Talk:Forstater v Centre for Global Development Europe

Edits to article
I have made quite a WP:BOLD edit to the article for several reasons. There was too much detail detracting from the main flow, too much repetition and reliance on quotes. Many of the quotes were unnecessary and seemed designed to present a particular view of the case rather than simply present the issues at hand. The overall tone strayed from WP:NPOV. There is not realistically enough content to necessitate multiple section headers. The opinion piece from NBC was just that, an opinion piece, and therefore not a reliable or necessary source, as there are other sources which qualify as direct reporting. In truth, I am uncertain that this case realistically requires its own article, but I am also unsure under which article its content could be moved to. AutumnKing (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * Thank you for your reply, I've made some alterations to the article based on your suggestions, but because you weren't specific about why you thought the text broke some of the policies I wasn't able to address them, to respond in order:


 * WP:LABEL: which words specifically do you see as contentious? I've tried to make sure its very clear her statments about trans women are her opinions.


 * NPOV. Please can you say which text you think is breaking NPOV or what additional information could be added to make it more neutral? The quotes which were used as both evidence and in the ruling of the tribunal as examples of her views that are not protected under the 2010 Equalities Act. I would much prefer to add additional information than remove well referenced material. I was able to find some other opinions from people who support her views but none which are published in reliable sources, mostly in blogs and on Twitter.


 * WP:BLP: Again I'm not sure which text you're referring to which breaks BLP, all the information is in reliable sources and mostly in the official court document, her quotes were both evidence and the main focus of the tribunal, I've tried to make that clearer.


 * WP:TMI: The quotes used were the central evidence and used in the findings of the case, I'm unsure how this could be TMI. I've tried looking at FA legal articles eg Roe v. Wade and all the ones I've read include a large number of quotes from evidence in the case.


 * WP:SOCIALMEDIA: none of the reference sources used are from social media, all from the newspaper articles or the tribunal ruling. The nature of the case involves social media but I don't understand how this is related to self published sources, I've not included her tweets as references at all.


 * The opinion piece in NBC News was used as a reference because it provides basic factual information about timelines, names etc which were all corroborated by the other sources including the tribunal doc. I didn't include anything from it which was opinion. I've gone on to include the piece in the reaction section because it provides a response by a transgender professor who studies transgender rights, which I think is an important voice to include.


 * Notability: I'm fairly confident I've now established notability of the case. I'm unsure which other article the information could be included in as well/instead except CGD which I've added some info to. I originally began writing a draft article about Forstater as a biography but it became clear quickly that almost all reliable sources about her were about this case so would not meet criteria for inclusion.


 * Thanks again


 * --Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The opinion piece is not a reliable source for statements of fact, per WP:RSOPINION. If it is to be used for attributed opinion, then per NPOV we would also need to include an opinion piece from, say, feminists who support Forstater and her beliefs about sex. I say we avoid the opinion pieces and only include broad-strokes coverage of opinion (what factions think what) as reported in high-quality news reports. Crossroads -talk- 05:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Unable to find any reliable sources which support Forstater before or after the ruling
Some editors have brought up that this article does not include many voices which support Forstater including after the case which they think may impact NPOV. I think that there is a structural issue which has caused this to happen. I have found a very large number of reliable sources which support the judgement in the case, I could add at least 10 more. However I'm finding impossible to locate any reliable sources which support Forstater during or after the tribunal ruling, only tweets, self published blogs and sites like Daily Mail, Spiked and The American conservative, non of which are reliable sources. Daily Mail is depreciated source listed as red on Reliable sources/Perennial sources and whilst Spiked hasn't been assessed as a perennial reliable source Mediabiasfactcheck.com has assessed Spiked as 'Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed a fact check as well as publishing misleading scientific information'. I was able to find an inconclusive discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources here about Spiked, I'm unsure how to get it assessed as a reliable source for perennial sources but I'll look into it. Same for The American Conservative.


 * 1) Daily Mail: Britons have no right to ask whether a transgender person is male or female, rules employment judge in landmark ruling AGAINST tax expert who was sacked for tweeting 'men cannot become women' (capitalisation of 'against' in article title, not me emphasising it)
 * 2) Spiked: The Extreme Entitlement of Trans Activists
 * 3) The American Conservative: Totalitarian Trans War On Reality. The three other articles I can find on their website related to transgender people are entitled 'The Insanity Of Transgenderism', 'Not Just a Tattoo: Transgenderism Attacks Our Fundamental Humanity' and 'The Transgender Craze is Creating Thousands of Young Victims'.

Thanks

--Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Media Bias/Fact Check is itself listed in red at WP:RSP. And the NBC News opinion piece which you edit warred back in is on the same unreliable level per WP:RSOPINION. Crossroads -talk- 05:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding detail vs. potential hate speech liability?
I would ideally like to add the fact from the evidence that Maya has tweeted an article called "Pronouns are Rohypnol", which contains material not only highly offensive towards trans people, but openly deriding workplace equality policies existing to support them (mandating preferred pronouns), including the policy that was in force in CGD. It is in the judgement (paragraph 34.2) and appears to be relevant to the employment discussion. Secondary sources that references this fact as important: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/15/uk-transphobia-transgender-court-ruling-puberty-blockers/ and https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2020/1/06/time-has-not-made-jk-rowlings-actions-any-less-terrible. It is also important as it links her case to another case, Mackereth, which was about mandatory use of preferred pronouns and was cited by CGD in the Forstater case: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997

However, the "Pronouns are Rohypnol" article itself is, in my lay evaluation, likely to be criminal hate speech in some jurisdictions including Canada and, with the recent law, Scotland. I would not want to open Wikipedia up to liability. (For this reason I am also not linking the article here).

Is there a way to add this reference without exposing Wikipedia to liability, in the event that the article is indeed criminal hate speech? Ramendik (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:NOTCENSORED. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Reactions section
The reactions section has been significantly pared down to just a reaction from the plaintiff and the defendant. The other sections now removed were all opposed to the judgement and all were for Forstater, this is a bias and an NPOV violation. The article must retain balance and name dropping publications and blogs from universities does not give them any additional weight in this proceeding. It is merely opinion and giving them undue weight. The actions of an unrelated author to this case is a classic example of undue weight to a bit of news which only relates to the author and those reporting it. it is not related to the case. People are going to comment, and if you include one bit of comment from one side then an avalanche is easily justifiable. It is far more balanced and NPOV to simply include one from each side of the parties actually involved in this litigation. Also if comments by one intervener are included then you must include all of the interveners, not just selectively the ones who made public comment to the press.

This is going to be a controversial subject and is going going to likely be the subject of battleground mentalities by some who seek to push their side of this. This must not be allowed to happen or it will defeat the purpose of Wikipedia.

This is going to be an article where things will get heated because of what Forstater stands for and those views are very polarising. This article needs to stay out of the political debate and needs to remain neutral. If that fails discretionary sanctions are likely to be applied for to keep the page cool.

Sparkle1 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have re-added the removed content, as it is relevant to the article and the section. The reactions are from recognised professional publications, by subject matter experts. Contrary to your claim, they are not illustrative of 'TERF' talking points, but in the main specifically address legal matters in relation to the judgement. If one were to thoroughly read the sources, it would illustrate that one of the writers in particular vehemently disagrees with Forstater's opinion, whilst at the same time finding that the tribunal erred on points of law. If there are further balanced, experts sources which criticise the judgement on points of law, please feel free to add. If you still feel that the content should be removed, please wait to achieve consensus on this page. 2A00:23C8:2C8D:7E01:FDC5:8E08:FBA:9950 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * These removed sections do not further a neutral POV, they are blogs and news reporting. These may be sourced and may have names to be dropped but they are simply pushing a narrative negative of the judgement, which is not neutral or balanced. Do not re-add as these are removed as they violate the pillars of Wikipedia. Consensus is not present when something is simply dumpled into an article with a source, and shouted, this is relevant. none of the removed content, be that the stuff from the university blog, the author or the blocked saying the appeal will likely be successful are anything more than a few random opinions and a nice news story to push the narrative the Judge was wrong and look how much this is bad. Do not re-add those unless you can actually justify them as being NPOV and unbiased at the moment it is just the judgement was wrong being pushed which is not allowed. This article is not for discussion of the issues but only on the case itself. Also if you include one intervener why not all of them, also why this blog and why this persons opinion. It must be justified not just dumped. Fortsarters comments and CGD's counsels' comments are justified as they are the parties to the case, everyone else must actually be justified. Also please register an account it makes life a lot easier around these parts.
 * For the avoidance of doubt please read Neutral point of view it specifically states the following: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Sparkle1 (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the policy, thank you. Whether I choose to create an account or not is both irrelevant to my participation in the editing of this article, and up to me, not anyone else. The content is not 'dumped' as you claim, but included in a section specifically addressing 'Reactions' to the judgement. These are relevant reactions from subject matter experts. The fact that they disagree with the judgement is neither here nor there. If there are other reasonable sources that agreed with the legal basis, please include them. Finally, when it comes to intervenors, there were only two intervenors in the appeal, both of which happen to agree the judgement was incorrect. You appear to be conflating factual consideration of a matter of law with a value judgement. None of this infers that Forstater's belief is in some way correct, only that the tribunal erred in law when it came to the question of whether her belief is a protected belief under the Equality Act. Your contention that it fails WP:NPOV is your opinion, not abject fact. Please wait until consensus is reached before reverting. 2A00:23C8:2C8D:7E01:FDC5:8E08:FBA:9950 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You are insisting on retaining information that is biased and POV pushing that the judgement is wrong, this is not what Wikipedia is for and your continued insistence is nothing more than you want to continue pushing this POV with cherry-picked sources, that further this anti-judgement view. Also, you have not justified why this university blog, why this wacko news story and about a children's book author and some blocked who thinks the appeal will succeed. This is like me going my mate this barrister agrees with me so I'll name drop him and say he is an authority because I can. This is trash as a section, and it may if this continues justify removing the whole section. Consensus is not for retention; it is simply what is current. Please justify why this is not POV pushing not biased and why these sources should be retained. you only want your option because it allows you to ignore Wikipedia policy and go my version stays both of which are unconstructive and against the principles of Wikipedia. The information must be justified, or its retention is against Wikipedia. This is a simple basic principle around these parts. consensus is irrelevant here. Consensus cannot override the NPOV policy. The discussions here are not for or against retention but must demonstrate this is not POV pushing material. This discussion and those wishing to retain this information must justify that this information is demonstrably not POV pushing and is fully justified. Otherwise, nothing could be removed from Wikipedia which is demonstrably against Wikipedia simply because some people liking its inclusion. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that it is NPOV to include reactions supporting the judgement but POV pushing to include any reactions that criticise it. In other words, only one view is allowed to be represented in this article. That is an interesting version of NPOV. --Prh47bridge (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And Sparkle1 claiming that the material pushes a "TERF narrative" is itself POV. They also seem to misunderstand WP:NPOV. That states: neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. That doesn't mean "no views". And WP:BIASEDSOURCES: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Crossroads -talk- 23:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I refrained from reverting on the last occasion, as this was falling into edit warring, so many thanks to the editor who reverted to status quo. With regard to the content, I am happy to address each one:
 * Intervenors - there are only two intervenors in the appeal, Index on Censorship and the EHRC. Therefore, these are the only intervenors included in the article. As material contributors to the legal case, including both the fact of and the content of their interventions is both due, and not a pov issue.
 * JK Rowling - Rowling's comments on the case received widespread coverage, as did criticisms of it. Inclusion is therefore due, in a concise manner, to avoid a tangent into topics covered elsewhere on Wikipedia.
 * The UCL Faculty of Laws Labour Law blog is a respected site, publishing information from subject matter experts. It is not the same as a WP:SELFPUB source, although falls close. However, even that policy considers respected subject matter experts to be a reliable source.
 * Amir Paz-Fuchs is a Professor of Law and Social Justice, a subject matter expert who has numerous academic qualifications and published works . His opinion on the application of law in this matter is relevant for this article. It is also presented as an opinion, and not in WP:WIKIVOICE.
 * Karon Monaghan is a QC, specialising in equality and human rights law. She has a long legal career and has been published is multiple academic/legal publications. Again, her view is presented as opinion, and not in wikivoice, and her opinion on the application of law is relevant.
 * Robert Wintemute is a Professor of Human Rights Law of considerable experience with multiple academic and legal publications. The article quoted is from a long standing, respected academic journal. Again, his legal opinion is presented as opinion and not in wikivoice.
 * Judith Suisse is a Professor of Philosophy, again widely published and Alice Sullivan is a Professor of Sociology, again widely published.. Their article, published in a respected journal, uses the case that this article is discussing as an example of a social phenomena that they are describing. That too is a relevant reaction to the case, and is due for the article. 2A00:23C8:2C8D:7E01:4102:B2C6:517D:11EB (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I will take each of your assertions one by one, they do not get over the NPOV issues and do not demonstrate these pass the neutrality test required.
 * The Intervenors have to both be included, you cannot simply state one and quote them, and mention the other that has to be expanded on of both removed.
 * JK Rowling has nothing at all to do with this case her comments and the reaction are part of the medical circus and nothing to do with the case. This case is not the media circus. This article is also not for reporting and amplifying ephemera like the Rowling crap. So what person made a comment on Twitter. Thousands and thousands do daily, why this comment and why is it included here. Also Rowling's comments were on trans people more widely and no this case it is all over a like of Forstater and nothing to do with this case.
 * Amir Paz-Fuchs, Karon Monaghan, Robert Wintemute, and Judith Suisse are all name dropping. You are calling them 'experts' they may very well in their field but there has been no demonstration of their relevance to this case. There is also no demonstration as to why these four individuals are included. Saying they are experts and have titles and so on and publications makes them so in this case are nothing more than in the opinion of the people advocating for the use of these 'experts'. What is their actual connection to the case, why are their musings on this given more weight than others, why are these people included at all. Are the writings of these people included in other articles or are they only used here? Simply going so and so is an expert in field x y and z does not give them any more weight. There must be demonstrable relevance. Otherwise, why not include every news outlet that commented. The inclusion of these people is selective, is cherry-picking and is POV pushing. The attempts to warrant inclusion of some fo these are really weak like "referenced Forstater's case" being used to justify Judith Suissa and Alice Sullivan. How many other people have referenced this case, also how flimsy do you want the link to be. Person X mentioned in an essay in this publication this case. Where does it stop.


 * There has been no demonstration of why these are included rather than to POV push, these have all been selectively cherry-picked to push an anti ruling narrative. It is clear and obvious and carrying-on going but X and Y are giving their opinion and their title carries weight, so include it must be. Does not eliminate that these people are chosen along with the Rowling crap to push the narrative that the tribunal judgement was incorrect. This IS POV pushing and is clearly prohibited by Wikipedia. It is not the place of Wikipedia to biasedly and selectively presents an opinion of this judgement. Doing so is nothing more than using Wikipedia to push a specific political narrative.

Sparkle1 (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In short the above claims of why the inclusion should remain is a load of complete rubbish and does not get over the failure to present a neutral point of view on this article. Also, none of the individual authors of the articles has wiki pages just the publications do. this is really pushing the limits of neutral inclusion. It is also not right or correct to include 'the other side' as that would turn the article into a debate platform which Wikipedia is clearly not. The stuff all has to go. If it is not removed I will simply take it higher and higher until it rectified. I am not compromising on this.

Happy to respond;
 * Your edits about intervenors were inappropriate. In your original edit you are correct that there was no detail or expansion on the EHRC's intervention. However the solution would be to remove, or more helpfully, add a source or a CN tag not remove any detail of intervenors altogehter. If there were only reliable sources for one intervenor and not the other that does not make is inappropriate to include the first. Your argument here is flawed. Further detail was added to the lede by an editor in this edit.
 * It is very clear why JK Rowling's comments are included here. She is not just another person on Twitter, but a public figure with a high profile and wide reach. Her comments on this case were the catalyst for her further writing on related topics. The wide coverage is 100% a 'reaction to the tribunal', the name of the section. Again, your argument does not stand up.
 * The reason for inclusion of Amir Paz-Fuchs, Karon Monaghan and Robert Wintemute is that they are subject matter experts. That isn't 'name-dropping', it is relevant opinion. Your own addition here are of a Professor of Sociology and two legal academics with significantly less experience and professional reputation than the ones previously referenced has far less justification. This is not 'game' as you seem to believe . If the opinions on points of equality law by respected lawyers and law professors is an 'irrelevant' reaction to case, what precisely would you believe to be a relevant one?
 * The inclusion of Suisse and Sullivan's piece is also a relevant reaction to the case, given that they are using it as an example to describe what they consider a social phenomena. Again, this isn't about whether they are right or wrong, hence why it is not written in WP:WIKIVOICE.
 * A principle tenant of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. You have done the opposite of that, as demonstrated by this edit summary . The fact that you don't like what the sources are saying, does not mean that they should not be in the article.
 * A Wikipedia page is not a measure of someone's notability. There are many subject matter experts who do not have a Wikipedia page, and many far less authoritative individuals who do. The only one who seems to be treating this article as if it is about 'sides' is you. Including relevant reactions to the judgement is the purpose of the section, and wholly relevant to the article. This is not about right or wrong, but about a particular point of law. If you feel it is necessary to elevate your disagreement with other editors on this page, then please do so. 2A00:23C8:2C8D:7E01:35E8:CF1F:B3D6:4DC3 (talk)
 * The reaction section being larger than every other section and based on mostly primary sources, including blogs, of people not directly related to the case or notable through secondary sources raises lots of WP:DUE concerns, as well aas WP:RS concerns. Let's try to pare this down and mainly emphasize opinions that secondary sources mention as they are more notable by wp standards. Rab V (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wording of appeal section
I don’t know who you are addressing as ‘you boldly added’, since the wording before your latest edits was a combination of the previous wording, which was then amended by and by me. So this was the existing version which you have boldly deleted and replaced. As I have said in previous edit summaries, the whole point of the appeal was on the question of whether the belief is "worthy of respect in a democratic society". By deleting this, you have made the article uninformative and misleading. If you believe that the current wording is not neutral, please pinpoint the exact elements which you object to. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

sorry - looks like I misspelt your name. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Add the stuff you want in a separate section not in and amongst the actual section on the appeal judgement. the section of stuff you have added is from selective media outlets which have frankly not understood this judgement in a calm way. Which unfortunately is a serious issue when reporting legal stories. Each and every writer has a series of opinions and the way it has been inserted by using phrasing such as "won" and repeating without warning the stuff Forstater supposedly "believes is not helpful. the judgement appeal should be about that and the stuff you want should be in a reactions section, if at all in this article. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Editorialising the judgement of the appeal
There is currently a series of edits that are trying to be inserted which are editorialising the judgement. While these may include sources generally considered reliable, there has been a lot of opinion in these sources selected and they add a bias to the article. They also unnecessarily promote the views of Forstater which can be done in other sections of the article and there is a need to ensure that terms like "won" and "lost" are avoided when talking about the judgement as this is not a legally correct term and is an opinion of those interpreting the judgement. These additions need discussing before being foisted upon the article as they give a misleading and media spun view of the outcome of this very narrow appeal on a very narrow issue. This kind of editorialising should be in a different section to the appeal judgement if at all in the article. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If sources are reliable and that is the language that they use, surely that should be the language used in the article? It isn't for editors to decide to reject the inclusion of wording because they dislike what the sources say or how they say it. Of course, alternative phrases from other reliable sources can be added, of course. JezGrove (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * re your edit summary: Ok this is now you edit warring and insiting on inserting your version this has now been reverted multiple times, go to the talk page of this page will result in escalation of this edit war. Talk page is calling you and that is where this must be discussed now
 * 1. I am not edit warring – I have reverted you once. You have now reverted 3 times.
 * 2. My edit summary says: restore existing version - see Talk page- Wording of appeal section. And I added a section on the Talk page headed Wording of appeal section.
 * 3. I have asked you to pinpoint the exact elements which you object to as being not neutral. You have not done this.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Lovely for you to stay that user:Sweet6970 but have you actually analysed the articles in question. They are not legally accurate and are sensational reporting. They are also incredibly one-sided and seem to be furthering this myth that Forstater is above reproach from the outcome of this incredibly narrow ruling on a very narrow piece of law. Just because a source and lots of sources say the same thing and they are generally considered to be reliable, does not mean they actually are on this. Take the Spectator or the Times on Trans issues for example. They are incredibly anti-trans and spin a lot of myths and lies about trans people, yet are still considered overall reliable by Wikipedia. Just because an outlet is overall reliable doesn't mean everything it puts out is reliable. The articles themself must be analysed on their own merits. The UK media need to be viewed through the lens that they themself have put a dog of their own in this for some bizarre reason and fuel a lot of anti-trans reporting and misreporting. Like, where were the media reports on the AB case for parents being able to consent to Puberty Blockers for trans youth, virtually nothing, whereas the Bell case was wall to wall coverage.

This is a minor employment tribunal case on a very narrow piece of law. It has been blown out of all proportion by the media and large social media accounts, and well-funded anti-trans organisations. I know you will trot out but reliable sources are reliable that is simply not a 100% true statement and not a reason to fail to critically examine the actual stories and understand what this article actually is. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This is the version before what has now been reverted and that is where the section should go back to, Sparkle1 (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

In short, Sweet6970, I consider all of your addition on this part, not just parts of it to be not neutral and to be editorialising and not worthy of addition in this article. I oppose the entirety of the added bits in the section you have added. I have no problem with it in a reactions section though as long as it is neutrally worded. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Deciding that a reliable source is biased is not a matter for WP editors to judge; ditto your assertion that they are "not legally accurate". Find some reliable sources that reflect your viewpoint, otherwise it falls into the category of original research. JezGrove (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It is actually the job of Wikipeida to determine if an article is reliable, otherwise, it would be that anything published by a source considered reliable would warrant inclusion even if it was wildly inaccurate, and the article was 100% wrong. The Lancet is a reliable medical Journal for example but if the Andrew Wakefield study on Autism and Vaccines was used as a reliable source it would be rapidly removed. Just because it appears in a reliable source does not make the article itself reliable. Same with the coverage of the Hillsborough Disaster blaming the fans, or The Lancet and the paper of Hydroxchloraquin. Sources may be overall reliable but not everything in them is reliable just because it is in an overall reliable publication. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

As I have said over and over, I have no per se objection to you adding the content you want in a reaction to the appeal judgement section. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand your comment Lovely for you to say that…. Also, I have not added a section, merely made amendments. I don’t understand why you reject the wording which is based on reliable sources: it is Wikipedia policy to use reliable sources. The sources for the version which I restored were the Herald Scotland,  the BBC and the Law Society Gazette. You still have not said what exactly is not neutral in the wording which I restored. Please stick to the point, and say exactly what in the wording you object to, and why. Also, your recent addition to the article ‘Aftermath of the appeal’ does not make sense. This is just part of the judgment. And your comment about adding a separate section regarding the appeal also does not make sense – the sources are reporting the actual judgment in the appeal.Sweet6970 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

What I am saying is if you want to add these bits do it in a new section. I have no per see objection to that. The issue I primarily have is you have inserted hyperbole and trotted out what Forstater's views are in the judgement section, add that to a reactions to the appeal judgement section. You are not seeing that it is no neutral due to its location. I have also already torn apart the BBC and the Herald Scotland articles as just because they are in a reliable overall publication does not mean they are automatically reliable article. See the Lancet example I used earlier. All reporting on the actual judgement, as you put it, is a reaction to the judgement and an opinion on the judgement. The only thing which is not is the judgement itself. Which is what should be the main and virtually the only thing in that section talking about the judgement is a reaction to it. This is not that hard to work out. Put your stuff in a new section and we have met in the middle you get your stuff in the article I keep it out of the section which it biases. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * We don't get to choose which articles published by a reliable source get to be used. Yes, they make mistakes and The Lancet got it wrong and retracted the article - but it isn't for WP editors to judge that in advance - as I said above, that constitutes original research. If you are arguing that sections on legal judgements should only cite original court reports and no commentary on them, I am sympathetic provided you can either 1) point to a WP policy supporting that approach or 2) link to another WP article that follows it. JezGrove (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, you do get to choose. Horoscopes are published articles in reliable sources it doesn't mean those articles about horoscopes are reliable and should be used as a reliable source. Saying articles are not critically analysed individually is ridiculous. I mean opinion pieces in publications are treated differently. Editorials are treated differently. Sports reports are treated differently. Individual articles are each taken for their individual reliability every day. Would continuing to cite as reliable and as a source articles retracted by publications, or debunked by other publications, or evidence, be done? Also, a compromise has been suggested below which would resolve all this. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't responded to Sweet6970's reasonable requests to spell out what in the wording you object to and why. Your comment "I have also already torn apart the BBC and the Herald Scotland articles as just because they are in a reliable overall publication does not mean they are automatically reliable article" suggests a lack of neutrality on your part, I'm afraid. JezGrove (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I have made it clear I oppose ALL of it in the section they are wanting it in. I do not oppose selective parts of it. I have made a compromise proposal below which is curiously being ignored by people insistent on trying to flog this dead horse. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

For the benefit of JezGrove here is me originally objecting to all of the content not just parts of it. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Resolution proposal
Add the information in a new section and keep it out of the section on the appeal judgement. The section can easily mirror the reaction section to the initial judgement. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You keep creating new subsections without replying to earlier specific points, which is making the discussion hard to follow. In terms of your proposal, as I already said above, "If you are arguing that sections on legal judgements should only cite original court reports and no commentary on them, I am sympathetic provided you can either 1) point to a WP policy supporting that approach or 2) link to another WP article that follows it." JezGrove (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I see no comments on the proposed compromise here just a re-stating of your opinion on something unrelated. Avoiding the premise of the objection here. I do not oppose per se the inclusion of the information just in the section it is in. I per se oppose it in the section wanting in to be included in. Also, sub sections make the following of this a heck of a lot easier, stop being a nit picker on formatting and focus on the premise here.


 * JezGrove are you insistent on the inclusion of this information dumped poorly and editorially in the section on the judgement and not in a separate reactions to the appeal section? Sparkle1 (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * seems to want to have no section which accurately reports the appeal judgment. The wording which they have deleted is about the point which the EAT decided – that Ms Forstater’s views are ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society.’ This is not repeat not a ‘reaction’ to the judgment – it is  the judgment.
 * Sparkle1 also says I have also already torn apart the BBC and the Herald Scotland articles as just because they are in a reliable overall publication does not mean they are automatically reliable article.. No, you haven’t. You have made no argument as to why the BBC and Herald Scotland sources are not reliable. These stories are news stories, not opinion pieces, and they merely report the judgment. And you have not mentioned the Law Society Gazette news story. You have refused to say what it is you object to, and why. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Answer of JezGrove's contention
JezGrove has made the following claim: "'If you are arguing that sections on legal judgements should only cite original court reports and no commentary on them, I am sympathetic provided you can either 1) point to a WP policy supporting that approach or 2) link to another WP article that follows it. JezGrove (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)"

The village pump editors on the policy section have provided the following answers here. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and if anyone tries to cite an April Fool's Day article or a horoscope in this article, I promise you that I will be the first to revert it! Meanwhile, back in the real world, news reports etc. cited from reliable sources are worthy of inclusion regardless of whether you have "already torn [them] apart". (Btw, I don't appreciate you editing my own earlier comment, even if it was to fix a typo you made and which I had accurately cut-and-pasted there.)
 * You accuse various reliable sources of bias without providing any evidence in support of that claim. I notice that you have previously reverted edits to the article, asserting that others are pushing “TERF narratives”. With [| this single edit], using the edit summary "this section is almost exclusively criticism of the judgement and pushing of TERF narratives, this bloat has been removed" you deleted citations to articles by: Evening Standard, Vox (ironically a website article conveying "criticism from trans people and trans allies"), The Guardian, The Independent, The New York Times, two blogs on behalf of UCL Faculty of Laws (one by a Professor of Law and Social Justice at the University of Sussex, the other by a QC), the Industrial Law Journal, and the Journal of Philosophy of Education. If those articles are all unreliable, then find a source that says so!
 * Given that: 1) over 15% of all of the edits made to the article were made by you, 2) your repeated refusal to accept edits citing reliable sources because you don’t like their content, and 3) your unjustified accusations against other WP editors of a) edit-warring and b) narrative pushing, rather than first assuming good faith, I am beginning to wonder who, if anyone, does have an agenda here. JezGrove (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * (Sweet6970 replying to ) No, they haven’t. And the problem with taking material direct from a judgment is that this involves Wikipedia editors selecting which parts are most relevant. Using secondary sources e.g. the BBC and the Law Society Gazette avoids this possible cause of editorial bias by us. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

If there are no further comments, then I intend to restore the version of this article as it was at 14:46 on 17 June 2021 i.e. when I last edited it: Sweet6970 (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Calm down impatient person, people have lives outside of Wikipeida, and I will respond later when life is not in the way. Life is not Wikipeida, Sweet6970 Sparkle1 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since there have been no further comments, I have now done the revert – I am tired of this unconstructive unpleasantness. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are in the wrong here. You have been edit warring against several other editors and are not understanding policy correctly. We go by WP:Secondary sources, not by any editor's WP:OR interpretation of legal judgements and primary sources. The BBC is an extremely reliable secondary source. Your vague question at the Village Pump and irrelevant responses thereto do not change this and I will be commenting there. Crossroads -talk- 20:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved in the VP discussion: the BBC article here is factual reporting in a reliable source, in an article directly about the court case, and unless there are overwhelmingly many other RS that report differently on the facts of the matter, there is no good reason to question the reliability of the reporting here. Multiple RS have in fact reported in the same way on this court case. —Kusma (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits by Sparkle1 and blanket reverts by Sweet6970 on 19 June 2021
(Starting a new section for convenience). has made edits against the consensus in the section above. I am reversing them. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

has made unconstructive and blanket reverts which include minor and unrelated amendments to this article.

Blanket reverting minor and constructive edits by, such as minor edits to parts of this that have never been in dispute, are not constructive and show a win at all costs mentality. Please act constructively and do not simply act in a blanket fashion. There must be a reading and a looking at of edits made before gung ho blanket reverting is made simply based on the user who has made them which is what I believe Sweet6970 has done here. I think this is getting out of hand where even constructive edits and minor edits are treated in a hostile fashion. There should be a cool-off period for all involved and then a coming back at a later date. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop edit warring this. You are using WP:ITA in a POV way to discredit the analysis of the mainstream newspapers. There is also no reason to remove the bit about the legal test regarding a philosophical position. This has already been addressed in the section above, and you are now engaging in WP:IDHT. Crossroads -talk- 23:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. In Wikipedia terms, a ‘minor’ edit is one which could not possibly be disputed. Since I disagree with the edits of 19 June to the Infobox, these amendments were not, in practice, minor. I am changing them to what I consider to be a clearer version. I do not consider my amendments to the Infobox to be minor.
 * 2. Ms Forstater is not alleging dismissal, but that her contract was not renewed because of her beliefs, so I am amending this. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have also tried to clarify the reference to Grainger in the lede. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Interview with Forstater’s solicitor in the Law Society Gazette
In the Law Society Gazette of 21 June 2021, there is an interview with Peter Daly, Ms Forstater’s solicitor. It might be appropriate to include extracts from this, in a ‘Reactions’ section in this article. The comments which appear to me to be most relevant are:

a) Comments by Mr Daly

i) ‘At the heart of the case is a belief in the binary nature of biological sex, which the judgment makes clear is a fairly uncontroversial statement of law.’

ii) ‘There has been a great deal of misrepresentation. My client was labelled “anti-trans”, even though many trans people share her belief (the only trans woman heard in the original tribunal gave evidence in support of her belief). It was reported that Ms Forstater misgendered trans colleagues and was disciplined for doing so. None of this happened – there was no disciplinary action, she never misgendered any colleagues, and as far as she is aware had no trans colleagues. Others incorrectly predicted that a successful appeal would grant a legal right to declare in the workplace that women are inferior to men (it hasn’t).’

b) Comment by Amanda Glassman, executive vice-president of CGD

‘Following the ruling, Amanda Glassman, executive vice-president of CGD, said: "The decision is disappointing and surprising because we believe [the tribunal judge] got it right when he found this type of offensive speech causes harm to trans people, and therefore could not be protected under the Equality Act."

What are other editors’ views on this? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Crossroads -talk- 04:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Some more reactions to the appeal judgment
Personnel Today Gender-critical beliefs: Implications of EAT's Forstater decision - Personnel Today

I would take this extract: 'The tribunal set the bar of “worthy of respect” far too high. The only beliefs that are actually excluded by that requirement are the most extreme beliefs “akin to Nazism or totalitarianism or which incite hatred or violence”.' Scottish Legal News Louise Usher: Forstater v CGD Europe – are gender critical beliefs protected under the Equality Act? - Scottish Legal News

I would take this extract: 'As a result of this decision, employees with gender critical views are entitled to protection from discrimination and harassment. However, this does not impact on the existing protection from discrimination and harassment under the EqA 2010 for trans persons. It is also important to bear in mind that, as a consequence of the recent Taylor v Jaguar Landrover decision, those identifying as non-binary are also entitled to protection. Therefore, it is incumbent on employers to ensure that their employees tolerate opposing beliefs and act in a non-offensive way to others.'

Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits by Sparkle1 25 June 2021
I have reviewed all of 's edits of 25 June 2021. None of them are helpful. Most of them just make the article more difficult to read by using abbreviations instead of the full names. (For instance, to most people, 'ET' is a film, not an employment tribunal.) Some of them are confusing - for instance, changing 'Tribunal judgment' to 'Judgment'. I do not understand how anyone could think that these changes are an improvement to the article. So I am reversing them. Please do not edit war over this. If you think that Sparkle1's version is better, then you should provide reasons.

It would be more helpful in improving this article if I had a response to my suggestions (above) for adding a section on reactions to the appeal judgment. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

has reverted my change without giving any reasons. Why are abbreviations better than giving the full names? If you are acting in good faith, you would reply to my comments above, and not edit war. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The blanket reverts have been reverted as they are without any basis. Please see basic copy editing and understand that there is a need to improve this article for clarity and readability. You cannot demand that you keep the article static.

The editing of the article is standard use of pros, and toning down of some of the article. It seems to be that there is a want to over link, not include additional links which are helpful and non of the content has been modified to change any meanings. It is standard when writing an article in the first instance of the use of something that is going to be used over and over to be abbreviated. That is standard and not controversial. This is used and widely accepted over Wikipedia.

These are not confusing as this is clearly understandable with the subheadings they are included in. It is easier to read with fewer words and avoiding unnecessary repetition.

Standard copy editing is what has been done here. There is nothing in what has been done in the editing I have undertaken that is not a good faith improvement. There has been blanket removal of links to things such as other pages explaining Employment Law and Employment tribunals in the UK. If these are not seen as helpful then no changes could ever in my opinion be viewed as helpful. This is not edit warring this a genuine attempt to improve the clarity and pros in the article.

This is Basic copyediting Sparkle1 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Please also note I was responding when you posted the comments "you have not responded" You have to give people a chance to actually respond as opposed to jumping all over me as if I am acting in bad faith. I also provided a detailed edit summary. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Reply:

1) The purpose of copyediting The purpose of copyediting is not to make the article more difficult to read – which is what you have done.

2) Your changes have made the article worse You have also introduced bad English, by changing She won this appeal because the appeal tribunal concluded that the belief that …. to The appeal was allowed by the EAT after concluding the belief that…. Your version has the appeal ‘concluding’, whereas it was the Employment Appeal Tribunal which concluded that the belief that "biological sex is real, important and immutable" met the legal test etc.

Of course, it would be much clearer to say ‘ She won this appeal because…. ’ which was the previous, agreed, version.

How are your other changes an improvement to the article?

3) Link?  Please direct me to where I have deleted links which are useful for understanding UK employment law.

4) You have not followed the recommendations on copyediting
 * i) Regarding abbreviations: The page on copyediting you have linked to includes:

‘Outside of direct quotes and names, contractions should be spelled out.’ So you have no justification for the abbreviations.
 * ii) Under Etiquette, it says:

‘Remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative, consensus-based environment. Be bold in making changes, but if you find that your work has been undone by another editor, visit the talk page of the article and start a discussion before reinstating it.

You are the one who made the changes. Since I did not agree with them, and reverted them, you should have gone to the Talk page to discuss them. Instead, I had to do this. You then reverted me before going to the Talk page.

You failed to follow the usual etiquette. '''Why? '''

Sweet6970 (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I have not read the above, it comes across as unnecessarily aggressive, and unnecessarily hostile with its use of bolding and the accusatory tone. Please remember to assume good faith and work collaboratively. If you see that improvements have been made in good faith and you wish to make further good-faith improvements please do. At the moment it feels like this is confrontational. That helps no one on this project and does not advance the quality of this article. Also, it feels like there is a determination to keep the article static. I suggest Sweet6970 and I both walk away from this for a while and allow the conflict to dissipate and the dust to settle. Sweet6970 you are coming across unnecessarily aggressively and are nitpicking where it is not going to further collaborative editing. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * By refusing to read my points about your edits you are refusing to engage in the usual process of collaborative editing on Wikipedia. Your suggestion that we both just ‘walk away’ is, in effect, a suggestion that your version of this article should remain unchallenged. This is reinforced by your comment on my Talk page. You are saying that you will not engage with me on this Talk page and that I am not allowed to edit this article. Meanwhile, you have engaged in further damaging edits to this article. If you are editing in good faith, then presumably you will have no objection if I restore the article to where it was before your damaging ‘copyedits’. You could demonstrate your good faith by restoring the article to where it was before all of your damaging edits. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

For the information of other editors, I am choosing to not take the bait and am not engaging with Sweet6970, as I do not believe interactions with this user are constructive due to the nature and tone of the statements they are making. Sparkle1 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of abbreviations

 * You appear to me to be WP:STONEWALLING. You used far too many abbreviations. I fixed some of them, and someone should fix the rest. The article should be readable, not full of weird jargon like "EqA". Crossroads -talk- 00:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I see where you are coming from Crossroads, but It is a fairly standard use of English to use abbreviations where a contractable term or name is used multiple times. For example, an article on Tuberculosis using the term TB or an article on the measles mumps and rubella vaccine using MMR vaccine. I understand that in some cases there may need to be rewording if you believe it enhances clarity. The EqA abbreviation is particularly important in my opinion as I see, it is essential in matching the way the Equality Act is referred to in the quotes used, with the rest of the article, to avoid confusion with the reader on this part. The "jargon" as you put it comes from potentially jumping into a section of the article and trying to read it from there. The article needs to be viewed as one continuous piece of pros and not individual chunks. Another example similar to abbreviations is overlinking. Overlinking is to be avoided and only the first instance of a link to another Wikipedia article should be used and it should not be linked in every occurrence, this is the same principle for the use of abbrevations. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You have now falsified quotes in your disruptive insistence on abbreviating these things. Neither of these sources use "EqA". Sparkle1, if you abbreviate all these terms again at the expense of readability and against consensus, I am reporting you to WP:ANI. See WP:IDHT and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Crossroads -talk- 03:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Excuse me what on earth are you on about. This feels very accusatory and unnecessary please drop the hostility it's unnecessary and unhelpful. This is all in good faith you do realise. Why is there such hostility and bad faith assumption being done here? If you have noticed an error in what I have done please correct them and point out that a mistake was made language like "falsified quotes in your disruptive" is assuming bad faith and adduming bad acting neither of which is accurate here. Also drop the threats when you say "I am reporting you to WP:ANI. See WP:IDHT and WP:DROPTHESTICK." This is completely over the top and round the bend. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers understands how abbreviations work. Crossroads You cannot leave some in and only remove some, you also cannot leave unexplained abbreviations in quotes. The edit you made only go to show you do not understand how abbreviations are done in articles and you are more determined to use this as a battleground and are more interested in winning than actually having a clue as to what the way to use abbreviations actually is. You cant just remove some, it's all or nothing. If it is nothing you must then expand the abbreviation used in quotes. Which you clearly had no idea you needed to do, showing you have no idea, in this and are out to attack me along with others here which is something I am going to push back against. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

New section for Reactions to the appeal
Since I have had no objections to my suggestions above about reactions to the appeal, I am adding a section for this. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Legal update article in the Law Society Gazette 12 July 2021
There is a new article in the Law Society Gazette on 12 July 2021 which is a legal analysis of the situation after the appeal judgment.  I would add to the Reactions to appeal section the following summary of this article:

In an article in the Law Society Gazette in July 2021, Tess Barrett, a solicitor, commented on the appeal judgment, which she said ‘is not a permission for those who hold gender critical beliefs to misgender with impunity and nor is it a removal of existing transgender rights.’ She also said: ‘Whereas the previous judgment effectively silenced those holding gender critical views, the EAT judgment means that neither view in the transgender debate is silenced. How those beliefs are communicated is what is key and this judgment does not entitle, and should not embolden, either side on the transgender debate to harass the other due to their beliefs.’

She stated: ‘On 28 June the CGDE and CGD announced that they will not be appealing the EAT judgment on philosophical belief to the Court of Appeal. This means that gender critical beliefs’ status as a protected philosophical belief is binding on the lower courts and unlikely to be changed unless parliament legislates to the contrary.’

Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am generally supportive. The second paragraph could probably instead be summarized as a statement of fact and included in the main Appeal section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am agreeable to adding to the Appeal section the fact that CGDE and CGD have said they will not be appealing the judgment. But the statement ‘This means that gender critical beliefs’ status as a protected philosophical belief is binding on the lower courts and unlikely to be changed unless parliament legislates to the contrary.’ is a legal comment rather than a simple factual one, so I would prefer to have it in the ‘Reactions’ section. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, please do so. Crossroads -talk- 04:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now made the changes discussed above. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

How to format the 'Reactions' section
How should the Reactions section be formatted? I put in subsection headings to divide them by occupation, which I think is reasonable, although I'm unsure how they should be ordered to give due weight to them. An IP user reverted my changes so I wanted to discuss it here.

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that this format of the reactions is an improvement. Thanks. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Return to Employment Tribunal after appeal
From what I can gather, per to Maya's main page, alongside comments on social media (both from her and others), the case has now returned to the employment tribunal. According to this Twitter post Maya concluded her evidence section today. I'm unable to find any major reliable sources covering the tribunal at this time, and only this coverage from yesterday in the Cumnock Chronicle, a local Scottish newspaper. As such, I'm not sure we can add anything to the article at this time, with the exception of maybe checking the Woman's Hour segment for any new WP:ABOUTSELF statements. This hopefully will change pending the outcome of the tribunal, though at this stage it's unclear as to when a decision is expected nor immediately clear how much longer proceedings will continue for. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Citation changes due to template update
Just to note, earlier I fixed Template:Cite BAILII so that it supports both UKET and UKEAT cases. As such I've now gone and replaced the references that previously linked to gov.uk to the corresponding entries on BAILII. In the process I also removed a duplicate reference, though there is one remaining GOV.UK citation (cite 8 in the current list, ref name="Appeal") that I'm not yet sure how to handle. Unlike the other two case citations, this refers a specific page in the URL. I think it's OK to condense this into the BAILII cite for the EAT ruling, as the exact phrase is searchable within that document. Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Gender critical views sentence in lead
I saw that you a change I made earlier. I have two objections to that sentence. The first is that it contains repeated content from the third paragraph, which already states that the EAT found that Forstater's beliefs were protected under the Equality Act, albeit in a different phrase. Per MOS:REDUNDANCY we should avoid that.

The second is its position, chronologically it does not fit in the first paragraph of the lead. It does not make sense to refer to what happened in appeal judgement before discussing the original ruling. Per WP:AUDIENCE, we need to consider the reader and what details they will be getting from the lead. By putting that ahead of the original ruling, the reader is missing vital context as to why that ruling was important to this case, and to a lesser degree (within the context of this article) what impact it may have on similar cases in the future. Again per MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL this is something we should avoid.

If it is felt that this specific phrase is important to have as illuded to in your edit summary, and I agree that it is one of the few things that have been decided about this case, then we can include it. However it should not be in the first paragraph as the first paragraph currently stands. Either it should be in the third paragraph, so that it is placed chronologically with respect to the other relevant content from the appeal tribunal, or an additional sentence needs to be added prior to it in the first paragraph, summarising why Forstater's case needed to go to the appeal tribunal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The statement about gender-critical beliefs should be in the first paragraph because that is the most (and so far, the only) significant thing about this case. It needs to be there for our readers. If it is not in the first para, we would be misleading our readers.
 * Repetition: This is not duplication – the second mention gives more detail.
 * Chronology: This is not relevant. It is the most significant thing, and so it comes first. If we don’t put it first, readers may be confused by the information about the original tribunal judgment. The sequence of events is given in the rest of the lede. In order to make the situation clear for readers, it needs to be in the first para. The legal process is not known to most general readers – in this instance, we need a ‘spoiler’.
 * Additional sentence: Do you have a suggestion for an additional sentence to be added to the first para?
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While I don't have any specific wording or phrasing yet, my instinct is that it needs to cover why Forstater brought the case. The first sentence lays out that this is a labour-law case and the parties involved. Then we jump, void of context, to a finding from the appeal tribunal. At the time this fact is introduced, we don't know why Forstater brought the case to begin with, or why she had to appeal the original decision. We don't establish why that finding of fact is important to this case, and we at best only imply why it is important to other similar cases. Laying it out like this though, it may need to be two additional sentences, structured like this:
 * Current sentence that states the name of the case, what legal area it's in, and who the involved parties are
 * Sentence that states briefly why Forstater brought the case. Adapting a shortened version of the first sentence of the second paragraph might be able to do this.
 * Sentence that states briefly that Forstater appealed the original ruling, and if we can summarise it briefly without losing context why she appealed. If we can only agree on the former part, then something simple like Forstater appealed the initial ruling would suffice, and could possibly even be appended into the previous point.
 * Current sentence that states the finding of fact from the appeal ruling.
 * If we structure it like this, then the reader will understand at a glance the timeline of the case, and all of the important facts. If we structure it like this, we may also want to preform a quick copy-edit on the subsequent two paragraphs, just to ensure that we're not repeating information but elaborating on what has been lain out in the first paragraph. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you’ve given a lot of thought to this. But I’m sorry to say that I don’t see the point of your proposed alterations. At present, the first sentence of the lede states what kind of case it is, and the second sentence says what is significant about it (which is the decision on a point of law, not a finding of fact). The first para functions as a sort of intro-to-the-intro. The second and third paras give the brief history of the case.
 * It looks to me as if you want to include the history of the case in the first para. This would defeat the object of having an intro-to-the-intro.
 * The timeline of the case is not the most significant point of the case: it is the legal point which was decided which is significant, and will continue to be so even if Ms Forstater loses the substantive case.
 * So my position is that we should leave the lede as it is.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As we seem to be at an impass, as I cannot immediately see another way to state why I think this is an improvement to the article, would you have any objection if in lieu of any other editors contributing in the next 72 hours, that I make a request at WP:3O? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not accept the outcome of a 3O. Firstly, the lede in this article has been stable for months, so you and others have accepted it. Secondly, 3O is only designed to work if there is a simple Yes/No question; before you ask for a 3O, you would need to propose an actual specific change to the wording. Thirdly, the opinion of an uninvolved editor will inevitably be uninformed. If an editor is not sufficiently interested in the subject of the article to already be editing it, then it is unlikely that they would know enough about the subject to make a useful comment.
 * The effect of moving the statement about gender critical beliefs further down the article would be to obscure from our readers the fact that there has been a legal finding that gender critical beliefs are now protected as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. I don’t know why you would want to do this.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there is a fairly obvious reason to move that statement down from the lead paragraph: in its current position, it does not carry the context(s) that the RS establish for it and is therefore likely to mislead our readers. The current lead of the BLP article (Maya Forstater) currently does a much better job of this.
 * Also, Firstly, the lede in this article has been stable for months, so you and others have accepted it seems to be spurious reasoning. There are several reasons the lead text might be stable, and while stability is a kind of virtue in itself, it does not at all imply that other editors (who may not even have read the text in question, or who may have held off on expressing their concerns for various reasons) have accepted it. Newimpartial (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is a fairly obvious reason, please explain it. For instance, how does the current wording mislead our readers? What is the context? It is a simple statement about the current law on the subject. And I disagree that a stable version has not been accepted: this does not make sense.
 * But if you have a specific suggestion for a change to the lede, please make it.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't suggested text, but as an example, the first source on the appeal that we actually cite in our article says in its lead section, The victory for Maya Forstater, who was also backed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC, means people with ‘gender critical’ beliefs must not be sacked simply for holding them. However, they cannot express them in a way that discriminates against trans people. That seems about right, in terms of context and balance. By contrast, the current lead of our article misleads our readers by leaving out the second thing, and also by presenting the first thing in a less nuanced way. Newimpartial (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I see your point. I would support adding 'though this does not mean that people with ‘gender critical’ beliefs can express them in a way which discriminates against trans people' in brackets to the end of the 2nd sentence. But that’s rather different from a complete re-writing of the lede, which I understood was being proposed. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think this: a complete re-writing of the lede as I thought I had been clear that my proposals were either moving the final sentence of the first paragraph to the third paragraph, or inserting one to two new sentences into the first paragraph before the final sentence. The remainder of the lead would remain as it currently is. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I missed the mention of brackets when replying earlier. Why is it felt that the "expression" segment needs to be in brackets? It is an important limit on the finding, as otherwise it would allow one protected class under the equality act to impinge upon another. If the finding that gender critical beliefs are protected is important, which I've said I agree it is, then surely this restriction on it is equally as important? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The difference between the first part of the sentence and the part in brackets is that the first part is a statement of the point of law which was decided by the EAT, and the part in brackets is, in effect, just a restatement of the existing law. The EAT did not actually decide the point which is in brackets, because it was unnecessary for it to do so, and without the brackets the wording would give the wrong impression of what was actually decided in the case. The finding would not otherwise…. allow one protected class under the equality act to impinge upon another because that’s not the way the law on discrimination works.
 * The significance of this case resides in the first part of the sentence. Since this article is about the legal case, the first part is, in this article, more important. The second part is included (roughly) so that general readers don’t get hold of the wrong end of the stick, and mistakenly think that there is a now some fictional “right” to misgender people, or to harass them or discriminate against them.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd rather rely on the RS cited in the article to interpret the significance of the case - like the one I quoted above. Your determination here, Sweet, looks to me like WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t know what it is that you are calling OR. And if you are relying on the RS cited in the article to interpret the significance of the case then you are doing OR yourself. Regarding the significance and effect of the EAT judgment, I refer you to the comments in the Reactions to appeal section, and in particular to: In Scottish Legal News Louise Usher said: 'As a result of this decision, employees with gender critical views are entitled to protection from discrimination and harassment. However, this does not impact on the existing protection from discrimination and harassment under the EqA [Equality Act] 2010 for trans persons.[my emphasis] and a comment made by Tess Barrett, a solicitor, in an article in the Law Society Gazette: "This means that gender critical beliefs' status as a protected philosophical belief is binding on the lower courts and unlikely to be changed unless parliament legislates to the contrary." [my emphasis]
 * And I don’t see what it is you are disputing.
 * This discussion is becoming unproductive.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Both the source I quoted above and the first of the sources you just quoted include both the finding that gender critical beliefs are now protected, and the qualification that existing protections for trans people are still in force, on the same level of importance and prominence. Based on these sources, I therefore conclude that the significance of the case includes both elements (the finding and the qualification). What I am calling OR is your unswerving belief that The significance of this case resides in the first part of the sentence - quoting critics whose concern is about the first part does not really establish that it is the significance of this case in the absence of the context provided by the second part. Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, this is incorrect. I'd like to draw your attention to paragraph 118 b. of the appeal judgement, which states:
 * This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.
 * And paragraph 118 c. which states:
 * This judgment does not mean that trans persons do not have the protections against discrimination and harassment conferred by the EqA. They do. Although the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under s.7, EqA would be likely to apply only to a proportion of trans persons, there are other protected characteristics that could potentially be relied upon in the face of such conduct: see footnote 1.
 * Accordingly, the tribunal found as a matter of fact that both gender critical views are protected, but that those views cannot impinge upon another. As such, both points are equally important. The concept of it not impacting upon existing protections from discrimination does not come from RS analysis of the case. It comes from the text of the judgement.
 * As such, I really don't think these brackets are appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Both of the latest comments above are misconceived. But it’s no longer worth my effort to try to explain things to you. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How is quoting from the appeal judgement misconceived? You are of course welcome to disengage at any time, but by doing so in this manner it seems very tendentious, especially in light of your earlier reluctance to engage with WP:3O. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

On a very abstract level, I can see what Sweet is saying. On my understanding of the case, the strict legal point that the case decided was that the stated beliefs were worthy of respect in a democratic society. It did not strictly decide that those beliefs cannot be expressed in discriminatory ways, because that point was never in dispute. As I understand the case, Forstater is not arguing that she is entitled to discriminate.

However, while that point may be important to lawyers, I completely agree that, as a matter of substance, the qualification is important and should be mentioned. And I certainly agree that separating it off by brackets is not appropriate. So what about the following wording:

"The Employment Appeal Tribunal established that gender critical views are protected as a belief under the Equality Act 2010. However, in its judgment, the Tribunal clarified that this finding does not mean that people with ‘gender critical’ beliefs can express them in a way that discriminates against trans people."Telanian7790 (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I support the wording proposed by Telanian – it’s better than the one I proposed. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can support this, it definitely reads more naturally than the bracket version, or the one we have now. Making the change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverting edits to lead
I have reverted edits to the leading which appear to be an attempt to downplay the judgment, and portray it as a loss for Forstater. This is not supported either by the judgment itself, or by the published sources. It also appears to be a misunderstanding of UK law, and specifically, the way in which employment tribunals work. 2A00:23C8:2C97:1D01:C80E:E153:15E0:DDFB (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the edits should be reverted, as they are confused and do seem to be aimed at downplaying the importance of the tribunal’s decision. However, it may be appropriate to add more details on the various claims in the ‘Full Merits’ section. According to PinkNews ‘Forstater was discriminated against by the CDG, and that her job contract and visiting fellowship were not renewed because she held ‘gender critical’ beliefs. The tribunal also ruled that Forstater’s complaint of victimisation was well-founded in respect of the removal of her profile from websites for CGD and its European branch. However, Maya Forstater’s other complaints of harassment and indirect discrimination related to “sex and belief” were dismissed alongside another complaint of victimisation because the organisation withdrew an offer to engage with her as a consultant.’
 * Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the section needs expanding. At present, we only really have newspaper sources reporting on the judgement, plus interviews with Forstater. There probably is more to be drawn from there, if someone has the time to do so (personally I don't right now). However, we are also likely to see more scholarly analysis of the judgment over the next few weeks/months, which will help contextualise its significance, so really this article will be a work in progress for a while. I do think it is important for editors to note that employment tribunal claims are complicated, and layered. So in this case for example, claims for both direct and indirect discrimination were made, but the claim for indirect discrimination would only have been relevant had Forstater lost the claim for direct discrimination. As the claim for direct discrimination was deemed to be founded, the claim for indirect discrimination is not longer required. Had direct discrimination not been founded, then the claim for indirect discrimination would have been considered. Hence why that second claim was dismissed. Hopefully that makes sense! (It states that in a clearer way at the bottom of the BBC article []) 2A00:23C8:2C97:1D01:C80E:E153:15E0:DDFB (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * While I don't have specific knowledge about how UK tribunal cases work, it is my understanding that it is common in all sorts of legal cases for the plaintiff to throw in every possible claim that might have a chance to stick, even ones that possibly conflict with one another, as it increases the chance that some of them end up being upheld. This results in even winning cases having a lot of rejected claims. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that correct. Hence why attempts by previous editor to portray the judgment as a loss to Forstater were at best a misunderstanding, and at worse misleading. 2A00:23C8:2C97:1D01:DD40:6C61:D00F:288A (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Judgment on compensation
The judgment on compensation is that in total, £106,404 is awarded to Forstater. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Sweet6970 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest we wait until any independent secondary source picks up on this. While I don't doubt the authenticity of the Google Drive link you provided, BLPPRIMARY would prevent us from citing the court transcript directly, and even the blog post on Forstater's website would be iffy because it's making an assertion against CDG/CDGE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree we should wait for a secondary source - that's why I have not added the inf to the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Chronology
RE: this edit, the prior chronology was more accurate.

Her work contract expired in December 2018 with the expectation of renewal. After that she was technically an applicant for employment, and there was ongoing discussion about continuing her employment on a different project, her status as a visiting fellow, the investigation into her beliefs - all of which encompassed CGD's discriminatory conduct towards her, until the relationship broke down in March 2019. Void if removed (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see from the link above that Forstater’s solicitors say the legal action was launched in 2019, so the wording reinstated by Void if removed is more accurate. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is hard to find a good secondary source for the timeline but the judgment has the facts and they are tricky because exactly when the employment ended was not ruled on.
 * As briefly as possible: she had both a visiting fellowship (that was expected to renew for a third year at the end of October 2018) and a contract for work on a project with Gates Foundation (that came to an end in December 2018, with the expectation of more work afterwards).
 * But the dates of employment were a question for the tribunal to decide:
 * The tribunal decided it didn't matter when the employment technically came to an end because no matter the date she was still covered un the the equality act.
 * She took the termination of their relationship to be an email on March 5th 2019 (though CGDE disputed that was the intent and the tribunal accepted this) and the complaint was lodged on March 15th 2019.
 * Given the vagueness with which WP:SECONDARY treat this and the complexity of what's in the WP:PRIMARY I think the current wording is about as detailed as it could be. Void if removed (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * She took the termination of their relationship to be an email on March 5th 2019 (though CGDE disputed that was the intent and the tribunal accepted this) and the complaint was lodged on March 15th 2019.
 * Given the vagueness with which WP:SECONDARY treat this and the complexity of what's in the WP:PRIMARY I think the current wording is about as detailed as it could be. Void if removed (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the vagueness with which WP:SECONDARY treat this and the complexity of what's in the WP:PRIMARY I think the current wording is about as detailed as it could be. Void if removed (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Suissa and Sullivan
Since it got brought up... I really don't see how their opinion is notable. Judith Suissa and Alice Sullivan are redlinks, there's no evidence of much substantial references to the paper that I can find, and the paper as a whole barely mentions Forstater in the first place - The quote that was being used about Forstater is literally the entirety of the commentary on Forstater in the article. Reliable source or not, it's a trivial mention by apparently non-notable people being given its own paragraph, and that's a problem. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Alice Sullivan is chairing the Sullivan Review into sex and gender in UK statistics. Redlink is not a great benchmark to notability, especially when it comes to female academics. Void if removed (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's something, but I'm not sure how notable it makes this article we're quoting literally the only sentence about Forstater from. We literally spend more space on their opinion of Forstater than the Suissa and Sullivan article we're quoting does. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 18:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That tends to be the case when putting a line like this in context. And this is not a "fringe" source. Void if removed (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's pretty out there in interpretations of a lot of things. Normal academic sources don't use hyperbolic language to describe pretty much everything, and gender critical stuff is a fringe view. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the article makes several outlandish claims, such as that the "overwhelming" targets of accusations of transphobic bigotry are women, without furnishing evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is that outlandish?
 * For example, what they say is:
 * And on another thread you just dismissed the well-researched and widely lauded writings of a female journalist you disagree with as "some TERF journalist's propaganda" so you're not off to a flying start proving them wrong. Void if removed (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Being fair I'd say precisely the same thing about Jesse Singal. And please remember you are treading dangerous ground on personal attacks here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which part was a personal attack? Void if removed (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My point remains that their claims are, at best, annecdotal. They don't provide evidence. There's no experimental structure supporting them. There's not even a decent meta-analysis of prior studies. They just said a thing and announced it true "just so". Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the view of Suissa and Sullivan is clearly attributed, I don’t see any problem with the existing text in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The view of WP:FRINGE sources is WP:UNDUE in most circumstances. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But this isn't WP:FRINGE so it is fine as attributed opinion. Void if removed (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right - so they aren't "outlandish", they just don't meet with your rigorous methodological approval for quantitative analysis, but that's fine because this paper is, at best, citable as WP:RSOPINION. So where's the issue?
 * They explain the context of the paper being written after personally experiencing mostly female academics being subjected to harassment campaigns and accusations of transphobia and bigotry, themselves included. The evidence for this includes eg. an open letter signed by 54 academics complaining about the harassment campaign targeted at mostly female academics, and some 2/3 of the signatories are female.
 * Are you saying they're wrong and that actually, in around 2018-2021 most people - especially academics - who were harassed and silenced and deplatformed with accusations of transphobic bigotry were men? Do you have evidence for this to the point it would make any claim to the contrary "outlandish"? I find that hard to credit, when Mumsnet has been casually condemned en masse as a den of transphobic bigotry.
 * A reminder that we're having this discussion on the talk page of the landmark case of the woman who was unlawfully discriminated against after being accused of transphobic bigotry - which revolved in no small part around the political campaigns against GRA reform in the UK by FairPlayForWomen and Women's Place UK - and virtually every subsequent, similar legal case revolves around a female claimant.
 * I would go so far as to say that the fact that it is overwhelmingly women who were at that time being subjected to accusations of transphobic bigotry is a statement of the blindingly obvious, and to call this "outlandish" stretches credulity. Void if removed (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Suissa and Sullivan paper isn't a notable commentary. It's a questionable article in a low-tier journal. I would say it's a terrible paper and fringe, but that's not really the point: Opinion sources are meant to be for notable opinions. We can, for example, include JK Rowling's widely reported opinions on the case and call RSOPINION. If I go out and publish my opinion on the case in some bottom-tier journal that no-one pays attention to, and get no additional coverage, and, worse, the article only has two sentences on the subject of the Wikipedia article in question, we can't cite me. Suissa and Sullivan are in the latter situation, as are, I'm sure, a whole swath of other non-notable opinions on all sides of the issue.  Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, debate about due or not is different to one about "questionable" and "fringe" though. I think that Alice Sullivan is notable enough for an opinion, and I disagree with the allegations of questionable and fringe based on the evidence thus far provided.
 * I think it is useful for placing the case in the wider political context of the time, ie what happened to Forstater was not some isolated incident, but part of a broader political situation. Void if removed (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that one or two sentences (depending on how you count it), not even primarily about Forstater but about a list of people, is sufficient. If Sullivan's opinion was notable, there would be better sources for Sullivan's opinion than an off-hand remark in an approximately 25 page article (don't quite know how many pages to take off for the reference list).
 * In short, it's pretty hard to argue an opinion's notable when it appears on the 14th page or so of an article that has an extreme scattershot approach to things, jumping topics constantly. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest I think getting into the weeds on this source is probably missing that this whole section is needlessly bloated with blogposts from non-notable people expressing opinions that turned out to be completely wrong 2 years later. It smacks of a section that accreted citations years ago but is no longer relevant post-appeal.
 * I'd strip that section back to Wintemute and Monaghan's response.
 * Perhaps worth adding this later source which also gave clear weight to Monaghan's analysis and also notes that the Higgs v Farmors School judgment criticised the Forstater ET judgment.
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10854681.2021.2030949
 * And probably take out the separate "response" headings and just condense it down to one section for responses to the initial judgment. Then we could place Monaghan's commentary in context with the EHRC's response, seeing as she acted for them in the case.
 * Thoughts? Void if removed (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems fair. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 23:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The piece is very long and wide-ranging, do you have a concrete example of something so fringe-y it would discount the whole paper from being used for attributed WP:RSOPINION? Void if removed (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we briefly agree to push off the fringe discussion until after a discussion of whether the opinion can be considered well-sourced and notable? Because it feels like that's a bigger, but also simpler to evaluate issue in many ways. If I might use Notability, if we look at the section on what a "trivial mention" is, it's pretty clear, in the context of Suissa and Sullivan, that this is a trivial mention. The actual sentence mentioning Forstater v. Centre for Global Development Europe is " Prominent legal cases like those of Maya Forstater (Kirkup, 2019), Allison Bailey (Filia, 2020) and Sonia Appleby (Barnes and Cohen, 2020) represent the tip of the iceberg." - and that's it. The opinion quoted about "..women who speak publicly on these issues face campaigns of harassment, including attempts to get them fired." is arguably not even attributed to Suissa and Sullivan, given the first part of that sentence is "Rowling’s intervention was prompted by the fact that women who speak publicly..."
 * If it's not notable and/or not directly attributable to Suissa and Sullivan, the fringeness of the source doesn't matter, and Fringe is much more of a judgement call which requires discussing twenty-some pages of material than whether this is notable, which requires us to look at two sentences, because - unless I'm missing something and I don't think I am - they're the only ones that can reasonably be considered to have anything to do with Forstater in the entire paper. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I will say that I think it's a reasonably objective fact that Suissa and Sullivan is not well written. Subjects get brought up and dropped quickly, and its structure is messy. Particularly by the time of the Forstater reference, it's shotgunning through topics at a very rapid pace, with fairly hyperbolic language. So, while it covers a lot of topics, there's really not a lot of depth, and the analysis of any of the points is very shallow.
 * Sourcing is terrible. The source for the Maya Forstater case used in Suissa and Sullivan - Kirkup, 2019 - predates the actual court case - not just the appeal (Suissa and Sullivan itself predates the appeal) but literally the entire court case. It's odd that they'd use something fundraising for a future court case by Forstater as their citation for Maya Forstater's case existing.
 * It feels like the "first Google result" approach to citation. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is terrible. The source for the Maya Forstater case used in Suissa and Sullivan - Kirkup, 2019 - predates the actual court case - not just the appeal (Suissa and Sullivan itself predates the appeal) but literally the entire court case. It's odd that they'd use something fundraising for a future court case by Forstater as their citation for Maya Forstater's case existing.
 * It feels like the "first Google result" approach to citation. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

But, anyway, Void if removed, you proposed trimming the sections outright. That seems like a more productive way forward than discussing a minor source that doesn't have much to say anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 15:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Appeal – Index on Censorship and Equality and Human Rights Commission
In your edit summary here, you say ‘this is probably better handled in the appeal’ but you have not moved the material to the appeal section. It is significant that Index on Censorship and the Equality and Human Rights Commission were given leave to intervene in the appeal, but this is not now included in the article. What are your proposals on this? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated and incorporated it into the appeal text (per the talk under Suissa and Sullivan above). Also removed some cruft and added the more significant the Higgs v Farmor's school ET criticism. Void if removed (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Was trying to figure out how best to and ran out of time. It's one of those situations where it's probably important to state their views, but, at the same time, the sourcing is a little weird - why do we quote a statement from the director of Index on Censorship, for example, and not their amicus curae brief? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 14:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Switched to a more direct source for Index on Censorship. I'd say their statement is kind of leaning gender critical, which feels like something we should talk about, but don't think we can do anything more with that barring reliable sources that specifically analyse their statements. Well, let's just be careful about letting one side characterise the other. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Lawyer's statement
I've cut a bit of Forstater's lawyer's statements. It's awkward to quote his... debunking, I guess?" of claimed misrepresentation of her when the claimed misrepresentation don't appear in the article, especially when he's characterising a witness' view as part of it, which does lean towards BLP issues. Since it's written in emotive, persuasive speech, it gives a lot of legitimacy to the interpretations it advocates for that probably goes beyond the WP:NPOV we're striving for. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of misrepresentation at the time, which is probably still on the internet, so I think the deleted text is necessary. I am reinstating it. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree - and the misrepresentation persists to this day. Daly's response to widespread misinformation is a neat summation of the falsity, and due.
 * Characterising a witness giving evidence on Forstater's behalf in the original tribunal as having giving evidence on Forstater's behalf, is not a BLP issue, especially when that witness isn't even directly named anyway. Void if removed (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)