Talk:Mermaids (charity)/Archive 2

Neutrality lacking, and odd choice of things to focus on...
At its training sessions at schools, Mermaids uses a "gender spectrum" consisting of jelly babies labelled with Barbie at one end and G.I Joe at the other. The Daily Telegraph reported that this uses "non-conformity to gender stereotypes as evidence that a child is transgender."[16][17] Columnist Janice Turner criticised the content of the training session as unscientific.[18] Other campaigners have criticised these trainings on the grounds that they reinforce rigid gender roles, and that they encourage non-conforming children to identify as transgender. In September 2020, the Department for Education issued guidance stating that schools should not use materials that point to gender non-conformity as evidence of being transgender, or work with organisations that produce them.[17] Attitude quoted Kate Lister in Mermaids' defence: "The 'jelly baby' spectrum being used in the lecture is basically a visual representation of gender identifying markers ... At no point does anyone suggest children who act in ways that do not conform to a gender are trans. At no point does anyone suggest gay children are trans."[19]

This is a pretty hefty paragraph for such a short article (in general honestly I'm surprised at the lack of sections or length to this article), for what is a while newsworthy story, a fairly insignificant moment in the history of the charity. Furthermore, I would quite comfortably say it's significantly skewed towards painting the charity in a negative light. Some of this is perhaps an unfortunate result of taking what are generally reliable sources at face value, as although some of these sources are for most topics reliable, for trans topics it's noted they have been less reliable.

reverted my edit removing the Department for Education mention with the justification of The published WP:RS makes that connection., I do not see that as a justification in and of itself, and if we are critically analysing sources, as we should do with an (unfortunately) controversial topic such as this, we should not rely on such justification. Firstly, this article's focus is on the charity as a whole, whereas that story is focused on events happening in a short space of time with regards to gender-related education, and the charity Mermaids is not even the primary focus, rather it is given as one example of the approaches used by "many organizations" (to quote the article in response to "non-conformity materials banned": This is a strong statement. A large number of the organisations providing training and resources to schools on trans issues use non-conformity to gender stereotypes as evidence that a child is transgender. Mermaids, for example, regularly uses a chart showing gender identity on a 12-point spectrum from a Barbie wearing a pink dress to GI Joe in military fatigues. The Proud Trust uses a resource that talks about “Planet Girl” and “Planet Boy” and asks “What girly things do you like?” If schools are not allowed to use organisations that produce this type of material, many may find themselves out of a job.). The inclusion of these guidelines in the article however makes it appear as if they were drafted directly in response to Mermaids.

Furthermore, their educational and training resources are far more diverse than this one tool mentioned, WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This one tool is not something of enduring importance, at least to the degree to have quite such a hefty chunk of the article dedicated to it! The 24 hour news cycle might pick it up, that doesn't mean we have too! I also think it's worth noting, with regards to the GI Joe-Barbie scale, the newspaper chooses to link to an obscure and seemingly relatively strongly anti-trans site, as opposed to more directly to the twitter post the site references, which may be telling of at least the stance of the author who wrote that article. I also want to note that a hefty 52 page educational resource document makes no reference to jelly babies, so it may even have been a rather isolated lecture and not even part of standard resources, it's hard to say.

I will work on a more comprehensive restructuring of the article, and acquire sources for it, I shall have some tea first, but honestly a lot of work needs be done. I do hope Crossroads will take the time to consider some of these points, both here and on other trans-related articles they've been contributing too, that appear to also have NPOV disputes ongoing. 78.105.218.134 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed the Spectator article for being a dead link, although eventually managed to stumble into a correct link to it, however it is woefully obviously biased and has some serious issues, given we have at least relatively more objective sources, it seems superfluous and undesirable to add in. Notably however, the idea that the GI Joe-Barbie scale was used in talks in schools is entirely inaccurate, and was fabricated by the Daily Mail, and subsequently picked up by other newspapers it turns out, and the images and recordings cited as evidence were in fact from a training session for Merseyside Police, as clarified by a statement released by Mermaids in response to the incident.
 * * https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-in-response-to-mail-on-sunday-and-sunday-times-coverage-of-dfe-guidance/
 * This is why we must check our sources! 78.105.218.134 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the Merseyside Police mentioned in that statement—what am I missing? I see the paragraph beginning "There has been much excitement in certain quarters around a particular slide which was used in Mermaids training a number of years ago ..." could be relevant to quote as a response to the Telegraph source. Are you saying that the Telegraph cited the Daily Mail in its article, or that it took content from the article without attribution, because the latter is thoroughly unreliable and we can't use any content that originated there? We'd also need to say what Mermaids have said if the Telegraph is claiming that Mermaids "regularly uses" something that they say was abandoned years ago. As for the DfE sentence, it does sound like synthesis or overly much detail in the context of it being included just in the source's first paragraph before Mermaids is mentioned, when The Telegraph isn't specifically asserting that Mermaids have violated DfE guidance (which they wouldn't because that opens them up to a libel case). — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * By my read, the Telegraph piece is from their Life section, which is opinion-based; it's WP:RSOPINION at best, so we shouldn't be citing it for statements of fact at all, and the author has no relevant expertise, so it's hard to see how their opinions are WP:DUE. And beyond that, we run into a larger problem that the entire paragraph is cited solely to opinion pieces and primary sources. --Aquillion (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Turner doesn't appear to have any relevant expertise? I don't think we should be citing her opinion and the opinion of two advocacy groups in the article. The piece by Kim Thomas also seems to be an opinion piece (it is in their "Life" section, which is described as Unmissable features, opinions and experience..., and Kim Thomas likewise doesn't seem to have any relevant expertise, so it should probably be dropped as well given that we can more solidly cite the relevant opinion to advocacy orgs via secondary sources.  EDIT: No, wait, there's no secondary source - those are also cited via Thomas's opinion piece.  In fact, it seems like we've devoted an entire paragraph to, largely, two opinion pieces and a response to them?  I'm for cutting the paragraph entirely unless we can find stronger secondary sourcing; currently it makes up like a tenth of the article, which seems grossly WP:UNDUE.  --Aquillion (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Likewise Mermaids released a statement clarifying that "no teacher has ever been encouraged by any LGBTQ+ organisation to state that 'tomboys' should be transgender", and that they do not provide classroom talks or lesson materials for schools, contrary to what had been reported in newspapers.
 * Hello all. Re the press release, please see WP:SELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF. A press release is a self-published source. It is OK though to use a Mermaids press release in this page about Mermaids itself provided that 5 criteria are met. Point 2 is that "it does not involve claims about third parties". I conclude that we cannot use the first quote (because its about third parties) but we can use the second. Any objections? AndyGordon (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding arguments above: No, this is all special pleading, and removal would have the result of WP:WHITEWASHing the article. The Telegraph is an RS, period. We do not remove RS on POV grounds. It is not an opinion piece. Feel free to expand the rest of the article with RS if you wish. It is an RS-sourced fact that the organization has received criticism, and UNDUE is not an all-purpose excuse to expunge criticism unless it meets some arbitrary personal standard of 'enough' RS. Crossroads -talk- 22:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How is my comment "special pleading"? We do remove individual articles from generally reliable sources (no source is always reliable, or reliable for all types of statements) if there is reason to suspect its credibility, which no-one seems to have followed up my question to: is this Telegraph article explicitly citing or implicitly using information from the Daily Mail (or neither)? It's a good faith question because I don't have access to the source or know the full context of this. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In this case the only suspicions of credibility are based on personal opinions, which is explicitly disregarded at WP:NPOV. Here is an archive link to the Telegraph article. There is no mention of the Daily Mail. I don't know how "implicitly using information" could even be determined aside from OR in the form of personal guesses. Even if it did mention them, frankly, Wikipedia's deprecation of the Daily Mail is not itself an RS with which any RS which did make mention of the Daily Mail can then be dismissed. We trust RS to make their own determination of credibility when they report on matters, including and especially "behind the scenes". There's no basis for guilt by association in that way, and the Daily Mail is deprecated because we can't rely on it (is unreliable), not because literally everything they say is a lie. I don't mean to come off too strong, but there is a longer term history at this article of other mainstream newspaper RS that report anything critical of Mermaids resulting in a push to dismiss those sources. I'm sure this group means well, but the fact is that RS are not uniformly praiseworthy or only repeat what they purport to do for trans kids. No cause, no matter how noble, means that anyone acting in its name should avoid scrutiny by the media or that there is not legitimate debate over how to accomplish it, e.g. explaining gender identity to children. Crossroads -talk- 22:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well here you could tell whether the Telegraph are implicitly using the Daily Mail if they repeat a specific falsehood originated by the Mail. The claim made by the OP is that Mermaids, for example, regularly uses a chart showing gender identity on a 12-point spectrum from a Barbie wearing a pink dress to GI Joe in military fatigues (which I can see now with the archive link, thanks) is based on the Mail because they wrongly claimed so (and presumably the Telegraph aren't going to spontaneously come up with the same falsehood independently). I don't get where the OP's evidence is though. Can someone explain the facts of whether this chart was used regularly up until the publishing of this article (and possibly beyond)? — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the Merseyside Police mentioned in that statement—what am I missing? - The Telegraph story that Crossroads is arguing as a basis for this is not primarily about Mermaids, but does briefly mention them, with one paragraph about the G.I. Joe-Barbie scale which this wikipedia page dedicates so much time to.
 * Their full paragraph on it: This is a strong statement. A large number of the organisations providing training and resources to schools on trans issues use non-conformity to gender stereotypes as evidence that a child is transgender. Mermaids, for example, regularly uses a chart showing gender identity on a 12-point spectrum from a Barbie wearing a pink dress to GI Joe in military fatigues. The Proud Trust uses a resource that talks about “Planet Girl” and “Planet Boy” and asks “What girly things do you like?” If schools are not allowed to use organisations that produce this type of material, many may find themselves out of a job. (from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education-and-careers/2020/09/29/new-rules-teaching-identity-schools/) - The chart mentioned there is hyperlinked to this page - http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2019/the-barbie-gi-joe-scale/ - which has embedded in it a tweet embedded as 'evidence' - https://twitter.com/SgtCOwens/status/1095276172093603840 - This is the only such instance I've managed to find of this chart being used, and that tweet is very explicitly about a training session at Merseyside Police. In combination with the absence of any mentions anywhere about Mermaids delivering any talks to schools directly, and the fact that Mermaids do help provide inclusivity training to workplaces, applying a little Occam's razor it seems the most probable explanation is a conflation between where the talk was (unintentional or otherwise). The whole story appears to have been broken by the Mail Online originally - the Telegraph published their article on the 29th of September, whereas the Mail Online beat them by 3 days publishing on the 26th of September. Given the Mermaid's response is directed primarily to the Mail Online, I think it's fair to conclude they broke the story.
 * Personally, I would agree with that the entire story should be thrown out. Overall it reads to me like poorly sourced sensational 'stories' to grab attention on a divisive subject, and not something of lasting encyclopaedic value. That said, if other editors disagree and wish to retain this segment, then I believe it is important to provide the press release and counterpoint, and be cautious of synthesis or perpetuating errors.
 * - We could paraphrase it to try and avoid the 'issue', but I don't believe it's an issue as long as it's explicitly clear that it is a statement from Mermaids. We are simply stating this is what they said in response (which is a verifiable fact), and not treating what they said in and of itself as fact. As for [WP:SELFPUB] I don't think that's relevant. Their statement never talks about specific living people, and the official website of Mermaids, a registered and pretty major charity, I think can be considered an established subject-matter expert.
 * Hopefully that clears up my own viewpoint and how I came to those conclusions. As stated, I would support removing the whole reference to the story, but if consensus is against that, I'd have a second-choice of excluding the DfE mention and retaining the press release by Mermaids for balance. 78.105.218.134 (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument still seems to be that, based on your own WP:Original research, we should throw out a WP:Reliable source. This is the same argument that others have used above to throw out other green-listed RS that said other unfavorable things. It is not how Wikipedia works. This still seems to be a whitewash. I also think the DfE guidance should not have been removed as the Telegraph clearly treats it as relevant and as not allowing these exact sorts of trainings. As for the Mermaids response, there already is a response from Kate Lister. I don't see a need to give their WP:PRIMARY sourced views prominence, just like we wouldn't cite their critics' primary-source statements. Crossroads -talk- 05:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, the Telegraph's life section is opinion. Even if you personally feel that the author's opinions are particularly significant and relevant, that isn't an argument for inclusion - if it is as important as you claim, you should be able to find secondary coverage of it in a non-opinion source. I think that in articles like these there is a particular risk that opinion-pieces from non-experts like this can be given undue weight by editors who agree with them, effectively using them to argue points by proxy; you ought to especially slow down and reconsider your perspective if you think the removal of, essentially, a single opinion would make the article "whitewashed." Based on the sparse and entirely opinion-based sourcing and the total lack of secondary coverage, this is not a significant aspect of the topic, certainly not one that could reasonably justify devoting roughly a tenth of the article's text to it. --Aquillion (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of [WP:NOR]. It does not state we should not research background on which sources we choose to include and how to include them. On the contrary, it specifies that NOR applies to "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.", identifying if a source exists, and if it is reliable, requires research itself! Furthermore, No Original Research is but 1/3rd of the core content policy, [WP:NPOV] would require us to research any editorial biases in a source and any dissenting opinions if we are to include the story such that we may be neutral, and [WP:V] gives the notably point that "verifiability does NOT guarantee inclusion". Furthermore, the reliable sources page itself instructs us quite explicitly to scrutinize sources, as [WP:CONTEXTMATTERS] to determining the reliability of a source.
 * Ultimately I see multiple issues: firstly that the Telegraph has a known bias on this subject, secondly that the story in fact appears to originate from an unreliable source (the Mail Online), thirdly that the story as reported seems to include at least one significant error, and fourthly that the story is probably not of encyclopaedic notability (as explained in [WP:PERSISTENCE]). Politely I would ask you to properly read those policies so we can actually address the issue at hand.
 * You make a good point about the story being in the "Life" section. You've got my full agreement there. 78.105.218.134 (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Aquillion, again, "the Telegraph's life section is opinion" is your opinion, not a fact. Here is the archived version of the article. It is not listed under "Opinion", but under the "Education and careers" tab. The "life section" version linked from our article has "education and careers" in its URL. At the bottom it says "Education news". It is written in a factual tone. Our Wikipedia article currently cites it only for statements of fact, even though someone added in-text attribution which for some may make it seem like an opinion article. And a newspaper already is a secondary source (citing their training itself would be a primary source). Your claim that this text is too much is also your personal opinion; WP:WEIGHT is determined by sources, so if you feel that positive sources are missing, then add some.
 * IP, your claims that the source is too biased and based on the Daily Mail is again unsourced personal opinion. See WP:BIASEDSOURCES anyway.
 * Contrast all the things being concocted against the Telegraph article with the fact that pro-Mermaids material is currently being cited to no-less-opinionated and non-secondary sources like HuffPost and Mermaids themselves. Nobody here is fighting against the HuffPost source. Funny how that only goes on with one side. Crossroads -talk- 22:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the Life section is clearly labeled as opinion; Unmissable features, opinions and experiences from across The Telegraph’s lifestyle sections. It links "Education news" as a a related topic, ie. this is an opinion piece about education, so it is related to actual news about education - but the piece, itself, isn't news, and your subjective opinion that it is written in a "factual tone" isn't meaningful; neither is your gut feeling that it is WP:DUE.  Weight is determined by how much focus a topic receives among all sources.  If the best you can muster for that argument is a single source in an unambiguously-labeled section devoted to opinion, then you've failed to demonstrate due weight - and, by my reading, this discussion's rough consensus is trending towards at least significantly trimming the paragraph in question, so I'm going to proceed with that shortly unless you can find additional high-quality sourcing.  Again, you've indicated that you feel that this is such a central part of the topic that it would constitute a whitewash to remove it - rather than constantly going in circles trying to defend a weak source, you would be better off finding the additional sourcing that supports your contention that this is a major part of Mermaids' history. --Aquillion (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The HuffPost is a WP:RS, and (unlike the opinion piece you are arguing for including) is news; it states actual facts, not just opinions that you, personally, feel have a "factual tone" to them. You can't rely on that; obviously, people's judgements of what has a factual or opinionated tone are going to be influenced by their personal beliefs - someone saying something you agree with rings as factual to you even when, as in this case, it is plainly in a section labeled as opinion. I have no objection to removing the cite to Mermaids provided we kill the paragraph in the process; I agree that the lack of coverage for that aspect is further indication that the entire paragraph is WP:UNDUE. But it is silly to cover an opinion-piece criticizing them, especially from a non-expert, and then object to including their response. --Aquillion (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My claims that the Telegraph has a bias on this topic is not based on simple "unsourced personal opinion". See The Daily Telegraph page under the "LGBT+ rights" section at the end for a brief commentary on it. You could also look at...many of their stories on trans-related topics... Anyway, my opinion on them is no more or less valid in and of itself than your own "unsourced personal opinion", which is why collaborative work, and research on sources, is important. As for WP:BIASEDSOURCES, I recommend you read it properly, much like I recommend you read MOS:EDITORIAL properly. The biased sources guidance does not say we should automatically include every possible biased source on every single story they offer, or that we should mirror how they choose to present a topic. It merely states that a source being biased is not always justification alone to throw out a source, this is useful on important stories where a truly non-biased source may be lacking, such as for instance a Presidential election. I have stated however multiple separate issues with this story we have, in addition to the strong bias of The Telegraph in this context. As for MOS Editorial, it does not ban the use of any adverbs or phrases to make sentences flow better. Rather it states we should not use adverbs and similar phrases which assign specific characteristics to viewpoints, for instance using "notably" would assign greater significance to one source over another. "Actually" would imply the truth (whatever that is) is contrary to what one would expect. And so on... The use of "on the other hand" or "likewise" merely helps to clarify two opposing or similar statements, which in this case is quite indisputably the case. The Telegraph have a position, and Mermaids and Attitude have an opposing one. As for the your sentence "...released a statement stating...", the latter stating is entirely redundant. A statement does indeed state something, it's in the name.
 * As for if this story is from the opinion-section or not, Aquillion covers that suitably. I do not dispute Mermaids themselves are a biased source here, but they are an objective source on what they themselves say, regardless of if what they say is in itself not necessarily objective, thus we can be entirely NPOV by included a statement directly sourced to them, but we cannot be NPOV if we treat that statement as an authoritative and definitively factual account of the "truth". Furthermore, as Aquillion says, it is your subjective personal opinion that the "tone" of the telegraph is factual. That said, the fact we can rather clearly see it's the opinion section is rather more significant an indicator than the "tone" of it. As for the Huffpost citation, I don't know why you've suddenly brought up that. It's not used at all in this paragraph, and the one case it is also used in the article, it is backed up with a RadioTimes citation too, and as Aquillion says, Huffpost is also a RS. If you have a specific issue with that part of this article however, feel free to start a section in the talk page spelling out specifically what the issue is. 78.105.218.134 (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Telegraph-sourced content
In the current version of the article, we are citing the Telegraph for this:

I'm confident that the second statement, about what SSA and Transgender Trend say about the "trainings", is accurate. But is the first part of this accurate? That is, are Kim Thomas's statements about the training (1) accurate descriptions of the training and (2) DUE for inclusion? Newimpartial (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This has to be explained again? Never mind Kim Thomas; overemphasizing her personally was done by some recent editor and should really be undone. What we have is a reliable source - mainstream newspaper - reporting the following, talking about the DfE's new guidance: A large number of the organisations providing training and resources to schools on trans issues use non-conformity to gender stereotypes as evidence that a child is transgender. Mermaids, for example, regularly uses a chart showing gender identity on a 12-point spectrum from a Barbie wearing a pink dress to GI Joe in military fatigues. (It turns out the "jelly babies" phrase is a carryover from a previous source and will be removed.) Simple statement of fact in a news article. As for WP:DUE, this isn't defined in terms of what editors personally feel to be insignificant. Rather, it is the due weight of sources: ...all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources....means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. This is only UNDUE if there are significantly more published RS of equal reliability - so, mainstream media - stating that Mermaids' materials do not use this spectrum (note it doesn't say that spectrum was shown to children but was given to schools, and they themselves admit they train schoolteachers) or that this spectrum doesn't treat stereotypes as indicative of being transgender. Since no such sources have been presented, the groundless appeals to DUE are just a dressed up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Crossroads -talk- 00:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, while looking at this question I observe that the report in The Telegraph came two days after a prior report in HotLifestyleNews which in turn came one day after the initial Daily Mail report. Given the common ownership and editorial position of the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, I think it is reasonable to ask whether any other RS have reported on this; in particular, the statement (currently attributed to Thomas, but you have just proposed to remove attribution) that this uses "non-conformity to gender stereotypes as evidence that a child is transgender is an EXTRAORDINARY claim, disputed by other sources, and really needs a better source IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC) missing word added by Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not EXTRAORDINARY, and that claim too has to be based on sources. Disputed by what other sources? Unless there are quite a few of them and they are of equal or greater reliability, that does not justify wholesale removal. Curently a lower quality source disputes it, which could justify in-text attribution to the Telegraph perhaps, but to Kim Thomas personally is odd. The Daily Mail stuff is pure speculation. The Telegraph is RS, period. Crossroads -talk- 00:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the Telegraph is not RS, period. It is the "respectable" paper with the same ownership and editorial slant as a non-RS paper, and the last time it went to RSN there was significant questioning of its political bias (which is certainly reflected in its gender-related coverage). You can't simply isolate the colour from the caveats in this case any more than you can in the parallel instance of PinkNews, which I believe I have seen you point out (in the latter case). Newimpartial (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is unambiguously from a section labeled as opinion and cannot be included without attribution to Thomas at a bare minimum; you cannot change that simple fact. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN, but I feel like your time would be better-spent searching for additional sources given your strong conviction that this is a vital part of the topic.  Searching for it myself, I am simply not seeing it - Thomas' personal opinions on, and personal feelings about, Mermaids' teaching methods are simply not widely-held.  --Aquillion (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * was done by some recent editor and should really be undone. - Frankly speaking, this is starting to sound like WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.
 * What we have is a reliable source - mainstream newspaper - reporting - in your opinion. The reliability in this context however is in dispute, and the fact it is a "mainstream newspaper" is irrelevant. The Sun is a mainstream newspaper, but is outright banned as a source. Furthermore, you then go on to rather selectively represent WP:DUE, this isn't just about how much we have for/against on this story, you must consider the actual notability of this event as a whole as per WP:PERSISTENCE, as this page is not simply about the Barbie-G.I. Joe spectrum, but about Mermaids as a whole. This whole event was questionably reported, briefly, in but a handful of newspapers, and the Telegraph source so relied upon here only tangentially mentions it, it's not even the main focus of their piece!
 * Well, while looking at this question I observe that the report in The Telegraph came two days after a prior report in HotLifestyleNews which in turn came one day after the initial Daily Mail report. Given the common ownership and editorial position of the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, I think it is reasonable to ask whether any other RS have reported on this thank you for looking into that. As for other coverage on this, I've only managed to find one story from The Spectator, and their story on this is (at the very least in my opinion) entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia (plus, The Spectator is noted on RS perennial sources as almost entirely opinion pieces), and a series of stories from the Christian Institute, an anti-LGBTQ+ pressure group.
 * As for if the claim is extraordinary, I would probably have said no, however I decided to read WP:EXTRAORDINARY to be sure, and the fact that you have quite repeatedly declared that all of our changes to this is serious whitewashing does sound eerily similar to This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them., that said personally I don't feel we are quite in extraordinary claims territory, but I do agree with the sentiment that the Telegraph source here is pretty poor, and we are dedicating too much space to this story (and I would question if it's even notable enough to mention at all).
 * It sounds like we are forming a consensus to at the very minimum trim this rather insignificant story down, so I'm going to be WP:BOLD and have a stab at it. 78.105.218.134 (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Based on a quick nose count, this discussion seems to have reached a clear consensus that the section was undue, but nothing was done. Are there multiple people objecting to removing it (or drastically trimming it down and de-sectioning it?) If necessary we can have an RFC, of course, but (coming back to it with a clear head) I think this discussion was actually pretty clear in its conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In my view, this section should definitely be deleted - I see no grounds for inclusion of this content per WP:RSOPINION. I have more sympathy for the more recent addition. Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with deletion. There was a long discussion, and the final form is well-sourced. AndyGordon (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Same, my views have not changed. Crossroads -talk- 04:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, both of you, the current text still violates WP:RSOPINION. Our policy enjoins that we clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion - we are not to cite facts to opinion sources. Here is the current article text:


 * The text is certainly attributed, but does it make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion? I don't think it does. And I don't think it can because - in terms of the fact/opinion distinction - what we are reading here is not actually Kim Thomas's subjective opinion about some facts, but rather some proposed facts the accuracy of which are disputed by other sources. We are not supposed to cite opinion pieces for such information. If the two of you insist (ironically) on STONEWALLing, would NPOVN be the correct venue to continue this discussion, or is there a more appropriate forum? Newimpartial (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Davies-Arai section
Regarding this, I'm extremely reluctant to have another section whose key points are entirely sourced to the Telegraph (the training section, after all, is solely devoted to one Telegraph article and the response to it); we should avoid giving undue weight to the perspectives of a single publication, especially one that has been outspoken about this subject in the past and can therefore reasonably be considered WP:BIASED. If this event is significant, there should be long-term coverage elsewhere, but adding it to the article the day after publication with just one source seems like recentism. --Aquillion (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My friend @Aquillion, I wondered about a whole section too. Looking again, there is a section on Training, and the event in question was a training event for child psychiatrists, so we can put it there. The article is reporting facts or quotes uncovered by the journalist, not opinions or perspectives. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia, the Telegraph is "generally reliable". Is there a specific phrase you are concerned about? AndyGordon (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My objection is more WP:RECENTISM and over-reliance on one source (which can result in giving it undue weight even when the source is reliable - especially when a source is reliable but potentially biased.) I'd really just prefer to wait until a second source covers it to establish relevance and to give us a better sense of which aspects are important. With just one source, it's not clear to me that Mermaids objecting to a speaker at a conference is worth covering here at all. Does this have long-term significance, or is it just a flash in the pan, basically? I'm also looking at the extremely thorny issues the current training section has (again, breathless, intense focus on one source from 2020 that doesn't seem to have had any followup or long-term relevance; and deadlocks in any effort to revise, remove, or improve it - I'd rather cut further additions that seem similar to that off in the pass to avoid a repeat, and wait until we have multiple sources so we can be sure we're writing balanced coverage.) Basically, are either of these significant aspects of Mermaids' long term coverage or reputation? I see no evidence of that, so I feel we should slow down and try to build an article based on more diverse longer-term sources rather than a handful of breaking pieces from the same outlet.  --Aquillion (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear @Aquillion there's a pretty high bar to clear to get quoted in a mainstream newspaper like the Telegraph. Susie Green is speaking passionately from her years of experience as CEO: "stay clear of anyone involved with anti-trans pseudo-medical platforms that have been set up with the sole intention of attacking trans people (especially trans youth) and their healthcare." It sounds pretty significant to Susie Green.
 * Moreover, the Telegraph subtitle, "trans activists refused to appear alongside gender-critical speakers" appears to be part of a trend.
 * I am a gentle editor and don't like edit wars - please put the report back.
 * Several other points in the article are supported by a single reliable source; I don't see any argument in policy to need multiple sources. AndyGordon (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'm specifically not happy with the amount that is currently cited to single sources, especially for more controversial, breaking-news, or flashpoint-y stuff. I think we could rewrite and refine most of the stuff currently there to rely on more sources, though - some parts might require tweaks, but they'd be good tweaks. I'm not convinced it's possible to do that for this, though, at least not at the moment, and I don't think we need to include every time anything Susie Green says or does gets coverage anywhere. It's possible that it is part of a trend, but if you want to imply that in the article, then you need sources saying so specifically; and if you want to discuss that trend here, you would need sources connecting it to Mermaids unambiguously. "Here's an article I personally feel is part of a trend" is a dangerous way to add things to articles because it can lead to WP:OR / WP:SYNTH; if there's really a trend, then it's better to wait until there's secondary coverage saying so unambiguously. It's particularly dangerous to repeatedly rely on the same source over and over again to establish a trend, since you might just be discovering their biases in terms of what they cover and emphasize rather than a trend that is statistically meaningful.  Waiting for high-quality sources saying there is a trend and tying everything together into a coherent whole as opposed to hot-off-the-presses isn't-this-shocking news reports avoids that. Or, in other words - if this is a trend, there should be plenty more coverage than this one article to show that, right? --Aquillion (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear colleague @Aquillion, you are right that my saying "appears to be part of a trend" is not a good argument.
 * Still, this is the first time we are using journalism from Ewan Somerville in this article, so it's not as if we are over dependent on his reporting.
 * Placing this well-sourced factual material in the Training section appears appropriate - it would be the second clash between Mermaids and Transgender Trend to be reported in that section.
 * Regarding WP:RECENTISM, that article points out pros and cons. It's not a prohibition on recent material. There's no policy saying we need more than one source.
 * Mermaids (charity) - Wikipedia
 * Please restore the text that you've cut. Many thanks. AndyGordon (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It would seem reasonable to me to remove the RSOPINION-sourced "Training" content but to retain the Somerville-based content, which at least has the merit of being sourced to a RS. Does that make sense to you, AndyGordon? Newimpartial (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @Newimpartial. Thanks for backing me re the Somerville material.  The other Training material is completely separate, and no I don't agree with removing it. There was a long discussion and we ended up with a well-sourced statement, with an inline atttribute to the journalist. AndyGordon (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The text Thomas said that some campaigners, including Safe Schools Alliance and Transgender Trend, have criticised some resources used by Mermaids in trainings on the grounds that they reinforce rigid gender roles, and that they might cause non-conforming children to identify as transgender appears to be an attributed statement of fact. Per RSOPINION, I don't think we are supposed to do that in WP articles. Also, having two controversies sourced essentially to the same BIASED source seems unDUE; I can't support the inclusion of both... Newimpartial (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh? It's not a statement (claim) of fact because it's attributed.
 * Sadly your wikilink to WP:BASEDSOURCES is red; a guide to know for a fact which sources are based and which are cringe would be nice... Crossroads -talk- 04:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm restoring the text about the GOSH conference. The article is structured into a lot of little sections, and this is another such section.
 * The Telegraph is listed in WP:RSP as "generally reliable". Please read WP:GREL. It says: "Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing".
 * From WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
 * Hence, I am being a little WP:BOLD and restoring the text. AndyGordon (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Crossroads. I have tragically fixed the redlink typo, tempted as I might be to write the essay on BASED sources.
 * Also, I have continued the dispute discussion of the "Training" section above, where it belongs. Newimpartial (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (Just passing.) I was somewhat startled to find, at the end of an opinion piece in the Observer a link to an article in the Telegraph, which I see has been used as a source for the section on the conference at Great Ormond St and Davies-Arai. I see there has been some discussion here about whether this event is sufficiently significant to be worthy of inclusion in this article. I would suggest that anything which causes the Observer to cite the Telegraph is worthy of note. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)