Talk:Women's Declaration International/Archive 2

Relevance of Articles
1. This article contains two cited articles about Kathleen stock, neither of them mention WDI. The only relevance to this article is that she is a signatory to the declaration.

2. I cited an article from the Washington Post which references Kara Dansky, signatory and president of the U.S. chapter of WDI, which was removed as it did not reference WDI.

The above positions can not stand as they contradict each other.

Either articles have to reference WDI directly or it is acceptable to reference articles about notable members of WDI.

I am happy either way but either all articles must be removed or all articles remain.

I seek consensus.Bartleyo (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Both and  have already tried explaining to you why the Stock articles are appropriate, but the Dansky one is not. There is no contradiction here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For one, the claim no source used in this article mentions WDI + Stock is false; iNews clearly does. If you require another one, The Independent also mentions it. Does that help? (More broadly you might benefit from reading WP:POINT, which details why you may argue for a particular view of consistency here but generally shouldn't pursue eye-for-an-eye edits by applying a standard you disagree with somewhere else.) —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @0xF8E8 please do not misquote me "the claim no source used in this article mentions WDI + Stock is false". I have been very clear in my statement in line 1 above and included the references to the two articles in question which do not reference WDI.
 * I am asking for consistency within this article in order to provide balance not with any other part of wikipedia, WP:Point does not apply.
 * Kara Dansky is the head of the US chapter of WDI and is a signatory. This is not in question: In the press, on her own website ,  on the WDI USA website , even on Amazon Bartleyo (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to include some or all of the aformentioned citations to support that Kara Dansky is the leader of the U.S. Chapter of the WDI, which will resolve any concerns anyone might have about WP:SYNTH Bartleyo (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * No, that is still SYNTH. I've already tried explaining to you how combining two sources, in this case the Washington Post (A) piece and one of the other ones you've provided above (B), to assert that Dansky said what the Washington Post wrote as head of the US branch of WDI (C). SYNTH prevents us from doing A + B = C. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then how do the articles about Kathleen Stock where WDI is not mentioned have any relevance to this WDI article? Bartleyo (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Start with, the follow the links there to the two previous replies. I do not know any other way to explain it to you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (e-c) The relevance of Stock to this article is established by the two sources discussing her in relation to the WDI. The other two sources provide some information about what Stock is notable for, which serves the reader by saving them having to click the link for this information. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so let me make sure I have this absolutely clear:
 * 1 Here are two articles about Kathleen Stock being a signatory to WDI and because they reference Kathleen Stock as a signatory to the declaration, these two articles are valid for inclusion even though they do not reference WDI?
 * 2 Here are two articles about Kara Dansky stating she is the President of the U.S chapter of WDI, a statement on her personal website stating she is the President of the U.S chapter of WDI, a statement on the WDI website stating she is the President of the U.S chapter of WDI and a PodCast on Amazon stating she is the President of the U.S chapter of WDI and in spite of all the preceding references, this Article in the Washington Post is not valid for inclusion because it does not mention that she is a member of WDI?
 * Is the above correct? Bartleyo (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. The link between Stock and WDI/WHRC is established in the first two sources. As Newimpartial said, the second two sources provide some information relating to Stock's general notability.
 * Yes, that is correct. The Washington Post article does not establish the link between Dansky and WDI. It only establishes a link between Dansky and WoLF. In order to establish the link between Dansky and WDI, you need a second set of sources and are required to SYNTHesise that information from the amalgamation of the sources. Doing so is a textbook example straight from WP:SYNTH.
 * Do you now understand how these are two different situations? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am concerned you have misunderstood my proposition as I have changed the order of the articles. There are 5 articles in the second line which establish a link between Kara Dansky and the WDI. Please re-read my two statements and check the linked articles and then confirm if you still agree. Bartleyo (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I note from you user page that you are an expert in Computer Algorythms so will attempt to explain my position in pseudocode:
 * This works if the Kathleen stock article which references to the WDI is selected as the primary article, all others which reference Kathleen Stock will become acceptable.
 * If we use the Washington post Article as the primary article then the others will not become acceptable because the first IF condition is not met. However, if we choose any of the other articles about Kara Dansky then all the others including the washington post article become acceptable. I hope this might explains my difficulty in understanding your position.
 * If this has not helped then please say so and I will strike it out to avoid any confusion. Bartleyo (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you putting the effort into writing this pseudocode example. The issue is that the Washington Post article is always the primary article for this quotation, because that is where you are sourcing the quotation from. The order of the other sources that establish the link between Dansky and WDI is irrelevant, because the Washington Post article does not link Dansky to WDI. It links her to WoLF.
 * The only way to use that quotation from Dansky would be to substitute the Washington Post article for another one from a reliable source, that contains the same quotation, and that establishes the link between Dansky and WDI. In that circumstance, this other article would become the primary article for the quotation. However this seems unlikely to me, given that at the date of the quotation (February 2020) the predecessor organisation, WHRC, was only active (to my knowledge) within the UK. It had not at that time branched out internationally. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed when I was first replying that you had put the articles about Dansky's link to WDI before the Washington Post article. However that does not change the fact that the Washington Post article does not link Dansky to WDI, nor does it change my answer above. This is an issue because the text you want to add started The Washington Post reported Kara Dansky, U.S chapter president, as saying.... The Washington Post made no such report. To be accurate to the source, you would need to say something like The Washington Post reported Kara Dansky, a WoLF board member from the District [of Colombia], as saying.... However even if you were to do so, that quotation still would not be allowed here because it is not relevant to the article on WDI/WHRC.
 * Conversely, if there is a source, that attributes a quotation to Dansky, and establishes the link between herself and WDI, it might be due for inclusion, pending it meeting other criteria such as but not limited to WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV.
 * The only articles where that quotation could be used, assuming within the context of those articles that the quotation met other criteria such as WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, WP:BLPBALANCE and others, would be a biographical article on Dansky, or on WoLF, as in either case the link between Dansky and WoLF is established by this source. However as no such article on Dansky exists, the creation of one would be required at minimum to meet WP:GNG. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the basis of your challenge that quoting the Washington post article as referring to Kara Dansky as WDI president appears incorrect. However, as she actually IS the WDI U.S. chapter president I struggle to understand the problem this seems an unnecessary . By the same token, I don't believe anyone would take exception to the statement "President Trump once said 'Grab 'em by the #####'." even though he was plain old "Mr Trump" when he actually said it.
 * However, the article is still valid for inclusion under the same justification as the Kathleen Stock articles which do not mention WDI as there are multiple sources, from a range of different websites, which state that Kara Dansky is the president of the U.S chapter of WDI. This is sufficient to establish the link reliably. As a Chapter President her activities in other areas would then become open for inclusion under the same justification as the Kathleen Stock articles. Bartleyo (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * However, the article is still valid for inclusion under the same justification as the Kathleen Stock articles which do not mention WDI as there are multiple sources, from a range of different websites, which state that Kara Dansky is the president of the U.S chapter of WDI. This is sufficient to establish the link reliably. As a Chapter President her activities in other areas would then become open for inclusion under the same justification as the Kathleen Stock articles. Bartleyo (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a WP:COATRACK problem, since the material you want to add has to do with Dansky's statement of her own views, not the WDI, whereas the reason Stock is discussed in this article is because of the controversy about her endorsement of the WDI (and therefore not COATRACK). Newimpartial (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Re: the Trump quote. It would depend on context, but overall WP:BLP would be the deciding factor. BLP requires us to be very careful when adding statements that are attributed to living or recently deceased individuals. However for Trump, in addition to sources contemporary to when he originally said that statement, we also very likely have sources contemporary to when he was President. Those sources would make that link; that in the past President Trump said X. And accordingly we could say that President Trump said X, because we have sources that establish that in context. However if we only had sources that were contemporary to when Trump originally said that statement, we could not say in Wiki voice that President Trump said the statement. At best we could say that Mr Trump, on said the statement. I realise that may look like a very arbitrary and pedantic difference, especially to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but it is a vital and mandatory one when writing any content on Wikipedia.
 * Re: Dansky as WDI president. We do not disagree on that. No-one here has denied that Dansky is involved with WDI. And there is ample sourcing asserting Dansky's link to WDI. The problem is that the Washington Post, in the context of the quote that you wish to use them as a source, does not make this link. In order to use this quotation, the source, whether it is the Washington Post, or otherwise, needs to assert the statement was made in the context of Dansky being involved with WDI. Unfortunately, the source you wish to use does not do this. It only asserts the quotation in the context of Dansky's link to WoLF, an entirely separate organisation. To restate, using the pseudo-code example above, in the context that you wish to use the Washington Post article as a source, it is inherently always the primary article. As such that source, whether it is the Washington Post or some other media outlet that has the same quotation, needs to assert the link between Dansky and WDI. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is also why I said, in my reply above Conversely, if there is a source, that attributes a quotation to Dansky, and establishes the link between herself and WDI, it might be due for inclusion, pending it meeting other criteria such as but not limited to WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV. The problem here isn't including or excluding comments made by Dansky in her role as WDI chapter lead. The problem is trying to use a statement, attributed to Dansky in a non WDI context, in an article about WDI.
 * If you wish to add a quotation from Dansky, from a source that establishes that the quotation was made in the context of her association with WDI, then that might be due for inclusion, depending on the other criteria used for assessing whether or not such a statement is WP:DUE for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Scare quotes?
Why the MOS:SCAREQUOTES around "sex-based rights"? An example of usage without quotes, from a generally reliable source. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The example given here attributes the phrase to a gender-critical pressure group, so it doesn't really count as "a generally reliable source" using the phrase in its own editorial voice. Newimpartial (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Need for more nuance?
I don't think it would be a fair description to start by saying that Jeffreys thinks trans people are "parasitic." It doesn't add any understanding of her thinking, it just makes readers think she is awful. It would be better to begin the paragraph on her by the statement which is an excerpt from one of her books. Guccibelucci (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, importantly, I consider that if we are going to include the ‘parasitic’ comment, it would be better to have a quote from her which explains what she means: when men claim to be women…and parasitically occupy the bodies of the oppressed, they speak for the oppressed. They become to be recognised as the oppressed. There’s no space for women’s liberation. At present the reader has to guess what ‘parasitic’ means in this context. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Expanding to a fuller quote seems a reasonable move to me to add context, perhaps change the current content to "...while Jeffreys has said trans women "parasitically occupy the bodies of the oppressed"? JaggedHamster (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we need the full quote which I proposed, because to me, the briefer quote still does not make it clear what Jeffreys means – it’s a very odd metaphor. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, using the quote you proposed seems sensible then. JaggedHamster (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I support this also. Crossroads -talk- 00:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now made the amendment discussed. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Schubiner
Sideswipe9th restored my removal of Lindsay Schubiner. I believe her views are WP:UNDUE. I did not find evidence that she has academic expertise in a relevant field; rather, she seems to be treated as an authority by advocacy groups and 'progressive journalism' outlets. Her mention at her group's website says she has a master's in public health, but this isn't a public health matter. Crossroads -talk- 01:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I would dispute the assertion that transphobia isn't a public health matter. Anyway, the most relevant question is whether independent RS recognize her as an expert, not whether we as editors think her degrees are kewl. Lots of unreliable idiots idiosyncrats have impeccable degrees. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But this is about the connection between these trans-related views and other ideologies, which is more of a sociology or political science thing. And just because some degree-holders are fringe, it does not follow that a person lacking relevant degrees and quoted by a few journalists makes them an expert. Crossroads -talk- 01:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Crossroads, in case you haven't noticed it - on Wikipedia we follow the sources, not your feelings. If the sources recognize her as an expert, then we do too. I would scarcely trust you judge what is more of a sociology or political science thing - I'm confident that my degrees in that area are kewler than your credentials, but really the sources should be used to determine the question, not our opinions. Newimpartial (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It must be nice to have a kewl degree, Newimpartial. It would be even nicer if you would stop trying to stir up personal animosity on Wikipedia. But our qualifications (if any) are irrelevant on Wikipedia – we are supposed to be following the sources, not following your feelings. So your comment is irrelevant to this discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like a WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH issue. In other contexts, other reliable sources have cited Schubiner for her expertise on right-wing extremism. I would not for example describe Bloomberg News, The Oregonian, or The Washington Post as 'progressive journalism' outlets.
 * We also know that right-wing extremists have been influencing and are linked to anti-trans activists; Xtra, The Independent, British Journal of Politics and International Relations. And that Schubiner has been producing materials and comments on the link between right-wing extremists and anti-trans activism for some time Confronting White Nationalism in Schools, It's time to 86 White Nationalism, The American Independent 2021.
 * If our source cites Schubiner as an expert, and the source is reliable, then we have no reason not to follow the source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To Sideswipe9th We also know that right-wing extremists have been influencing and are linked to anti-trans activists I have read the Independent article. It does not say this. It says that some right-wing extremist groups express anti-trans views. Neither does the article in the British Journal of Politics and International Relations support what you are claiming.
 * Please tell me which of your sources refer to Schubiner as an expert on right-wing extremism. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume that would be The American Independent, which is used as the relevant source in this article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Curiously, that article doesn’t actually say that Schubiner is an expert; it reads as if the writer is trying to imply it, without having any grounds to do so. And Bloomberg News, The Oregonian, and The Washington Post treat her as a commentator, rather than as an expert. So I don’t think we should be giving so much attention to her views in our article.
 * Also, the comments about the right wing do not relate directly to WDI, so they do not qualify for a place in our article.
 * In fact, Schubiner’s comments are not fairly represented by the current wording Lindsay Schubiner, an expert on right-wing extremism, said the event is part of a larger threat to democracy and an attempt to legitimize and spread transphobia. But as I read her comments in The American Independent, she seems rather more concerned that right wingers are using protests about transgender issues in order to further right wing aims. e.g. "I think we've seen from more overtly white nationalist groups some attempts recently to exploit the current increased focus on spreading homophobia and transphobia on the broader right and institutional environments to really build some bridges to more mainstream conservative groups and to recruit more people further into bigoted and white nationalists ideology and groups," Schubiner said. Whereas our article currently reads as if it is the reverse - as if the whole purpose of right wing political activism is just an attempt to legitimize and spread transphobia. The full quote about ‘legitimizing’ transphobia is There has been a clear increase in organizing to promote anti-LGBTQ and specifically anti-trans bigotry and I think that we can see that trend line moving up. This event in particular looks like an attempt to legitimize and elevate and spread their transphobia and especially to build political power around specific anti-trans policy goals." [ my emphasis]
 * So after consideration, I support ' deletion of the comment by her.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should check your reading comprehension first. 'We are seeing white nationalist groups use anti-LGBTQ bigotry to build political power,' said an expert on white nationalism is quoting Schubiner. That means they are referring to Schubiner - quite literally - as an expert on white nationalism.
 * I don't have the patience to read your original interpretation of commentary text at the moment; I was here for the pizza question of Schubiner's expertise. I am largely unconcerned with your or Crossroads' subjective perceptions of that expertise. Newimpartial (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To Newimpartial: I observe that you prefer insulting me to engaging with what I have said. The quote you refer to above is part of the headline, not part of the text of the article. And accusing me of POV editing is not a substitute for demonstrating that your view is correct. If you don’t have the patience to engage seriously with what sources say, then why are you commenting here? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that you are reading that phrase correctly by interpreting it as a headline. To me, it looks more like a bold floating quotation. And if you read Maybe you should check your reading comprehension as an insult, it is clear to me that you must not be the object of actual insults very often, since that is not one. I would advise you, however, not to make non-factual claims about other editors' actions, whether that concerns "insults" or supposed "accusations".
 * I am not accusing you of POV editing - in fact, I don't recall commenting on your editing at all, in this discussion. What I said was that you are engaging in original secondary interpretation based on your subjective perceptions (quite literally, your POV). You say: But as I read her comments ... she seems rather more concerned that right wingers are using protests about transgender issues in order to further right wing aims. And then you add emphasis to her quote to promote your interpretation. But she does say that This event in particular looks like an attempt to legitimize and elevate and spread their transphobia and especially to build political power around specific anti-trans policy goals (this time with my emphasis). You are placing the emphasis on a broader purpose, "in order to further right wing aims" (your phrase), but the selection under discussion actually specifies those aims, anti-trans policy goals. So, on a surface level, having this argument is tedious but I suppose it is necessary to show precisely how you are imposing your own interpretation onto the source - the source says that these right-wing actors are using transphobia to mobilize support for anti-trans policy goals, but you are interpreting the source as implying that the relevant goals are not necessarily anti-trans but more broadly right wing (which the evidence you are citing does not support).
 * On more of a meta level, though, I am not convinced that this kind of hermeneutics is really necessary: we should be ensuring that our article text communicates clearly what the source actually says (when the source is relevant, as in this instance it clearly is). Crossroads and yourself have both tried to preempt these questions of simple paraphrase and emphasis by trying to question the credentials of the expert cited, even though the independent, secondary sourcing is quite transparent in its attribution of expertise. I am not saying that you are making these ad hominem comments on the source because you object to their POV - I am simply saying that there is no basis in WP policy and guidelines for the questions you are raising about Schubiner's expertise, so you ought to stop. Newimpartial (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial has it right. The quotation We are seeing white nationalist groups use anti-LGBTQ bigotry to build political power, appears twice in the article. Once at the top of the article in the summary field immediately after the social media buttons, and once in the body. In the summary field it adds said an expert on white nationalism.. In the body it replaces that with Schubiner said.
 * Note that I say summary field because it is not the headline. The headline for that article is Experts on white nationalism say anti-trans rally in DC part of larger threat to democracy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

To Newimpartial: Regarding your comment that I must not be the object of actual insults very often – well, it’s true that in real life I am rarely insulted. Wikipedia, of course, is another matter. But, either in real life or on Wikipedia, you are the only person who has insulted me by claiming that I have difficulty with reading comprehension. If you think that denigrating a Wikipedia editor’s reading competence is not an insult, then I suggest you try to imagine what the reaction would be if you did that to a colleague in real life. The degree of unpleasantness prevalent on Wikipedia has perhaps affected your assessment of what counts as insulting.

You say that you are not accusing you [me] of POV editing, but this - subjective perceptions - links to WP:POV which is about editing articles. So if you don’t want to accuse me of POV editing, you should be more careful in what you write.

I don’t want to get involved in a quarrel over this – but it’s tedious, and I wish you would stop.

Getting back to the main subject, you say: the source says that these right-wing actors are using transphobia to mobilize support for anti-trans policy goals, but you are interpreting the source as implying that the relevant goals are not necessarily anti-trans but more broadly right wing (which the evidence you are citing does not support).

No, I am saying what Schubiner said: "I think we've seen from more overtly white nationalist groups some attempts recently to exploit the current increased focus on spreading homophobia and transphobia on the broader right and institutional environments to really build some bridges to more mainstream conservative groups and to recruit more people further into bigoted and white nationalists ideology and groups"

I am not making any ad hominem comments on the source, merely pointing out that there is no secondary source saying she is an expert. And I don’t know why you think that I object to Schubiner’s POV – since I have not mentioned my attitude to Schubiner’s statements, that would involve you knowing my thoughts.

It's way past my bedtime. Thank you and Good Night. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, saying that there is no secondary source saying she is an expert, when a source has been presented to you that does make that assertion, could be a failure in reading comprehension, or could be a motivated interpretation (and I won't link POV policy there due to your expressed sensitivity to the distinction between editing articles and Talk page participation, but that interpretation would clearly be motivated by your POV). Perhaps there is another explanation, but if so it has not been presented here and I certainly can't think of one at the moment.
 * As previously stated, I am not saying that you object to Schubiner's POV, which would indeed be mind reading. I am saying that either you don't understand what you have read, or you are misinterpreting it because of your perceptual framework - and either way, your ensuing comments doesn't help us develop a policy-compliant article.
 * Finally, I will try to AGF about your shift in the focus of attention from one Schubiner quote to the other, and instead I will ask you: why do you believe that the passage you just quoted is more relevant to this article than the one we were both discussing previously?
 * As an aside, I am quite puzzled that you seem to interpret "reading comprehension" ontologically, as a trait, when it seems quite obvious to me that I am referring to an activity, phenomelologically. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll assume good faith here but it's difficult to understand the continued argument over this. It seems clear from the sources already given that she is considered an expert in this field. If another source would help, then for example https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-extremist-groups-80e309418abecd0b1d50ec4762e6d9c6 has "...Lindsay Schubiner, an expert in extremism with the Western States Center."
 * With regards to "And I don’t know why you think that I object to Schubiner’s POV – since I have not mentioned my attitude to Schubiner’s statements, that would involve you knowing my thoughts", you've not directly stated your attitude to her statements but you'll hopefully understand that some people might worry your strenous objections to the inclusion of this content is motivated by your disagreeing with it. In the interests of WP:DGF it might be useful to elaborate on if you do disagree with her and if that's possibly a factor in why you're objecting to her inclusion in the article. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To Sideswipe9th: No, the statement you are relying on is not part of the article.
 * To JaggedHamster: Thank you for providing the AP source. As you say, this does include "...Lindsay Schubiner, an expert in extremism with the Western States Center." i.e. it does not say she is an expert in ‘right-wing’ extremism, as our article currently has it.
 * To Newimpartial: why do you believe that the passage you just quoted is more relevant to this article than the one we were both discussing previously? Well, I find it much more insightful and interesting than the quote which is currently somewhat misleadingly reflected in our article. But then, I’m interested in politics, which is one reason for my delay in replying here (the other reason being that I’ve been trying to watch Wimbledon – while checking the BBC website on the changeovers to see how many more people have resigned from the government).
 * To all:
 * Would anyone object if we just said that she is an expert in extremism?
 * Also, the current quote we are using in our article and Lindsay Schubiner, an expert on right-wing extremism, said the event is part of a larger threat to democracy and an attempt to legitimize and spread transphobia is truncated and misleading. I have to say that I think the inclusion of Schubiner’s comment is WP:COATRACKING. But if it is to stay, would anyone object if we gave the full quote:There has been a clear increase in organizing to promote anti-LGBTQ and specifically anti-trans bigotry and I think that we can see that trend line moving up. This event in particular looks like an attempt to legitimize and elevate and spread their transphobia and especially to build political power around specific anti-trans policy goals."?
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think these are both good, especially the inclusion of the quote rather than the Wikipedia editor's summary. Crossroads -talk- 18:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the statement you are relying on is not part of the article. What? The quotation from Schubiner is very clearly in that article twice; once in the article summary where it clearly says said an expert on white nationalism, and once in the article body attributed to her directly by name. White nationalism is a subset of far-right politics and the alt-right. Are you sure you're reading the correct article here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Sideswipe, I thought you were solely referring to the second part of the headline, which is not part of the article. But if you are referring to While the rally was focused on banning trans people from their appropriate sports teams, experts on right-wing extremism say that anti-LGBTQ organizing plays into efforts to spread white nationalism and other right-wing ideologies and is part of a larger overall threat to democracy., then my point is that this does not say that Schubiner is an expert on right-wing extremism. It doesn’t say who the “experts” are, and the next sentence doesn’t say that Schubiner is one of them. It is possible to read into the text an implication that Schubiner is an expert on right-wing extremism and white nationalism, but this is not clear enough to use the article as a basis to say that she is an expert. But the AP source now provided does explicitly describe her as an expert in extremism. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sweet6970, your view that the Schubiner quote attached to "an expert in right-wing extremism" is the second part of the headline and therefore not part of the article is an idiosyncratic, minority view, and you can't use it as a major premise for any conclusion. If you can read this article and conclude that the authors of the article are not saying that Schubiner is, in fact, an expert on right-wing extremism, then I can only suggest that you are experiencing difficulties with reading comprehension, or engaging in strongly motivated exegesis, and neither of those scenarios is likely to help us in constructing and maintaining a policy-compliant article. Newimpartial (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So far, there may be disagreement about the way the American Independent article is to be interpreted, but no-one has actually objected to my proposed changes.  Let’s try to stick to discussion about possible changes to the article, rather than my reading ability. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not object to "extremism" (rather than "right-wing extremism"), nor do I object to the longer quote. Newimpartial (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now made the amendments. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Anti-trans rally
In June 2022 several groups opposing trans rights, including WDI USA, Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council and Women's Liberation Front, organized an anti-trans rally in Washington D.C

I'm questioning why this event is referred to as "an anti-trans rally"? Is it neutral and balanced to describe it as such, when the news article referenced states that the rally was actually called "Our Bodies, Our Sports" and was held by several women's rights groups? Would it not be more neutral to describe it as "a rally called 'Our Bodies, Our Sports"? The "anti-trans rally" is clearly the point of view of this news article, and not the official name of the rally. 82.3.222.210 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree - it is only the headline which refers to the rally as 'anti-trans'. Headlines are not to be used as sources: see WP:HEADLINES. I am changing the text of the article accordingly. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

relevant and WP:DUE?
Hi everyone, I was not able to determine how this 2014 quote directly relates to this 2019 organization, so I removed it from the article and added it here for further discussion about whether and/or where it should be included:

Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I can't see how it is relevant to this organisation. It is something she wrote in a book five years before this organisation was even founded. It does not belong in this article. We already have enough to give a flavour of her views and anybody who wants to know more can click on the link to her article. The quote plausibly might have a place in the article about Jeffreys. I have not looked into it and so am neutral on that. DanielRigal (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was added on 15:08, 17 March 2022‎ (UTC) by an IP editor. Unfortunately that revision was later deleted due to it containing a large copyvio. There was a bit of an edit war around that time, but was the first editor to  with the edit summary "restore informative edits". Perhaps Sweet6970 can give us an idea why it's worth keeping? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree with 's removal on 9 March 2023, which had the edit summary "Removing lengthy book quote. WP:UNDUE. Not WP:FRINGE compliant per WP:PROFRINGE. Trans exclusionary radical feminism wikilink serves the same purpose. Should RS reflect group's definition of Radical feminism, that may be included with attribution." I haven't reviewed the WP:FRINGE aspect, but my concern is similar with regard to the need for RS about the group's definition. The quote was restored by Sweet6970 on 9 March 2023  with the edit summary "reinstate relevant and DUE material", hence the title for this section. Beccaynr (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The comment about ‘parasites’ was reported in 2018, which is shortly prior to the launch of WDI, and since Sheila Jeffreys is one of the founders, it is reasonable to include this view in our article, because it illuminates the inspiration for the creation of this organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * From my view, the 2018 quote by Jeffreys in the article is presented with context by a news source considered generally reliable by WP:RS/P, and it appears relevant to the article; by contrast, the description of 'radical feminist theorists' in her own 2014 work does not seem as illuminating - it appears to be her view on 'the radical feminist approach' without indicating whether or not she ascribes to the approach. Beccaynr (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Edits 23 April 2023
1) You may have seen in the edit history that I reverted all the edits made by  because they had been made without discussion on the Talk page. Can you convince me that I should not do the same with your recent edits? Are you not aware that this is a contentious article?

2) In particular, why have you deleted has said that "transgenderism" is in breach of article 5 of the UN convention on eliminating discrimination against women and girls, because "the practice of transgenderism clearly falls under the article because it is based on stereotypical roles for men and women". ?

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Hi Sweet6970, I can see in the edit history that you made a revert during what appears to have been a now-revdel'ed edit war over what appears to have been WP:COPYVIO content. However, I have added edit summaries to my recent edits and can further discuss them if there are specific questions or concerns. I am aware that this is a contentious topic.
 * 2) With regard to the quoted text above, this was in the lead; I initially addressed this content by removing it as WP:UNDUE (and I intend to use the added source from the US to further develop the article); as I continued to review sources and the article, it became more clear that the reference cited was not discussing the Declaration, but instead a different document written for other advocacy, so I removed it from the lead  after developing content in the main article that it does support . The article currently includes some critique of the Declaration related to its appeal to international law principles and a source from an attorney that I have not yet fully reviewed that may be useful for further developing content; I also think we need to be mindful of the WP:PROFRINGE guideline (and WP:PROMO policy) when considering how to present content, so additional research may be helpful for this aspect.
 * My work on the article so far is after a first review of sources and the article content, as well as the AfD discussion. Please let me know if you have any questions or further concerns. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The edit war was not solely about copyvio – it was also about unagreed changes to the article – like yours in being unagreed, although the actual changes were different.
 * 2) …. as I continued to review sources and the article, it became more clear that the reference cited was not discussing the Declaration, but instead a different document written for other advocacy, so I removed it from the lead [6] after developing content in the main article that it does support Sorry, you’ve lost me. What do you mean developing content in the main article that it does support?
 * 3) It appears that you are still intending to make further alterations to the article, so that it is not possible for anyone (e.g. me) to assess whether they agree with the changes or not, because there is not even a final version to assess. I feel inclined to revert to the version before your edits. It is much better to discuss proposals on this Talk page, and get them agreed, before making numerous changes. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) This article does not appear to be under any editing restrictions, so it is not clear to me why every change (e.g. removal of unsourced content, addition of sourced content, removal of what appear to be excess or questionable sources, etc) needs advance consensus.
 * 2) I used the source to develop content it supports, i.e. In 2021, the group called for the repeal of the Gender Recognition Act in a submission to the Women and Equalities Select Committee for an inquiry chaired by Tory MP Caroline Nokes. The source does not discuss the Declaration, so it does not appear to support what it was initially used to support in the lead , with regard to the Declaration.
 * 3) If there are specific concerns about an edit or edit summary, please let me know. At this point, I think we can follow the usual protocol for developing content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * so that it is not possible for anyone (e.g. me) to assess whether they agree with the changes or not, because there is not even a final version to assess I'm not sure if this is a valid reason to revert. While I can sympathise because the volume of edits and in some cases the amount of text added or removed looks daunting to assess, 's edit summaries are accurate for the scope of what each edit contains, and I don't think they've made any edits where they've made multiple sweeping changes in the same revision.
 * This is also quite different from the situation above with where Tom initially made a series of two edits to  from the lead before  the content in a criticism section. Whenever I made my first revert to Tom's edits, I was clear  as to why I was reverting. At that time, there had been only one net edit by Tom, though it was a rather lengthy edit in and of itself. Later when Tom introduced copyvio text, I was again pretty clear in my edit summary and here on the talk page for why exactly I was reverting. As I said above, because removing just the infringing material would have left the article in an unreadable state due to the surrounding content changes, per the copyvio policy I had to revert to the last stable version where that content did not exist so that all of the infringing revisions could be deleted.
 * In this circumstance, if there's an edit you find wholly objectionable, WP:CAUGHTUP tells us that you should revert that part only. From what I've read of Beccaynr's edits so far (edits up to 06:33 UTC today), I've not seen any major issues. All of them seem to be policy and guideline complaint. My only disagreements are on minor phrasing, but that's mostly because my writing style differs from theirs. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've read through all of the changes up to the point of making this reply. There's only two bits that stick out at me.
 * In, text is added about WDI USA issuing a statement on a Women's Bill of Rights that was developed by the Republican Study Committee. While we're citing the RSC's press release for a quotation from Dansky, I think it would be better if we could cite a RS that's independent of both Dansky and the Committee. I don't think that a press release from the Committee really demonstrates that the quotation is due, as for obvious reasons they are going to include statements and quotations from individuals and organisations who are supportive of the proposed legislation.
 * The history and structure section is kinda disjointed in its flow of events, particularly in the first paragraph. We start with a sentence that the organisation launched in March 2019, which is a good place to start. But then we jump back to February and March 2018 for some background on two of the founders, before returning to 2019 and a description of the organisation by PinkNews. While that background of Jeffreys and Brunskell-Evans is important, as I think it gives context for why those two women were involved in setting up the organisation and why the organisation has the viewpoints that it has, and could likely be expanded with an additional sentence about O'Hara if suitable sourcing exists, the paragraph as a whole seems disjointed. Is there any way to better integrate the content in this paragraph so that it doesn't jump around in chronology as much? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done a Google search on the WDI USA quotation from Dansky. Aside from ourselves, and the press release, the only other source that seems to directly quote from it is the Magnolia Tribune. Though a discussion for WP:RSN, I'm not entirely sure if the Tribune is a reliable source. While their approach page states that their coverage will be "unvarnished by bias", there's no evidence there or anywhere else on their site of a corrections policy. Reliability issues aside, is a single independent source enough to demonstrate due weight? Are there any other sources that I've missed? Perhaps sources that have paraphrased Dansky's statement instead of quoting it verbatim? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * With regard to the addition of text about Kara Danksy, the president of WDI USA, issuing a statement of support on behalf of WDI USA, I think it may be WP:DUE because there is more than a press release added - I think the contextual sources may help support the addition in the sense that WP:DUE discusses how the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. I also think the connection drawn in the quote between the Declaration and US advocacy seems straightforward, and is similar to other content that directly quotes the website of the organization in the History and structure section. Beccaynr (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I think the contextual citations would support mentioning somewhere in the article that Dansky is in charge of the US branch of the organisation, I don't think that they particularly establish that the quotation itself is due. They're both pre-dating the quotation by a couple of years. From reading the press release, it seems that WDI USA one of the groups/organisations that support the proposed bill, but aside from that support it doesn't really established if they were involved in the drafting of it. I know in the next paragraph we state that model legislation from WDI USA had been distributed and used in several states as a basis for restrictions on gender-affirming healthcare. Is it also the case that the proposed bill of rights drew from WDI USA model legislation? If so, is there a source for that?
 * If not, keeping WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE in mind, what value does the quotation add beyond perhaps a smaller mention that WDI USA supported the proposed legislation? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * From my view, the mention of the Declaration and the connection to the US advocacy seemed to be a reasonable use of an WP:RSPRIMARY. It would be preferable to have a secondary source, but I was thinking "would enshrine into law many of the principles outlined in the global Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights, which we work to advance throughout U.S. law." is straightforward enough to avoid WP:PROMO, including because of the context in the article about the Declaration.
 * However, paraphrasing could be helpful - I do tend to start with a quote from sources for clarity, but maybe some refinement could address some of these concerns. This appears to be a complex legal area, so we don't want to overstate the role of WDI with the Women's Bill of Rights, so that is part of my preference for using the quote and identifying WDI USA as a supporter.
 * Apparently, the Women's Bill of Rights is "based on model legislation developed by the conservative Independent Women’s Voice and the Women’s Liberation Front, a trans-exclusionary feminist group." (The Hill, 2022) I think there may be some encyclopedic value in the connection made by the WDI USA president to the WDI Declaration and the support for the Women's Bill of Rights, but if this seems too WP:PROMO, then let's address it by paraphrasing or removal. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As to the history and structure section, I did try rearranging the chronology of the text (e.g. ) but this also did not seem to flow well. I think as research continues and the article contines to develop, this is an aspect in need of attention, but I am not currently sure how to address this without further review of sources. Beccaynr (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)