Talk:For Women Scotland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening Sentence[edit]

I'm reverting to the original formulation "feminist group that campaigns to preserve women's rights" because it is a summary of the Guardian article, which mentions "women's rights" in opening sentence, and I'm adding a citation to the Daily Record article which says "campaign group for women's rights". I'm deleting "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" because it is not mentioned in these articles; I did not find any reliable sources that use that term for FWS.

Similarly, I'm deleting "cisgender" because it is not mentioned in these articles.

My understanding is that its against WP:NOR to introduce terms like these, that are not mentioned in the sources: specifically, WP:SECONDARY says: "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."AndyGordon (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your bias and transphobia is obvious. I don't think it's acceptable for a man who is not an expert on Transgender issues to be so obsessive over editing "Gender critical" propaganda into Wikipedia, but you do you chief. 81.136.90.234 (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rab V You have deleted the Daily Record article. What's your basis for that in wikipedia policy? AndyGordon (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd query the category 'Organizations that oppose LGBT rights' as L,G,B and T are all different, and FWS may have pro stances on some rather than others.Melissa Highton (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I have created Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights, as I feel like there are quite a lot of groups which are supportive of LGB rights but not of the T. Added the page there. –Bangalamania (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the page from Organisations which Oppose Transgender Rights. The organisation advocates for womens rights. By analogy, if my neighbour removes the grden fence, & I ask them to replace it, I am defending my boundary, not being anti neighbour Mattymmoo (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The group is described as anti-trans rights by a number of reliable sources provided in the article (not just trans campaigners). --Bangalamania (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the point is that the rights conflict. That's why FWS campaign. I've added a few more categories. Do we have a category for 'gender critical organisations' ? that might be more acceptable to both sides rather than 'anti-trans'.Melissa Highton (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's discussion about the category name at Category talk:Organizations that oppose transgender rights. Crossroads -talk- 05:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions of non-notable individuals[edit]

I removed opinions of non-notable individuals because Wikipedia is not a news source, but this was reverted by Newimpartial. If an organisation is to be commented on or criticised within Wikipedia articles, then these comments and criticisms should come from recognised groups and notable individuals, not just anyone who happened to attend a protest. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms made by protesters as covered in reliable, independent sources are DUE for inclusion, in general. Newimpartial (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that? Where on Wikipedia does it support quoting non-notable individuals as valid criticism of the subject of an article? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the article text quoting non-notable individuals as valid criticism of the subject - what I see is reliably sourced content, with in-text attribution, representing a significant view in a controversy as reported in reliable sources. If you see something other than that, perhaps you could explain why. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a significant view, it's a comment by someone who is, in Wikipedia terms, a nobody. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable, independent sources report on the demonstrations and the views expressed by those demonstrating. For this purpose, it doesn't matter whether the person being quoted meets WP:N or not, or whether they or not they are recognised as an expert or not. Those things matter for opinion pieces and self-published interventions, but not for people interviewed in news coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently in our article the protestors are not being quoted about the meeting in Edinburgh, but about the article subject. Where on Wikipedia does it say that it doesn't matter whether the person being quoted meets WP:N or not, or whether they or not they are recognised as an expert or not? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where in policy go you get the impression that inclusion is restricted in that way? Also, do these demonstrations not relate directly to the subject of the article? I was under the impression that they did. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The meeting attracted about 40 protestors. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP, WP:IMPARTIAL. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RS decide, through their coverage, what the BALANCE our articles need to reflect. The number of protestors is not a particularly important factor, compared to the extent of coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to keep out of the discusion above, but for what it's worth I do find the inclusion of multiple quotes from a single source in this section excessive: surely this could be condensed? The structure of this quote section is also less than ideal. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the structure, but we do have quotes from two different sources, don't we? Newimpartial (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BALASP states that "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". The opinions of the unknown "Red" and "Cathy" are of little concern for readers of an encyclopedia wishing to learn about For Women Scotland. Also the sole source used for the section on the Edinburgh meeting focuses as much on the position of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP as it does on that meeting; the source contains 13 paragraphs, of which only 3 describe criticisms of For Women Scotland, yet the section in our article currently has half the space taken up with these criticisms (of which two are the aforementioned non-notables). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an individual is notable or not has nothing to do with whether or not it their views are DUE for inclusion in article space; what matters is the quality of sourcing. And criticism of For Women Scotland occupies a major place in the independent, reliably sourced coverage of the organization, so I see no sign that the current treatment is UNDUE. Of course, all editors should be open to improvements to the article, including improvements in the critical perspectives offered to the reader. Newimpartial (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good removal. Random protestors quoted in one source are never treated as WP:DUE for inclusion on Wikipedia. Imagine how bloated and useless articles would be if every random person ever quoted on some topic was to be included! And the POV of such inclusions could cut both ways of course. Crossroads -talk- 06:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads, your argument is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, rather than policy, and also happens to be false. Maybe try a policy-based approach? Newimpartial (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, you state above that you regard the comments by the non-notable protestors as representing "a significant view in a controversy". In WP:UNDUE it states (paraphrased from Jimmy Wales):
--If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
--If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
--If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Are these protestors prominent? No. Are their views a majority? If so, and if their comments align with your statement that "criticism of For Women Scotland occupies a major place in the independent, reliably sourced coverage of the organization", then why not use these other sources? Why rely on individuals who have no notability? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What role do the critics of For Womwn Scotland play in the sources on the subject? They are prominently presented in essentially all of the independent, reliable sources dealing with the group and its activities. I'd say that makes their views DUE for prominent inclusion in this article. It is then up to editors, not Jimbo, to decide how to incorporate critical views into this article. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slight COI because I have personally been harassed by For Women Scotland on social media within the last year, and I'll very likely not edit the article itself because of this. But I don't think it affects this question that I've not seen asked directly, although PaleCloudedWhite came close. What do politicians/organisations/charities/organised protest groups say about FWS? Instead of focusing on what individual protestors have said, is there commentary from larger or more organised groups than individual protestors at the grassroots level? If there is, I suspect that would be more DUE for inclusion here than a voxpop from someone in attendance at a counter-protest/counter-event. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (Replying to Newimpartial) The critics are presented prominently, therefore we can present these critical non-notables prominently? No, and the use of quotes by nobodies (in Wikipedia terms) demonstrates a lack of criticism by notable commentators. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Their view seems to be that because sources often discuss criticism in a general sense, any and all criticism printed is therefore DUE. Never mind stuff like WP:NOTEVERYTHING apparently. Crossroads -talk- 21:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radical feminism[edit]

Mattymmoo, the group is cited in the Foundation section as trans-exclusionary radical feminist. That's why radical feminism was added to the categories. Helper201 (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the statement there is "has been described as", which is not the same thing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link to original non wikipedia reliable source is needed here for the discussion. Mattymmoo (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive reliance on sources that don't mention For Women Scotland[edit]

The article relied far too much on sources that don't mention FWS at all. If an event happens and sources don't talk about FWS in relation to it, then its connection to FWS is probably not that significant anyway - we shouldn't eg. go into excessive detail on a blow-by-blow of the Marion Millar case here, only on the aspects of the case that relate to FWS specifically (ie. she works for the group, the group scheduled X rally in her support, etc.) This article is about FWS, not Millar. Similarly, legal cases that FWS has objected to should be covered only in the aspects that FWS touched on - if we have to rely on sources that don't mention FWS to cover the blow-by-blow of what happened, then we're probably going off-base anyway; this is an article about this one group in particular, not the entire legal struggle over trans rights and gender self-identification in Britain. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The group campaigns against changes to transgender rights"[edit]

This is frankly an idiotic statement and it says nothing. "Changes to transgender rights" could be pro-trans (e.g. all trans are now allowed in all bathrooms) or anti-trans (e.g. it's now illegal to be trans). Those are both changes. So "the group campaigns against changes to transgender rights" tells us nothing about the group. Can we rephrase this in a sane way? I was already reverted. But please, I appeal to common sense, and the need to inform the reader. Equinox ◑ 14:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from my talk page) I think that "campaigns against transgender rights" is inaccurate and not supported by the source given. It is true that the meaning of "campaigns against changes to transgender rights" is not immediately obvious in that sentence on its own, but the meaning is clarified by paragraph 2 of the lead so that doesn't greatly worry me. But I would be happy with "campaigns against extensions to transgender rights", or indeed just deleting the whole phrase. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Months later...) It looks a lot more sensible now, so thanks to whoever cleaned it up instead of kneejerk reverting. Equinox ◑ 01:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Police Investigations involving Marion Millar[edit]

I remain unconvinced by the arguments for inclusion of the final section of this paragraph "On 16th November 2022, the Courier newspaper ran an article claiming Marion Millar is being investigated for fraud.", which is currently suported by a single source [1]. If we assume that Marion Millar is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE then policy says "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (Emphaisis in original). If instead Marion Millar is not a public figure then WP:BLPCRIME says "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Either way I cannot see that inclusion of this sentence is justified without additional sourcing, which I have so far been unable to locate. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Ms Millar falls between the 2 stools of being a public/private figure. But either way, I support deleting the material unless/until there is more RS coverage. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also support that. Crossroads -talk- 19:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now deleted the sentence. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan A Jones: Thank you for deleting the Courier material. However, I disagree with your later amendments.
Changing the title back to ‘Criminal case against Marion Millar’ suggests that she was subject to a criminal trial, whereas the Crown office discontinued all proceedings. Also, as far as I am aware, the incident in the Doctors Pub was nothing to do with the original criminal investigation. That is why I moved the para about discontinuing proceedings to be immediately after the para about the rally. So I would revert your last 2 edits. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't like the plural in "investigations" but I can see points on both sides. I suspect the pub incident doesn't really belong in this section at all, and should either be moved or just be deleted, which would solve any debate on proper ordering. Feel free to edit as you think best, but note that section titles shouldn't have punctuation, and there's a redirect from Marion Millar which needs to be upated if the section title changes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I think that the material on the pub incident should now be deleted, as it is more than a year since it occurred, and nothing seems to have come of it. That would mean my preferred section title would be ‘Police investigation involving Marion Millar’. Sorry, I don’t understand your comment about punctuation in section titles.
Also, I am totally ignorant about how to deal with redirects. I don’t know what the problem might be, and I would have no idea how to fix it. Can you assist, please?
Sweet6970 (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance of bias[edit]

I find it smacks a bit of POV that this article opens with views critical to this group ("described as anti-trans" etc.) before reporting properly what the group stands for or what it thinks about itself. The anti-trans accusations really need to come under the lead in a section on criticism or controversy. Doric Loon (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need to follow the best WP:RS available, and to the best of my knowledge they present the organisation in the way this article does. Outside of the criticism or controversy, I doubt the notability of this article's topic. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Newimpartial, yes indeed, and I'm not suggesting deleting the information. It just sounds biassed to lead with criticism of a group's ideas and only later say what those ideas are. Before the sentence I identified we need another sentence saying what the group says about itself. That's just the default neutral way to write a Wiki article about any group, and reversing it smacks of partiality. I don't believe it will be difficult to do that within the constraints of RS. Doric Loon (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP policy endorses the sequence you are suggesting, as a general rule. When the sources emphasize the characterizations in question, then so should our article lead. Newimpartial (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J.K Rowling's support[edit]

I think that this part

In November 2021, author J. K. Rowling hailed the group for its support, after trans activists publicised her home address online. She said: "Thank you, my sisters xxx."[14]

seems unnecessary given the following much stronger support shown by Rowling later in the paragraph. Also it seems to oversimplify the situation given that the address was widely publicised and that no crime was charged despite police investigation . Because of this I think it should be removed and the following parts ammended to link to J.K Rowling and to flow better. 86.4.243.52 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems like wildly inaccurate framing, considering Rowling's home is a tourist photo bus stop. The address of each home she owns is widely known, since she buys famous landmark homes. SilverserenC 20:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking, just wanted to get consensus before deleting. 86.4.243.52 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text follows the source closely, so I don't see the argument that the existing text is wrong. But of course that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included, though I would like to know a bit more about your suggested ammendments if you are going beyond simple deletion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again I believe the only change necessary would literally be changing the Rowling in
"In October 2022, writing in The Sunday Times, Rowling described"
into J.K Rowling with the appropriate link. 86.4.243.52 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at MOS:REPEATLINK before making any changes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion would be just to delete the first couple of sentences included in my initial comment
(In November 2021, author J. K. Rowling hailed the group for its support, after trans activists publicised her home address online. She said: "Thank you, my sisters xxx."[14]).
Then to change the later sentence mentioned in my previous reply to above so it would read
"In October 2022, writing in The Sunday Times, J. K. Rowling described"
And that the above quote would be the start of the paragraph as the first quote would be deleted. 86.4.243.52 (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, had misunderstood. That would be fine with me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through with deleting the quote, please make any grammar or formatting edits as necessary. 86.4.243.52 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and happy new year when it comes. I disagree with removing quote. The November 2021 article in The Times has the headline "JK Rowling hails For Women Scotland in trans row". The Times is WP:GREL and devotes their whole piece to Rowling hailing FWS. For neutrality our article should reflect this perspective on the topic of our FWS article. That's what the sentence just deleted does. So I'm reverting the deletion. Happy to discuss. AndyGordon (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not, however, WP:DUE. It is a trivial comment, unlike what is in the rest of the paragraph. It is unnecessary bloat in the article. SilverserenC 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, The Times devotes a whole article to her tweet - its the headline - and the only hailing of FWS she did was that tweet. They considered it noteworthy and significant.
From WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
Therefore it is WP:DUE for us to include it. AndyGordon (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how DUE is applied, otherwise you could argue for the inclusion of any and all content so long as it is in a news article. Due weight relates to the importance of the material and the included sentence and comment is nowhere near as important as the other examples. SilverserenC 00:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed but its not "any and all content", it's the key part of the Times story - in the headline. AndyGordon (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the argument for including praise of For Women Scotland. However I do not see how 3 different instances of J.K Rowling praising them is useful or necessary. I don't see anything added by this first point that isn't included later in the paragraph in terms of reception to For Women Scotland. 86.4.243.52 (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see both sides here, and would be happy with either taking it out or leaving it in. As I said before I think it is well sourced, but whether it is WP:DUE for this article is less clear to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that even without the sentence being discussed the perspective of J.K Rowling liking FWS is supported by the rest of the paragraph. Given that this is an article on FWS and not J.K Rowling's opinions I think that writing too much just on her opinion could easily be undue. 86.4.243.52 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the previous I.P talking on this thread and given that conversation has stopped and that the bit in question is probably more Wikipedia:Coatrack articles than Wikipedia:Due I'm tempted to delete the sentence in question. I'll leave it a couple more days to see if the conversation starts up again though. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @LunaHasArrived thanks for your message. I didn't see it until today. I've read through the essay on WP:COATRACK and I don't see how it applies to the sentences you have removed. Can you explain? Inclusion is DUE as a summary of a whole Times article describing events including a tweet explicitly between FWS and JKR. Its not off on a tangent as described in COATRACK. The Times is WP:GREL and about as mainstream as newspapers get. The Times decided these events were sufficiently significant to publish; we should follow their lead. AndyGordon (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that when we have a paragraph dedicated to J.K Rowling's opinion of this group that is larger than how they were founded and about 5 times the length of the description of them as terfs makes the article bloat. I sincerely can't believe that J.K Rowlings opinion on this group is more important than the wealth of sources describing them as anti trans. As the article stands it provides a massive weight to Rowling's opinion. Because of this I believe that the paragraph should be shortened and this tweet seems like the most suitable content and just seems unnecessary given the following quote. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LunaHasArrived, re the "wealth of sources describing them as anti trans", if there is more to be said based on the sources that call FWS "anti trans" we should consider including a summary. AndyGordon (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's entirely undue to include her opinion, but including the statement "after trans activists posted her address" seems to falsely imply that her support for For Women Scotland is due to the activists, rather than her personal beliefs. Feels like a borderline WP:NPOV violation. BLACKCATFOXRABBIT (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its simply the reason that FWS supported her. Would "After trans activists protested at her home" be better? AndyGordon (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:For_Women_Scotland&oldid=1215168810"