: there appears to be little to no consensus for the changes you are seeking to add to the article. I suggest that you drop the stick. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your language above clearly indicates a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in editing this page and you should follow Wikipedia advice(

• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
• you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{request edit}} template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed;

) and refrain from directly editing the page further other than as recommended in the COI guidance. Bartleyo (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bartleyo: This is completely improper as this is not the correct forum to make these accusations. I strongly advise that you withdraw and strike through this comment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Bartleyo, I caution you against making disruptive edits to this article. I have no idea what you are talking about in regard to COI, but we may possibly have a problem here with editors affiliated with this group trying to influence this article. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC-ND is not a compatible license even if copying this were WP:DUE, which I don't think it is. (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Bartleyo (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Edits of 2nd April

@newimpartial Please clarify why you have removed article from Catholic World Bartleyo (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The text I removed made factual claims based on a WP:RSOPINION source. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Similarly:@Newimpartial: Please explain your reverts. I do not see opinions being presented as facts. What has been deleted is relevant information, improving an article which is otherwise uninformative. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed material for two reasons: (1) some was sourced to the Washington Times, which WP:RSN has determined to be "marginally reliable" and not to be used on matters of controversy. (2) The other material was sourced to one SELFPUB page and two opinion pieces - opinion pieces cannot be used to support statements of fact, which is what the text I deleted was doing. I believe my edit summaries were reasonably clear on each of these, but I can always hope to improve. :) Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The Catholic world piece is not flagged up as an opinion piece. Please advise how you came to this determination. Bartleyo (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A lot of long-form "analysis features" are opinion pieces, and this is most definitely one of them. Just look at the "Victors of light" section:

As a result, each of these initiatives provides light at the end of the tyrannic tunnel of sex denialism for all concerned parties. Collectively, they bring hope that the prediction of some medical gender experts—gender identity theory is doomed to collapse under the weighty errors of its dualist anthropology and pseudo-sciencexlvii—will slowly come to pass.

You don't think that is the author's opinion? Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If you look at other articles from that website, from the analysis and features categories, both of which the piece cited is in, it is clear that those categories are used on that website for opinion pieces and not factual reporting. The language choices made by the author of the piece also very clearly demonstrate that this is her opinion, if not also the opinion of the publication as well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Please contrast your assessment of the Catholic World piece with this article from Vice. I faile to see how applying the same criteria does not lead to a similar assessment of opinion piece. Bartleyo (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The Vice piece appears to be journalism, not opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bartleyo: here's a detailed analysis of both pieces (Vice and Catholic World Report) by paragraph.

Vice article by paragraphs:

1-4 - Paragraphs 1 and 2 are purely factual about the activist. Paragraph 2 is a statement from the activist. Paragraph 4 is a mixture of statement from the activist, and factual information about Andy Ngo

5-6 - Factual about another activist, and statement from the second activist.

7 - Another statement from the first activist.

8 - Seems factual. Andy Ngo is somewhat notorious for misinformation.

9 - Definition of misinformation.

10 - Factual for what happened at the Alba Party Women's conference.

11 - Factual for when the WHRC (predecessor to WDI) first appeared. Includes properly attributed claim from the org about IGLA circulated in March 2021.

12 - Brief rebuttal from IGLA, factual reporting of subsequent activity on social media following WHRC media release in March 2021.

13 - Factual description of the Wi Spa incident, and how misinformation from it was spread by three prominent GC individuals

14 - Factual description of what happened on Ovarit following a protestor at being assaulted on Ju.ly 3rd.

15 - Elaborating on how misinformation often has a kernel of distorted truth. This is accepted widely and not controversial.

16 - Statement from and attributed to the Trans Safety Network.

17-18 - Statement from the Director for International Freedom of Expression at the EFF.

19 - Factual description of the common criticism over failure of social media companies to combat misinformation.

20-23 - More statements from the first two activists.

In summary; the only opinions in the View News piece are those from named individuals or organisations. There is no opinion from the author of the article.

Catholic World article by paragraphs:

1 - Begins with factual information about an executive order issued by President Biden on January 20, 2021. Ends with a paraphrase in the voice of Sister Mirkes (article author) of what this order said.

2 - Continues upon and elaborates upon the previous paraphrase. Then invites the reader to consider that paraphrase as fact.

3-5 - Provides analysis, in the opinion of the author, as to what the executive order prohibits and what the impact of that will be.

6-7 - States a maxim, then starts to apply that as an analysis on sex denialism and critical gender theory.

8 - Mixes some fact, re ages, with opinion - gender transition treatment" treadmill.

9 - Does not seem factual with what we actually know happens to trans youth on puberty blockers, who then either proceed to HRT or desist.

10 - Outright misinformation.

11 - Begins with misinformation re suicidality. Waxes polemic on the inability of adolescents to consent to medical treatment.

12 - Mixture of truth, the two rapes in question are verifiable, with pure speculation These males could very well have been sex predators who self-identified....

13 - Speculation based off Fox News piece.

14 - Speculation base off unverified claims from former inmate in a Washington prison.

15 - Completely unverifiable statement that a doctor was sued on discriminatory grounds.

16 - Analysis and speculation from a piece written by Katie Herzog.

17 - Paraphrase of an opinion piece from The Economist.

18 - Paraphrase of an interview on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show.

19 - Paraphrase of the opinion of Abigail Shrier.

20 - Paraphrase of a source about two separate children who were removed from abusive parents.

21 - Mixture of paraphrase and factual reporting on two books (Irreversible Damage and When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment being removed from sale, leaving out the context why those books were removed.

22 - Paraphrase of an unknown source, and an opinion piece.

23 - Summary of the paraphrases in paragraphs 11-22.

24 - Opinion of the article author on the darkness of the tyranny of sex denialism.

25 - Speculation as to what will continue to happen in the future.

26 - Start of another list.

27 - Paragraph on detransitioners. Contains quotations from Keira Bell.

28 - Paraphrase of a possibly reliable source, talking about doctors with fringe opinions going against their professional bodies (American Academy of Pediatricians; American Medical Association; American Psychiatric Association, and Pediatric Endocrine Society).

29 - Paraphrase of multiple unreliable sources (Quillette and Fox News).

30 - Paraphrase of an unknown source (The Daily Citizen).

31 - Sole paragraph that was cited in this article that references WDI.

32 - Somewhat factual reporting of laws being passed in Iowa and Florida state legislatures that target trans and non-binary individuals.

33 - Mixture of factual report on the current anti-trans laws being passed in Texas and the effects of said laws, as well as opinion on two other hospitals performing similar actions Following the sage decision of the prestigious Karolinska hospitalxli in Sweden, and a similar cancellation of gender affirmation treatment for children in a major med center in Finland.

34 - Factual reporting of pastoral directives issued by several American Catholic bishops.

35 - Summary of paragraphs 27-34 and end of article.

In summary; of the 35 paragraphs in this article, only six paragraphs contain some factual information. The rest are paraphrases of various sources intermixed with the author's opinion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm obviously not Newimpartial, but taking the diffs as I see them in order in order:

1. Removal of TichysEinblick editorial - If you check the link, optionally running it through Google Translate if you don't speak German, the article in question is clearly marked editorial. The way this source was used is unacceptable per WP:RSOPINION Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.
2. Removal of category "Women's rights" - Overwhelmingly in RS WDI has been described as anti-trans and/or trans exclusionary. Only in their (WDI's) own language does "Women's rights" appear. To use it in this way to be to give undue weight to their viewpoint, one that is not shared by reliable sources talking about this organisation.
3. Removal of Washington Times - Self explanatory in the edit summary. Per WP:RSN the source "is generally unsuitable for contentious claims" which this clearly is, and Independent Women's Voice appears to be a self published blog.
4. Removal of Catholic World Report - This one I don't agree with removing. While it is an editorial, it is clearly attributed to that organisation. Though the language could be a lot clear that this is an editorial rather than a report. Struck per clarification from Newimpartial below.
5. Addition of short description - This should not have been reverted, as it is an accurate short description for this group, which is clearly anti-trans, and definitively originated in the UK.

Does that address your concerns? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC) updated Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, the material sourced to the Catholic editorial was The Catholic World Report reported in an article on "The Tyranny of sex denialism" that the group were working to "restore the rights of Women and Girls" by defending sex-segregated domestic violence shelters, sex-segregation of sports and locker-rooms and supporting females who have de-transitioned. That is at best an attributed statement of fact, and we should not be presenting such statements based on RSOPONION content. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Aaah, yup. I see why that was removed now. Striking that bit from my list. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It may be just me but I can not find Washington Times on the deprecated sources page. Please can you provide a link or other evidence. Bartleyo (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The RSN discussion is here, including the "marginally reliable" assessment and the note about controversial issues. Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

When I read the full summary on the Washington Times I find the following "The Washington Times should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about living persons. A majority of editors regard The Washington Times as generally reliable for topics other than politics and science."

Given that this article is not about politics or claims about living persons, I would suggest that it is a suitable source in this case. Bartleyo (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If you don't think the present article is about a political issue, I have to point you to WP:CIR. And did you not read the top of the RSN statement, where this source is deemed "marginally reliable"? Also, do you not think the claim for which this source is cited, Kara Dansky, U.S. chapter president, also accused the Biden administration of further trying to "obliterate sex and violate the rights and privacy and safety of women and girls", is both about politics, and a controversial statement attributed to a living person? Really, Bartleyo, competence is required. Newimpartial (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

To Newimpartial: There is no cause to be insulting by referring to WP:CIR. ‘Politics’ is a vague word which means different things to different people. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Tichys Einblick, the personal blog of Roland Tichy, is a very controversial German blog that has been accused of being far-right and publishing falsehoods on many occasions. Even the board of the company that publishes the blog has criticized it and the publisher has admitted that the blog is problematic due to the racist and sexist connotations of its content; Tichy was recently ousted from a German foundation due to the views expressed on the blog. Tichys Einblick can clearly not be used as a source for statements of fact, and is rather dubious even for statements of opinion. The Catholic World Report is a very right-wing Catholic website; I suppose it's in theory acceptable as a source for the opinion of that very right-wing Catholic publication (and a very right-wing Catholic perspective in general), but it's a rather marginal and obscure source with a strong political bias, and it's not appropriate to categorize the article based on it. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sweet6970 & @sideswipe9th Where in the quoted articles does the WDI call for the elimination of transgenderism? Bartleyo (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

From the first source: Referring to the UN convention on eliminating discrimination against women and girls, WHRC said: “The convention calls for the ‘elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women’ (Article 5).“We consider that the practice of transgenderism clearly falls under this article because it is based on stereotyped roles for men and women.”.

From the second source: Stock is a signatory of the Women’s Human Rights Declaration (WHRC), which calls for the “elimination” of “the practice of transgenderism” as well as the repeal of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA), the 2004 law that allows adult trans men and women to change their legal gender.

And from a legal academic and lecturer in law at University of Bristol, Dr Sandra Duffy: It becomes clear that what the Declaration is attempting to do is put forward a case for the elimination of ‘gender identity’ from human rights law, and it is then possible to extrapolate from that, that the document would happily see all legal protections removed from trans people. Note this last source isn't in the article, but it is one I'm considering adding as meeting the criteria of being a subject matter expert having previously written similar WP:RSOPINION pieces in reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

To Bartleyo & Sideswipe9th: The first source does not include any statement about the elimination of transgenderism in the text, only in the headline, so this source is not adequate for this statement. The second source refers to the elimination of the ‘practice of transgenderism’, which is why I have amended the wording in the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: I'm largely OK with that change, though I refer you to the quotation above from the first source, which is not a headline or section header. The convention in that quotation refers to CEDAW, article 5 being article 5 of CEDAW. The we in We consider that the practice of transgenderism clearly falls under this article refers to WHRC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th The reference "which calls for the “elimination” of “the practice of transgenderism” as well as the repeal of the Gender Recognition Act " is the opinion of the author of the article. Bartleyo (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bartleyo: no. It is factual reporting in the voice of the publication, based upon what the WHRC stated in the first article. It is explicitly not an opinion piece. If you are unable to tell the difference between opinion pieces and factual reporting, per earlier, then I echo Newimpartial's words that competency is required, and suggest that you may wish to edit in non-controversial and non-discretionary sanctions topic areas until you feel as though you have that competence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

So my earlier comment was not clear. "which calls for the “elimination” of “the practice of transgenderism” as well as the repeal of the Gender Recognition Act ". The WDI have called for the repeal of the Gender Recognition Act - that is factual reporting. The statement "which calls for the “elimination” of “the practice of transgenderism” has no factual basis and is inferred by the author of the article. Bartleyo (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. The later statement has factual basis, based on the comments made by the WHRC when they said as quoted above We [the WHRC] consider that the practice of transgenderism clearly falls under this article [Article 5 of CEDAW] because it is based on stereotyped roles for men and women. Clarifications in brackets are mine, you can see the original context which makes such clarifications unnecessary above. Article 5 of CEDAW plainly states Parties shall take all appropriate measures: (a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women; Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry but the statement still requires interpretation and that constitutes Wikipedia:OR.

1. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

Bartleyo (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not WP:OR. Firstly as you've just quoted OR applies to primary sources. Both articles that are cited are secondary news sources. Secondly the publication in question has already made that distinction in the second cited source, and my explaining it here for the benefit of editors present is not OR. Finally, OR explicitly only applies to the article space per This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that what is written here on this Talk page breaks WP:OR. I am suggesting that the statement that WHRC supports the “elimination” of “the practice of transgenderism” is a case of WP:SYNT which is not made in the original PinkNews article. Wikipedia:SYNT applies "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Bartleyo (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No, this is not WP:SYNTH. The second source plainly states in the text signatory of the Women’s Human Rights Declaration (WHRC), which calls for the “elimination” of “the practice of transgenderism”, referencing the first when it does so. Please drop the stick as this is becoming tedious. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

So the secondary source has performed the synthesis? Bartleyo (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop this sealion like behaviour. On wiki we report what reliable sources say. In this case reliable sources say the WHRC calls for the “elimination” of “the practice of transgenderism”. If you have a problem with the reliability of PinkNews as a source, please take it to the appropriate noticeboard, and/or contact the source for a retraction or clarification. However for the former you will need evidence of their unreliability, and for the latter you will require evidence to counter the words of the WHRC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th I object to the sealion accusation just as I object to the condescending tone of the earlier Wikipedia:CIR from you and @Newimpartial. As I stated in my very first edit on this talk page. I consider this page to be unbalanced. Each time I attempt an edit I meet reverts for a variable range of seemingly random reasons. I am attempting to understand how this determination is made. My sourced articles are rejected as opinion pieces but this rule does not appear to apply to articles which contain negative reviews of WDI. Bartleyo (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

To Sideswipe9th: You should Assume Good Faith and stop the insults to Bartleyo.

To Bartleyo – the answer is basically ‘yes’ – any SYNTH has to be done by secondary sources. This is in order to avoid editors doing it. We’re not supposed to do our own interpretation, just to follow the sources. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bartleyo: I have already explained in great detail why the Catholic World Report piece is an opinion piece, and the Vice piece is not. However you have yet to respond or acknowledge it. Stating that competency is required is not the same as saying you the editor is incompetent. This is a very complex and fraught content area. It's why discretionary sanctions have been applied to it. Editing in any discretionary sanctions area is tough, it requires a good deal of familiarity with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines, many of which you seem unfamiliar with, as demonstrated most recently by your attempt to apply Wiki policy with respect to SYNTH to non-Wiki writing in reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with being unfamiliar with those, looking at your activity history it is clear that you've only become an active editor very recently, however being familiar with them is part and parcel of being considered competent on Wikipedia.

I've suggested previously that you spend some time editing in a non-controversial, non-discretionary sanctions topic area, until you have greater familiarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That is advice that I, and a great many other editors would give to anyone whose first edits are in a DS topic. I give this advice because if you continue editing the way you have, it is only a matter of time before one or more editors file a report at WP:ARE for not meeting the editor expectations as lain out at WP:ACDS.

@Sweet6970: Stating that CIR is not an insult. Neither is drawing an editors attention to how they are unintentionally behaving in a disruptive manner due to their apparent unfamiliarity with policy. AGF has reasonable limits, and I have not stopped assuming good faith, I merely suspect that Bartleyo is not yet ready to edit in this topic area. There is nothing wrong with that, nor is there any shame or insult in that. As you well know gender and sexuality is a contentious topic, and editing in this topic area requires a great deal of competency when it comes to Wiki policies and guidelines. If you or Bartleyo are not happy with this, feel free to file a request at WP:ARE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

To Sideswipe9th: It should not be necessary to resort to a formal complaint in order to remind an editor to be polite. Referring to WP:CIR is generally regarded as an insult. Perhaps you don’t know that. Similarly, referring to sealioning is an accusation of disruptive editing. As you have said, this is a contentious area, and it is always best to avoid unnecessarily inflammatory language. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that some recent editing has been disruptive. And at least one editor who should know better has restored content against WP:ONUS and in spite of fairly clear edit summaries explaining why poorly-sourced material had been removed. Newimpartial (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Advocacy Groups

@NewImpartial Please can you advise which RS defines WDI as an Anti-trans Advocacy Group? Bartleyo (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

All of them? Newimpartial (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have checked all of them. There are only two which refer to WDI as an advocacy group. The Dawkins article refers to them as ant-trans and the article from KUSI refers to them as a women's rights advocacy group. I am going to remove the Dawkins article as upon reading it is clearly an opinion piece much like the Catholic World article. Bartleyo (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Please self revert that @Bartleyo:. The Dawkin's article is not an opinion article. Also please note that both @0xF8E8: and I have reverted the KUSI and Washington Post additions as we both agreed that KUSI is a questionable source, and the quote from Dansky in the WaPo does not state her link to WDI. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

KUSI News is cited in many Wikipedia articles and has been reviewed on the reliable sources with no recommendation to list to list as anything than reliable. Agree that neither link Dansky to WDI. Bartleyo (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Dansky is listed on the WDI website as " Board President". Bartleyo (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th @Newimpartial Request you revert the earlier removals Bartleyo (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:SYNTH for why the Washington Post article is not appropriate to use in this circumstance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH applies to Wikipedia articles not sourced material. The Washington post Article is not an opinion piece and the Washington Post is a fully debated and recognised reliable source. Once again I request you restore my recent edits. Bartleyo (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding SYNTH in this context. The Washington Post article does not name Dansky in connection with WDI. It names her in connection with WoLF. That she's named on the WDI website as the board president would require SYNTH of the two sources; WaPo article + WDI website, in order for the connection to be made. This would be in violation of: If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple articles about Kathleen stock where WDI is not mentioned. The Washington Post article is about Kara Dansky the Leader of the US branch of WDI. there is no Synth here. Once again I request you restore my edits. Bartleyo (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

But there is an article where WDI (as WHRC) is mentioned in connection with Stock at the i (here), which is why she's mentioned here. The fundamental problem is that without sources explicitly connecting Dansky's comments at WoLF with her activism at WDI, we have no real way of determining whether a randomly-selected quote is due or represents whatever it is she does as WDI president. Like hypothetically if an RS reports (as your userpage does) "Bartleyo is gender critical" and I google around and find that an individual named Bartleyo runs the ABC Association, it would probably be undue in our theoretical article on the ABC Association to report that the "founder of the ABC Association describes themself as gender critical". For one, since no sources make the connection maybe we don't really have proof it's the same Bartleyo; but even if we were 100% sure, how would we determine this was a due aspect of the history of the ABC Association and not just weird trivia? With sources making that connection, of course! Sources we don't have. See the problem? —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Kathleen Stock is associated with four citations in the article; 19, 20, 21, 22. So let's do a quick analysis. Citations 21 and 22 are the most straighforward. 21 is to support the statement that Stock signed the WHRC, the predecessor group to WDI, and was criticised by her student body for that. 22 is to support the joint response from the WHRC and WoLF stating their support for Stock. So far, so good. Source 19 and 20 provide information about Stock, namely that she resigned her post from the university at which the student body was criticising her, and that the resignation followed accusations of transphobia. Taken as a whole, there is no SYNTH here. 21 and 22 link Stock directly to the WHRC. 19 and 20 are information about Stock only.

Now let me spell out again why the Washington Post article is SYNTH. If you read the article, the only organisation mentioned is Women's Liberation Front (WoLF). Neither WDI nor WHRC is mentioned in the article. Dansky is mentioned only once in the article, in the following sentence Kara Dansky, a WoLF board member from the District, plans to travel to South Dakota on Monday to testify in favor of the bill in a Senate committee hearing. Accordingly, all we can establish from this article is that Dansky was a board member for a district WoLF group. We have no link at all between Dansky and WDI. In order to make that link, you would need a second article. The text at SYNTH prevents us from doing so, as we are not allowed to conjoin sources A (the WaPo article) and B (a source that says Dansky is leader of the US branch of WDI) to say C The Washington Post reported Kara Dansky, U.S chapter president, as saying.... Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Dawkins reference removed

A reference that related to both WHRC and Richard Dawkins was removed in this edit in this edit for being an opinion piece. I've read the piece several times now, and I don't agree that it's an opinion piece. Could any other editors please give this a review, and confirm whether or not it should be restored please? Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC) corrected diff, I always get the two numbers confused. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean this edit. I would restore it, but I may be at 3RR already.

(By the way, I'm pretty sure Bartleyo is already over 3RR.) Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, I almost always copy/paste the wrong diff ID when trying to link diffs. Normally I catch it in the preview, this time my mind was elsewhere! Thanks! Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference restored. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece. See, for instance, the following opinionated assertions :

These aren’t Dawkins’ first, or even his tenth or hundredth, instances of hiding behind “intellectual rigor” to mimic right-wing rhetoric.

And, while atheism has a long history of exclusionary gate-keeping, the post-9/11 New Atheists are becoming the next wave of recruits, slingshotted by their extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric into irrelevance and bigotry.æ

In theory, criticism of myopic white feminism has a place in an atheism that seeks to eradicate oppression of all kinds, but Dawkins’ letter typified his egotistical neglect of intersectionality, placing himself as the arbiter of what feminism should and shouldn’t be, instead of turning to Muslim feminists who’ve been doing this work for a very long time (or indeed any feminists at all) to guide his rhetoric.

And it even becomes incoherent here, where it sounds like the writer is accusing Richard Dawkins, famously an atheist, of being a Christian: Dawkins’ own medical background and reliance on evolutionary psychology to guide his atheism may be his undoing here. As Adam Lee points out, evolutionary psychology “becomes a pseudoscience when it’s misused to claim that our current wealth distribution, gender roles or racial hierarchies are ‘natural” and therefore immutable.’” At what point do evolutionary psychology and narrow Christian-Right gender essentialist theology become indistinguishable? Does it matter whether or not they’re distinguishable if they’re furthering the same racist, anti-feminist, anti-trans agenda? Sweet6970 (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sweet, WP:RSOPINION does not define "an opinion piece" as "a piece with opinions on it". That's not the way we assess reliability on WP. As far as the passage on Dawkins is concerned, you seem to be having reading comprehension issues. It makes perfect sense to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION does not define an ‘opinion piece’ at all. Insulting me is not an argument. Please provide more serious arguments which I will read tomorrow. Good night. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The writer is not accusing Richard Dawkins of being a Christian, but rather saying that on this particular cultural/political topic, his view and that of Christian-Right gender essentialists converge. It's not the first to make an argument that "New Atheism" veered into racism, transphobia, etc. [9][10], and it wouldn't be the last [11][12]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is clearly an opinion article, and there's no reason to use it, especially when other sources are already there. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you think this is an "opinion article". Saying it doesn't make it so. Religion Dispatches is editorially independent publication curated by experts in its field, and I don't know why you might feel that this article isn't up to its usual standard. Newimpartial (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how one could seriously argue this is not an opinion article. It is more opinionated than the average NYT op-ed: Truly the dangerous death throes of another angry, white male intellectual destroying his own reputation. And, while Dawkins may not be booked on TruNews in the foreseeable future, he’s able to do real harm on Twitter all by himself. Opinion pieces are not shielded from WP:RSOPINION merely because they do not have a giant warning label at the top that says "opinion" in big bright letters. This is btw in keeping with their usual standard, as they generally are a publisher of opinion; here is a random article: Why Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Faith Doesn’t Matter (But Amy Coney Barrett’s Did). If these articles aren't opinion pieces I'm not sure how you could be of the view that anything at all is an opinion piece. Endwise (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Endwise, I don't know why you think that latter piece is an "opinion piece" either (unless it is because it has opinions in it, but that isn't a valid reason). It isn't the kind of opinion piece RSOPINION uses as an example, and it isn't one of the types of opinion piece described in Opinion piece, which is linked from RSOPINION. Not all analysis pieces are "opinion pieces". Newimpartial (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)