Talk:Mermaids (charity)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mermaids UK Logo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Using the term TERF in a neutral manner

This article applies TERF to two named individuals. The cited reference is a news site with a position at one end of the spectrum of views on the general subject matter of this article and on the term 'TERF'. For many people, being described as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist is derogatory. If this article is to apply this label to 2 named people, it needs to do so in as neutral a way as possible. I think this should include some sort of balancing view as to whether TERF is fair in this circumstance. At present we just have one source with a particularly polarised view of the subject. The best option so far is to include the views of one of the named individuals on usage of the term. It is not ideal, but without some balancing input, it seems that usage of a derogatory term by a partisan site should not be included in the article. To do otherwise rather implies that Wikipedia agrees with that usage.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No. Graham Linehan is a prominent anti-trans activist and Julie Bindel is the most prominent TERF in existence. Search hits for Rebecca Reilly-Cooper only turned up few editorials written by herself and this PinkNews article, which is unfortunate. The original source only had one line regarding celebrations of the grant suspension, I'd avoid name-dropping Bindel and Cooper as grossly WP:UNDUE. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think we have some agreement in that the article has dug itself into a bit of a hole by naming 2 people who supported Linehan. I am still hesitant about a structure that uses the term TERF based on a single partisan source. Do you have any thoughts on that point? Does not the account stand by itself without the use of a term that evokes strong feelings but is not universally understood.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't use the term TERF; it mentions it. See use-mention distinction. ... who PinkNews described as trans-exclusionary radical feminists is clearly attributed and to a reliable source. In comparison, the blog you added is simply not a reliable source. It's a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:DUEWEIGHT to "include some sort of balancing". We say what reliable sources say. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 08:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that an argument based on use-mention distinction is particularly helpful to an ordinary reader of Wikipedia. If the word is there, the reader will take away the point "Wikipedia said.....". Having thought this through, I do not see that the article is better for labelling anyone "TERF", certainly based on a highly partisan source. The reader should be able to make their own judgements based on the facts given and does not need to be fed a term that many feel is derogatory, and which certainly has variable definitions, depending on who uses it. The solution is surely to not use "TERF" at all.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The distinction is incredibly important. If someone reads Immigration policy of Donald Trump and leaves saying "Wikipedia said that Mexican immigrants are rapists" then that's their own fault for failing to distinguish between use and mention in the passage: During his announcement speech he stated in part, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. [...] They're rapists." Similarly, if someone leaves this article saying "Wikipedia called Bindel a TERF" then they're simply not reading what's actually written. It says who PinkNews described as trans-exclusionary radical feminists and this is (a) indisputably true and (b) significant commentary by a reliable source. Partisan does not mean unreliable, just that it shouldn't be the only source used, and indeed it isn't used again in the rest of the article. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Some answers to the User:Bilorv
(i) use-mention distinction - you will no doubt have read some of the criticism of Wikipedia for having language of too high a reading level. I do not think this encyclopedia should rely on the finer points of English language to convey the information that it contains.
(ii) I still struggle to see how labelling anyone with "TERF" makes this a better article. Surely the actions of people and organisations are described and the reader can make up their own mind what categories people fall into.
(iii) I think that your position that the description of these two women is "indisputably true" suggests that you are pushing your own point of view, rather than relying on reliable sources. The term "TERF" has variable definitions, so that is the first reason to wonder if Wikipedia should confidently be applying it to anyone - even in a quotation.
(iv) Is Pink News a reliable source? I have just re-read WP:RS. I can see that Pink News could be a reliable source if it were balanced by other sources covering the same subject from a different viewpoint. That does not see to be the case here (on the precise subject of stating that someone is a TERF). If no other source addresses, from a different viewpoint, whether this label is appropriate, the word should not be in the article. Also, the derogatory application of "TERF" to a living person tests the way that Wikipedia handles such matters - while the advice is directed toward Biographies of Living Persons, I think we should take some guidance in this instance. You can see from the blog that was briefly in the footnote of this article, that the term is strongly resisted by the person involved.
(v) Finally, I fail to see why clogging up the article with buzzwords and the language of activists does anything to inform the reader.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

To (iii), my intent was to say that it's indisputably true that PinkNews described the people as such. Surely you don't disagree that PinkNews used the term "TERF". That was the only point I was making. For (i), use-mention distinction is not a "finer point of the English language", but a difference in semantic meaning. If someone doesn't understand the difference between "X is Y" and "W said that X is Y" then that's not a problem with our phrasing but with their comprehension. As for (iv), yes, it is reliable. What source from a "different viewpoint" exactly do you propose we add? Blogs are not reliable sources. And for (ii) and (v), one clause does not "clog up the article" and the whole point of Wikipedia is to present the views and statements of reliable sources. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 22:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: My judgement that the name-dropping is undue is not an disrecommendation of the usage of TERF. From my observation, most reliable sources, from reporters to academic authors, either support its usage or uses TERF directly to describe anti-trans feminists and activists. It is not a pejorative or contentious label per se, but rather an accurate description, per the RS available on the topic. The only opposition are editorials and blog posts from these anti-trans campaigners themselves, which obviously aren't reliable sources on gender and sexuality. Bilorv is right in that attempting to "balance" the label by attaching a blog piece is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. Heck, I can say "white nationalist" is a slur too, and I can make a blog on that in a minute. The attribution to PinkNews is rather awkward aren't necessary, reads like false balance as well. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

There are three points from the two posts above that I would like to challenge.
First, is PinkNews a reliable source? Bilorv asserts that it is. I must reiterate that it can only be an RS if there is a balancing position, because it is a source that presents views only at one end of the spectrum of opinion on the subject. There are other opinions that can readily be found in mainstream newspapers - though I respectfully suggest that these might not fit with those held by others posting on this subject.
Probably just an academic point, since a blog is no longer a ref in the article, but a blog can be an RS if it is acting as a primary source to show the views of the writer of a blog. You will find this discussed under guidance for biographies of living persons.
I challenge the accuracy of User:Tsumikiria's statement that TERF is not pejorative or contentious. It is quite easy to discover that it is not a label that anyone applies to themselves. It is easy to find it being applied to others in a hateful (or worse) manner - though I do not suggest that this is occurring in the article. This must introduce into the minds of an editor the risks inherent in using the term. How does one adopt a WP:NPV if it is used without any full balancing text, including the viewpoints of those to whom this label is applied? My suggested solution to the problem is to simply not use the word "TERF" in the article, and let the narrative of events speak for itself. The alternative is to put in a reference that may be resisted by the others posting here, because they are written (in mainstream newspapers) by people who have had "TERF" applied to them. I wish I could find a way of spelling that out without sounding threatening (something which I would wish to avoid), but the article either has references to people expressing views that oppose those of some trans activists, or it avoids labelling someone as "TERF", even as reporting a view expressed by a source.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, here's my take: You are right that the article shouldn't say "TERFs" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" in Wikipedia's voice. Take a look at WP:WIKIVOICE. Tsumikiria's statement that "TERF" is not a pejorative or contentious is incorrect. His statement that "the only opposition are editorials and blog posts from these anti-trans campaigners themselves, which obviously aren't reliable sources on gender and sexuality" is also incorrect. For starters, The Economist and Daily Nous are reliable sources and they say that there are problems with using the term "TERF." Bilorv is right that "who PinkNews described as trans-exclusionary radical feminists" isn't in Wikipedia's voice. Take a look at WP:INTEXT. So the issue becomes whether it should be included. You can take that to the neutral noticeboard. If there is an additional push to use "TERFs" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminists" in Wikipedia's voice, I suggest you take that to the BLP noticeboard. I'm a sporadic editor, but I've observed these noticeboards a lot. You will get more attention from editors there than at the slow-moving neutral noticeboard. There is no way that editors at the BLP noticeboard would agree to use the contested terms to describe people by name in Wikipedia's voice, especially when those people object to the term. We don't even call people "racist" in Wikipedia's voice. We attribute that description. It's not a WP:FALSEBALANCE violation in any way. It's also disingenuous to say that opinion pieces from trans activists are more reliable than opinion pieces from the opposing side. It's not like there are reliable sources saying that if a person opposes the "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" terminology, it's fringe. An opinion piece may call "TERFs" a fringe group, but no reliable sources say that it's fringe to be opposed to being called a TERF or trans-exclusionary radical feminist. No reliable sources say that the terms are mainstream and are without controversy. Well, hmm, New Statesman calls it "a mainstream slur." Halo Jerk1 (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I also don't expect "transphobic" in Wikipedia's voice to last long at the TERF article. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the most relevant policy here is WP:RACIST: Value-laden labels [...] are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. I think TERF is absolutely a contentious label - ThoughtIdRetired's gives a pithy reasoning: it is not a label that anyone applies to themselves. It is easy to find it being applied to others in a hateful (or worse) manner. We already have the in-text attribution part checked off, so that just leaves the question of whether the label is "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject[s]", which hasn't yet been addressed in this discussion. A quick google search is not promising in this regard.

But taking a step back, I think Tsumikiria has the right idea that the whole mention of Bindel and Reilly-Cooper is WP:UNDUE. It doesn't seem like their commentary was widely covered. Is it really worth mentioning in the context of summarizing the funding affair (and, overall, in the context of summarizing the charity)? Colin M (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes if we don't want to obstruct the identities of the charity's critics. First I added that TERFs criticized the charity (including Linehan); this was reverted as "POV". Then I added that TERFs opposed the charity's grant (not including Linehan with them). Then an editor put inline attribution and named individual alleged TERFs, fine, but now you are suggesting that no perspective should be given at all. wumbolo ^^^ 07:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm just arguing for perspective that gives WP:DUE weight in accordance with the news coverage. The PinkNews article that's cited is titled "Robert Webb criticised for attacking trans kids charity Mermaids". The article is focused on Webb, and only mentions Julie Bindel and Rebecca Reilly-Cooper once (plus two quotes that include Bindel's twitter handle). So why are we mentioning Bindel and Reilly-Cooper but not Robert Webb? Here's another article on the controversy around Webb's statements - it doesn't mention Bindel or Reilly-Cooper at all. Reviewing some of the other news coverage of the funding fracas, Graham Linehan is the most frequently mentioned critic. I also see multiple articles with significant coverage of Webb's criticism, and multiple mentions of a critical editorial in the Times by Janice Turner. So it would seem very strange to me to single out two people who seem to have received only passing mentions in regard to the controversy, over others who were covered much more.

I'd suggest cutting the stuff about Bindel and Reilly-Cooper, and optionally replacing it with information about the criticism from Webb and/or Turner. I don't think calling them TERFs is going to fly (because I think it will be hard to show that the term is "widely used by reliable sources to describe [them]"), but why not quote from their commentary and let their words speak for themselves? Webb even described himself as "gender-critical" in one of his tweets. And, well, I'll let you see what article that redirects to... Colin M (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Well Janice Turner is definitely controversial. That redirect is insane though, makes me want to be a TERF. wumbolo ^^^ 21:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It may be worth pointing out that Janice Turner is a columnist, feature writer and interviewer with The Times, and has been for the past 16 years or so. She has also won various journalism awards. Whilst the Times does not get the universal support of its readers for the views of some of its writers, Turner appears to be well received by the readership of this major, mainstream paper. "Controversial" seems to be a questionable bit of pigeon-holing. Something to keep in mind when trying to keep a NPOV for this article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

See also reliable sources [1] [2]. wumbolo ^^^ 10:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I note User:Wumbolo's suggested sources, but would pose the (rhetorical) question: "if you stopped people in the street and gave them the name of each of these sources and asked them which they recognised as a source of news and opinions, which would be most commonly identified?" I suggest that the Times would win by a large margin - even if it were not the preferred news source of most of those stopped.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

From the Times [3], It is hurtful to suggest, however, as Janice did, that transsexual women in jail are “foxes in a hen house”. wumbolo ^^^ 13:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It is, of course, entirely professional of the Times to give voice to an opposing view. (That is in the same area as what we are trying to achieve with this article.) What is of note is that Turner gets a regular paycheck from the Times, and journalism awards - the contributor you cite is just that: a one-off contributor.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Founding date

The article currently states that Mermaids was founded in 1995 by a group of parents of gender nonconforming children. This is only supported by Mermaids website ([4]). Apparently, that is not supported by any third party source. The domain mermaids.co.uk was registered on 26 April 2004 and the organization registered as a charity in the UK on 20 February 2015 ([5]). The registry date is verifiable, but the claim of 1995 as a founding date might be not. --MarioGom (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed our article didn't give a source, but one can be quickly found by search: the BBC says Mermaids UK was formed in 1995. In fact we cite it in the article already, so I've given an inline citation, but I'm not sure we need third party sources for simple facts when there is no clear reason why the organisation would misrepresent them. — Bilorv (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Very biased and unreliable journalist from The Times

Even though The Times is a reliable source, Andrew Gilligan, one of its journalists, seems to be very biased, and what is most worrisome, inaccurate and misleading when reporting on transgender issues. This has been noted by The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Here and Here); and on multiple public retractions issued by The Times regarding Gilligan's deceiving articles.(Here and Here) for example. Daveout (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Two of these links are about the same error. Corrections are common in journalism, these corrections are quite minor, and so your description is way overblown. I see no reason to exclude the source; if there were a problem with it, it would have been corrected like these were. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: What about this report by GIDS\Tavistock showing that 25-38% of the children there had, in 2015, suicidal thoughts. This is a very different number than what is stated in the article ("less than 1%"). This source (bbc, 2017) brings another figure: "Research indicates that 84% have had suicidal thoughts, 40% may even have attempted suicide". You better have more than a single source to corroborate that serious claim, otherwise it fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV and will be replaced by, far more numerous, consistent and reliable, academic data. Daveout (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Regrettably, given The Times' poor-quality reporting on this subject, I believe we would need a secondary source linking that specific report to the Mermaids incident in question for us to mention it here. We should not say that either figure is correct, only giving the provenance of who gave each figure, unless we have better sourcing than the article currently includes. Though it's a claim about transgender health, since it's about one specific clinic, I'm in two minds over whether WP:MEDRS/WP:FRINGE applies here; if it does then we need to make sure we are not misrepresenting scientific consensus. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 12:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wading through the edit history I worked out that the content being disputed is this (a version of the wording which did a poor job of explaining the putative relevance of the content to this article!) / this (wording which also had issues)—yeah? But I'm not seeing evidence that it is due weight (or even particularly relevant to this article). So I think it's fine that it's currently not in the article. -sche (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Reporting allegations as facts

I am very concerned by the material introduced in this change. The whole change seems far from neutral. It lacks any edit summary explaining its intention. The biggest problem is with the "Charity ‘advised mum to force her son, 7, to live as a girl’" part. While this does summarise some of claims reported in the reference material, it does so in a completely one-sided way. It fails to include that Mermaids explicitly disputes the claims being made. The Metro source includes a statement by Mermaids in full which is not something that a news source would normally publish under a news story if it was not either required to or was doing so as part of an agreement to avoid further action. It's not quite the same as a formal retraction but it seems pretty close. The statement denies the main substance of the claim and it is pretty scathing in its tone. If we are to cover this matter I think we have to cover this as a disputed claim not as a known fact that we can be confident actually occurred as reported in those lurid headlines. (That is unless there is further coverage which makes the actual situation more clear.) Should we be looking to patch this content up or should we just revert it completely and then consider whether it can, or even should, be replaced with more neutral coverage of these claims? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nothing sourced to Metro (RSP entry) is even remotely acceptable. Nor can we start doing anything that has the possibility of misgendering low-profile BLPs, be they children or not. If this is deemed worth mentioning then we can't call the child a boy or a girl in our voice, only say who asserts the child is what gender with attribution. — Bilorv (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging DaveDaRave19 as the writer. I support inclusion with the caveats noted above and with necessary tweaks. The Times was also used as a source and is top quality per WP:RSP. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion. If it’s not reported by any minimally reliable source then it is simply not noteworthy. The Times is “generally reliable”, not “reliable each and every time”. Given Gilligan’s history of bad reporting (discussed in the topic above), common sense tells us that in this particular case we should be cautious. - Daveout(talk) 03:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be special pleading. "Generally reliable" is as high as WP:RSP gets, because no source is perfect. It's far more than "minimally reliable". If a top source covers it, that means it's covered by RS and WP:NPOV thus requires inclusion. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Helen Joyce comments about Mermaids' teaching methods

My edit including the following text has just been reverted by User:Tvcameraop with comment "This is not notable".

Helen Joyce reports that in 2019 Mermaids taught children using a "gender spectrum" and to understand that people may be at a different end of the spectrum than their sex assigned at birth; she summarizes: "In other words, what makes children girls or boys is where they fall on a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe. It is extraordinary that, nowadays, this counts as progressive."

My text is a neutral summary of a verifiable secondary source. The summary reports a view on Mermaids methods from a reputable journalist in a published book. Hence, inclusion satisfies the core content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. I don't understand the reasoning to exclude the edit. Please explain! Thanks.

AndyGordon (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think the inclusion of this is not particularly notable for a number of reasons. First, the quote does not add anything other than Joyce's interpretation and her personal opinion. Second, I feel that since we do not have any other sources which discuss how Mermaids helps children the inclusion of this is not notable. In addition, I do not currently have access to the book so I am unaware where Joyce is getting this information from and if it your summary is a neutral one - I also do not know if Joyce is a reputable journalist as you claim. And completely aside from notability discussions, this article should use British English (I have added an EngvarB tag now to reinforce that) so it should be "summarises" if you do re-add it! Thanks. Tvcameraop (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If it is felt that additional reliable sources about Mermaids helping children are absent, then they can be added, but that is not an argument for exclusion of other material. Helen Joyce has served as a journalist and editor for many years for The Economist, a highly regarded outlet. Part of her career was as a correspondent on the topic of education, which her comments above are about. It is a journalist's job to investigate and report on matters, even (in fact, especially) if those so investigated and their supporters don't like it. I see no NPOV reason for exclusion. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Tvcameraop is right. Neither Helen Joyce nor her book are notable. She also isn't any sort of specialist in education, or child development, or gender; she's a mathematician. - Daveout(talk) 06:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the all the discussion. As those more experienced than me may know better, WP:Notability "is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article" and so is not directly relevant to whether to include text within an article. The relevant principle for content within an article is WP:Noteworthy.

On the content itself, I have looked into it and there are plenty of primary sources on this matter and several secondary sources in newspapers, including one in defence of Mermaids so I intend to rewrite.

Thanks for your help. AndyGordon (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand why you feel you have to include the lengthy quotations in support of the content, but it's too much for a variety of reasons, including readability of the reference section (and edit window) and copyright concerns. I suggest that you remove the quotations, or if you can pick just two or three sentences that completely support the material a source verifies then cut it to that. For music files, for instance, we never include more than 10% of a given work. On any other article I would remove the parameters myself but people get quite trigger happy on the revert button here. — Bilorv (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the quote is small enough. What I don't get, though, is why her political opinions deserve to be mentioned here. I tried to look for secondary sources and all I found were some book reviews. There's simply no evidence that Helen is a relevant or credible voice in this matter. - Daveout(talk) 23:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

She is a mainstream and well respected journalist, and her work meets the definition for WP:RS. There is no room for special pleading, suddenly moving the goalposts for content to needing a secondary source for her when she is already a secondary source for their training. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The Spectator quote is passable but the rest are not. — Bilorv (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the feedback. I checked the WP:NPS policy about quotations; not very specific although it seems ok to quote "short sections from copyrighted primary sources, if relevant to explaining the topic of an article". I'm going to go through each of the quotes and see if I can trim them down. I am also going to add a little more detail to the first sentence of my summary of Helen Joyce's remarks, because there is a bit of a leap between the two sentences.

Again, thanks for all the help; as ever I learn from interactions with other editors! AndyGordon (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

What makes Helen Joyce's opinions WP:DUE? She is not an expert in the any related field. Not only that, I see a reliable source and GLAAD discussing her very public bigotry towards trans people. Just because someone is an idealogue, it does not make them an expert or their opinions due. In this case her views also likely fall under WP:FRINGE. Rab V (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Also will note the entire paragraph only has one secondary source, the spectator article, and that isn't a reliable source per WP:RSP. Removing it would leave the whole discussion around this incident solely based on opinion pieces. Opinion pieces only have limited use as RS, only reliable for stating that author's opinion. This leads me to believe this whole paragraph isn't due and we are not able to discuss it with any impartiality in the article since we don't have impartial and reliable sources. Rab V (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

As other editors have said above, her opinions do not seem DUE here; she does not seem to be an expert in a relevant area, contrary to a claim above, it is not apparent that her work would "meet the definition of RS" for what is is being used for, and I see almost no coverage of her opinions on Mermaids (I see...Twitter, a book review, and Quilette, none of which are reliable sources). If we were to give her opinions an amount of space in this article proportional to the weight they are given in reliable sources, that would be zero space, AFAICT. -sche (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I have used an article from The Telegraph (green at WP:RSP) to fill out the paragraph instead; however, a mainstream journalist's reporting can be DUE and is a secondary source in and of itself. (Using a primary source would be citing Mermaids' training materials directly.) Asking for a secondary source for a secondary source is special pleading, and I explained above just how mainstream and with-relevant-journalistic-experience Joyce is. Your "reliable source", the Daily Dot, is only listed at WP:RSP as reliable for internet culture, and this is way beyond mere internet culture. It has a clear ax to grind, and there is no reason to think their framing is unbiased and not cherry picked or out of context. It is in the activistic vein of a very particular point of view regarding trans issues, one not endorsed by many trans people and some of whose loudest proponents are cisgender. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The daily dot source is explicitly about Joyce's internet activity and it is a RS for internet culture. Either way we aren't using it in the article, just to show Joyce is notably unreliable on trans issues. As far as I see Joyce's book is not peer reviewed and written by a non-expert with a bigoted ax to grind. Rab V (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Helen Joyce isn't notable, or that wouldn't still be a redlink. Is Helen Joyce a WP:RS? Our guideline says Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. - much the same as gender, really. She is "reliable" for mathematics, and probably for economics and education. She has written a book on trans issues and gender identity, which I've not read. From what I've read about it, it appears to be from the written from a "gender critical" standpoint. If it's researched, more than just personal opinion, it may well qualify her as a reliable source on trans issues - even if most certainly not a neutral one. That leaves the issue of WP:DUE. Is it due to include the fact that Joyce is, apparently, incredulous that a charity for gender non-conforming children teaches that gender is a spectrum? I would think no, absolutely not. It's a bit WP:SKYISBLUE, frankly. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bastun, I don't understand your point about WP:SKYISBLUE. That page seems to be about putting in over many citations. My perspective is that there have been few reliable sources on gender critical feminism until fairly recently, and their views are under-represented in Wikipedia or in the media generally, rather than being obvious to all. AndyGordon (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Someone told me that this book can be downloaded for free via the Library Genesis project (here). I don't know if that's true or not, but if someone is willing to check that, the Tor Browser should be used. (since this may not be 100% legal in some countries). - Daveout(talk) 04:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the discussion.

I am proposing to reinstate the quote from Joyce as part of our summary of what the secondary sources say about Mermaids' use of the gender spectrum.

The two main arguments against inclusion are as follows (apologies if I am omitting any).

(1) she isn't WP:RS because she is not regarded as authoritative in relation to trans-related issues

(2) it wouldn't be WP:DUE to include the quote of her summary of the situation

Here is some context on the book "Trans" and on Helen Joyce:

• "Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality" is a 320 page book published by Oneworld Publications that has received very positive reviews in the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Evening Standard, New Statesman, and the Scotsman. The review in the Telegraph is by Kathleen Stock OBE, Professor of Philosophy, author of Material Girls, and herself recognised as an authority on the subject: Stock describes the book as a "superlative critical analysis of trans activism by journalist Helen Joyce" and also writes "As befits her background as a writer and editor for The Economist, Joyce shows an impressive capacity to handle complex statistics, legal statutes, and other bits of evidence without losing clarity or narrative drive." To summarise, Trans is a significant work, and is the primary subject of multiple independent reviews, hence satisfying point (3) of WP:JOURNALIST. (I am not primarily concerned to create a page for Joyce, but I'd welcome your opinions.)
• The creator Helen Joyce is an established journalist, employed by the Economist since 2005, and has reported on trans-related issues at least since 2018 when she edited this collection in the Economist.

Re (1), the source is WS:RP because it is published material by an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject (see WP:SOURCEDEF) - as demonstrated by the context above, including the reviews that you can view on the web even if you do not have a copy of the book. Helen Joyce does take the gender critical side in this debate, versus the ideology of gender identity. Still, that does not affect her being a reliable source: WP:BIASED says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Re (2), to achieve WP:DUE, we need to "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" regarding Mermaids' gender spectrum. There are very few reliable sources on Mermaids' gender spectrum, and we would be including material from each of them, including the defence of Mermaids from Attitude magazine. So it seems to me that including the quote from Joyce is giving it due weight. AndyGordon (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't think Joyce is regarded as authoritative in relation to either trans issues or Mermaids. For one thing, she regards "trans ideology" as a real thing (for which she holds Jewish billionaires responsible); the highest-quality sources on this topic do not do so. Second, her journalistic writing on this topic did not reflect professional journalism within her areas of expertise; rather, it amounted to extended promotion of her editorial opinion on the topic using a platform available to her.

Finally, the topic of this article is not Mermaids' gender spectrum; the presentation of gender as a spectrum did not originate with Mermaids and is reflected in authoritative publications by demographers,[6][7] human rights educators, and authorities in health services. The reductio ad absurdum that Mermaids is advocating a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe is manifestly idiotic ridiculous and UNDUE for inclusion here, though it might merit a shout-out if Gender spectrum is ever split off from Gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

What Newimpartial said! Especially on the point about "Mermaids' gender spectrum"; it isn't "Mermaids' gender spectrum", it's just the gender spectrum. Above, you ask what I meant by WP:SKYISBLUE in this context. What I meant was surely it goes without saying that a charity for gender non-conforming children is going to talk about the gender spectrum. It's not notable. So why, then, would we include criticism of the charity, where that criticism apparently arises because they teach about the gender spectrum? Inclusion of the quote in this article isn't warranted. Inclusion in Helen Joyce might be warranted, if someone ever starts the article. And it might be warranted in gender identity. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Huh, what do you know. Six hours later, she has an article. Let me try this again! If tomorrow's winning lotto numbers were notable, they'd have an article! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bastun, Newimpartial,

I think the misunderstanding re gender spectrum is that you haven't seen the image that they were using.

Please see this article for a picture of Mermaids' gender spectrum, which clearly shows a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe. Yes, the article as a whole is about the Mermaids charity, and this paragraph is about their use of this particular spectrum featuring the two toys (rather than about the generic concept of a gender spectrum), and the resulting criticism of the charity.

Best regards, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

PS It's not simply that they use a spectrum, but that "what makes children girls or boys is where they fall on a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe." AndyGordon (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This section is already overlong and hard to read so I'll keep this short and just say that I agree with the points made by Newimpartial and Bastun above. Actually, no. I will add one more thing. The use of the word "reports" in the proposed addition would not be appropriate even if the rest of the text was. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Do we have a link for Cultural illiteracy somewhere? The representations of toys aren't even defining elements of the image. Joyce's reading is daft, and the whole point of her intervention is to reduce the gender identity spectrum to an absurdity by pretending that it is asking children to what extent they identify with gendered toys. That isn't what anyone is actually doing; this is the typical caricature where something presented as an example is interpolated as though it were intended as a definition. Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't let this claim go unaddressed. At least some training materials do indeed equate one's gender with their agreement with regressive gender stereotypes. This (the prop pack), from the Proud Trust and meant for young children, and named by The Telegraph, states about those on "Planet Girl" for example that they "MUST like pink, MUST wear dresses, MUST be feminine". It then asks 'why can't we do what we want to do?' The only solution it gives is to cross over bridges between the gender planets, becoming transgender. This analysis blatantly tells young children that non-conformity to stereotypes makes you trans; it is literally impossible to be a girl who isn't stereotypically feminine. I would never want a daughter of mine to be told that she isn't a girl unless she obeys stereotypes. It's no wonder the UK's Department for Education stated that "materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material." Why would they say that if it wasn't happening? It is in transgender people's own best interests as well to call out when regressive nonsense is done in their name, rather than circle the wagons and call any criticism a fringe perspective. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this article on The Proud Trust or Mermaids? Did I disembark at the wrong station? Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Your words: the whole point of her intervention is to reduce the gender identity spectrum to an absurdity by pretending that it is asking children to what extent they identify with gendered toys. That isn't what anyone is actually doing (emphasis added). Crossroads ^-talk- 02:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

And, risible as the caricatures employed by The Proud Trust might be, they aren't asking whether kids identify with Barbie or GI Joe (nor does the DoE imply that).

Hey, if The Proud Trust training represented the way the gender spectrum actually worked, I wouldn't exist, and neither would most queer people. But even that absurd instrument doesn't reduce it to a spectrum between toys. Newimpartial (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

For comparison, here is the text I had quoted in the citation to Joyce's book.

In 2019 a British teacher recorded a training session on gender by Mermaids, a British charity that campaigns for early paediatric transitioning. The group's favoured teaching aid is a 'gender spectrum' with Barbie at one end and G.I. Joe at the other, and 'jelly baby' outline figures in between, morphing from pig-tailed and curvy to stocky and broad-shouldered. The trainer claims that, in many non-Western cultures, it is understood that people may not be at the end of the gender spectrum associated with their sex assigned at birth. 'If they are growing up and if they recognise that some of their jelly babies are further down towards the female [end of the] spectrum,' she says, 'they may take on a female name and female clothing, live and work as a woman within the tribe, and vice versa to varying degrees.' In other words, what makes children girls or boys is where they fall on a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe. It is extraordinary that, nowadays, this counts as progressive.

One detail that we should correct is that the recording was from 2018 not 2019. I checked with Joyce's agent who confirms the error which will be corrected; the recording was posted online in 2019 on SoundCloud, I believe, but was made in 2018. AndyGordon (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

We are about ten miles into this TL;DR thread and you mention in passing that you are in contact with Joyce's agent? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

We seem to be getting incredibly off-topic in this talk page - talk pages are for discussion of how to improve articles, not for discussing the subject of the article. Please can someone summarise the outstanding issues so we can work to fix them? Tvcameraop (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the proposal is dead in the water. The use of "reports" (rather than "claims"), "summarizes" (rather than "characterises", "opines", "responds" or whatever) and the scare quotes all make it unusable as written. It could be rewritten neutrally but the question of whether it is relevant and due coverage for this particular article remain. I'm inclined to say not on both counts. She is very far from being Mermaids most significant critic. It seems like Joyce is mainly attacking the concept of a gender spectrum in general and only incidentally taking a swipe at Mermaids in particular. Adding her here seems like shoehorning her in. Maybe her agent would approve but I don't think we should. I'm inclined to suggest we just roll this discussion up and go do something more productive instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The key issue remaining is how to give due weight WP:DUE to the different reliable sources on Mermaids' use of the gender spectrum.

At present we cite and summarise these four sources

• Kearns, Madeleine (6 October 2018). "Don't tell the parents". Spectator.
• Turner, Janice (22 December 2018). "Trans ideologists are spreading cod science". Times.
• "ACTIVISTS HIT BACK AT THE SUNDAY TIMES FOR TRANSPHOBIC FEAR-MONGERING". Attitude. 24 December 2018.
• Thomas, Kim (29 September 2020). "What are the new rules for teaching identity in schools?". The Telegraph.

Helen Joyce, author of the acclaimed 320 page book Trans, writes a detailed description of what was shown and said in the recorded training session. When writing "In other words, what makes children girls or boys is where they fall on a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe" she is specifically describing what happened in the Mermaids recording, how they acted going about one of their core objectives as a charity.

So this quote is highly relevant, and a neutral summary of the reliable sources should include it.

In light of the discussion (thanks everyone!), to give due weight to Joyce's characterisation, I'd update my proposal to the following:

• To insert, just before "In September 2020", that:
  • Helen Joyce characterises what was said in a training session: "In other words, what makes children girls or boys is where they fall on a scale from Barbie to G.I. Joe. It is extraordinary that, nowadays, this counts as progressive." (with a reference to her book, to include the quote from one of my previous postings in this discussion)
• To move the sentence "Attitude quoted Kate Lister" to immediately after the sentence about Helen Joyce's book.

AndyGordon (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The "key issue remaining" seems to be that you don't appear to accept that there is a clear consensus against inclusion of this WP:UNDUE quote. With or without alterations following your chat with Joyce's agent. (See WP:NOR, and WP:COI may apply?) Those favouring inclusion: You. Crossroads. Those opposing inclusion (those pinged, please correct me if I've mischaracterised your contribution): @Tvcameraop:, @Daveout:, @Bilorv:, @Rab V:, @-sche:, @Newimpartial:, @DanielRigal:, and me. That's 8:2 against inclusion? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Bastun, I apologise to you and anyone here for creating the impression you've formed that I may have a COI with Joyce's agent. I have no relationship with Joyce's agent, and hence no COI. My only interactions with the agent are emails to her public email address about the date of the recording. As I've been saying throughout, I learn a lot from everyone's editorial expertise here: I thought it was harmless to check on a small detail, but I understand now that any contact like that may create the impression of COI, a serious matter, and in any case any info obtained is unusable as per WP:NOR. AndyGordon (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I favor inclusion at this point. Now that the reporting from the Telegraph has been added that contains the same essential point, namely that critics say it defines gender based on stereotypes, I don't see what adding Joyce's book actually adds. 'It's extraordinary that this counts as progressive' is rhetorical flourish but isn't actually a new point. At the risk of this being touted as "9:1 now" or something like that, I will say that AndyGordon was on the right track in first adding material about their trainings that journalistic coverage of the trainings and criticism thereof is DUE because sources do exist. It's been improved subsequently and now there's no need to argue over Joyce's book anymore because it's redundant, and now sourced as more broadly than just her views, whatever the objections to her book. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for all the discussion. I withdraw my proposal. In all seriousness, I have learnt enormously from everyone's input. Thank you. AndyGordon (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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.

@Crossroads: 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)

        @Bilorv: 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 @Aquillion: 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.

        @AndyGordon: - 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)

        @Crossroads: 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.

        @Aquillion: 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)

        @Crossroads: 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:

Writing in the The Daily Telegraph, Kim Thomas said that at some training sessions, one resource Mermaids used was a "gender spectrum" consisting of jelly babies labelled with Barbie at one end and G.I Joe at the other; according to Thomas, this uses "non-conformity to gender stereotypes as evidence that a child is transgender."[18] Thomas also said that some campaigners, including Safe Schools Alliance and Transgender Trend have criticised these trainings on the grounds that they reinforce rigid gender roles, and that they might cause non-conforming children to identify as transgender.[18]

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!

@Newimpartial: 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:

Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Kim 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.

• • 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 [8] 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)

Unsuitable source ?

@Newimpartial: If you want to say that Graham Linehan is an anti-trans activist, then you need to find a suitable source. I am deleting your addition, because the source is not only an opinion piece, it is a rant which should never be used as a source on Wikipedia. Using this source brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Please come up with a serious, reliable source, or abandon your amendment. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Why do you see the reliably sourced journalism in question as a rant which should never be used as a source on Wikipedia? Newimpartial (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

My comments:

1) Firstly, this wording has been challenged. The onus is on you to justify the wording – you should not be reverting it, you should discuss the matter on the Talk page so that there can be a consensus as to whether it should be included.

2) The source is not listed as a reliable source according to [[9]]

3) In any event, it is an opinion piece. The source is not a news article –It contains no factual information, only the opinions and emotion of its writer.

4) It is a rant because all it consists of is expressions of hatred. It constantly refers to ‘TERFs’. e.g. ‘However, TERFs are a subculture with a persecution complex…. ‘

It makes unsubstantiated allegations. e.g. ‘Mumsnet, Britain’s hugely popular social media site for parents, is a driving force behind that country’s war on trans women.’ There is no attempt to define, or factually justify, the reference to the UK’s supposed ‘war on trans women’.

5) If Graham Linehan is an ‘anti-trans activist’, then you should not have any trouble providing a reliable source to support this.

6) But even if you do provide a reliable source, the question then becomes whether it is undue to mention this in this article, which is not about Mr Linehan.

7) Newimpartial, I am embarrassed to see this rant being used as a source on Wikipedia. I don’t understand why you want to use it. It supports nothing, and its use will only have the effect of damaging Wikipedia’s reputation.

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Are we reading the same article? It is a rant because all it consists of is expressions of hatred. Really? I don't see "expressions of hatred" at all. You say that its use will only have the effect of damaging Wikipedia's reputation, but this appears to be purely an expression of POV rather than a policy-based, grounded evaluation. Sources do not have to be listed on "Perennial sources" to be reliable sources, and rabble.ca is a known publisher of good journalism. We do not ask journalists to provide us with the evidence for their reporting when we read and cite their reports, per WP policy: I have seen editors do this when they disagree with the writers cited, but this isn't really what we are supposed to be doing as editors.

The sequence was that another editor added the term "anti-transgender" and pointed out that this was the term used in the lead section of Graham Linehan. Crossroads then removed it, pointing out that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so I re-added a precisely sourced term ("anti-trans") along with a reliable source. I know you believe it is an opinion piece, but as far as I can tell this is simply your (ungrounded) opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Re point 2. See WP:RSPMISSING. Just because a source is not listed on RSP does not mean it is unreliable. It just means that it has not been discussed multiple times. I've done a brief search of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard archives, and couldn't find any discussions on this source. However this too does not mean the source is unreliable, we do not operate under a policy that a source is unreliable until proven otherwise. If you search the website's domain in article space, it appears as a citation in 349 articles.

Re point 3. I disagree that it's an opinion piece. It contains a wealth of factual and well cited information, referring to the works of others when substantiating claims. The article itself also is part of rabble's feature archive, not its separate opinion archive. So at the very least, the source's website does not consider this an opinion piece.

Re point 4. That description of Mumsnet is accurate, so much so that it has been mentioned not just in media but also in numerous research papers:

• The Politicization of Mumsnet - far too many quotes to select from as Sarah Pedersen quite literally wrote the book on this subject. Sarah also has a number of standalone publications on this, however I'll avoid citing those to avoid biasing results to a single researcher.
• How British Feminism Became Anti-Trans If such a place sounds benign, consider the words of British writer Edie Miller: “Mumsnet is to British transphobia,” she wrote “what 4Chan is to American fascism.”
• TERF wars - building a new trans-exclusionary feminist movement that also rapidly expanded online through digital platforms, such as Twitter and the Mumsnet ‘feminist chat’ message board.
• (Anti-)feminism and cisgenderism in sports media - cites and deconstructs several overtly transphobic comments made on Mumsnet in relation to a documentary titled The Trans Women Athlete Dispute with Martina Navratilova.
• Empire and Eugenics: Trans Studies in the UK - While ‘gender critical’ academics self-martyr in academic and media publications, the fuel for the UK transphobic movement is comprised of angry and ill-informed online users. Many stem from the online parenting website Mumsnet before mentioning the dispute we're currently discussing on page 4; This online transphobia has been spearheaded by former comedy writer Graham Lineham,

Re point 5. We have numerous sources to justify this on Linehan's own page. The section on anti-transgender activism forms the second largest section on Linehan's article as a whole. If the consensus is that rabble.ca is not the source to use, we have a plethora of others to chose from.

Re point 6. It is not undue in this context. When looking at other Wiki articles that mention Linehan, when those mention his name in connection to his television work with others he is typically referred to as an "Irish comedy writer" or some other variant. However in articles about transphobia, with only two exceptions (Magdalen Berns and Rosie Duffield) Linehan is referred to as either an anti-trans activist or a proponent of anti-trans ideology. While I largely agree with the essay that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, I also believe we can still look at how content is referred to elsewhere on wiki as one of several guidance points, alongside reliable sourcing and editorial judgement, for how to refer to it. While that obviously does not mean that just because it is said somewhere in enwiki it is valid everywhere on enwiki, it is instead more nuanced. If a claim is well sourced elsewhere, and improves understanding here, then including it is allowed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Contextually his anti-trans views and activism are more important than his writing in this article. While rabble isn't a great source his anti-trans views are extensively cited in his article including a citation from the times! [10]—blindlynx 17:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Re Sideswipe9th’s replies to my points:

(2) That a source is not listed on the Reliable sources does not mean it is unreliable – but presumably you are not saying that because it is unmentioned, that makes it reliable? This source has been claimed to be reliable, without any evidence for this view.

(3) The article does not contain a ‘wealth of factual and well-cited information’. I see that you have not referred to any such, and have not answered my points.

(4) Your original research about mumsnet is not relevant to the point. The article does not provide any factual backup for its claim. And, as important, it uses the sloppy, opinionated expression ‘war on trans women’ which it does not define – and neither have you.

Sideswipe, I am seriously concerned that you don’t recognise an opinion piece when you see one.

(5) I repeat: If Graham Linehan is an ‘anti-trans activist’, then you should not have any trouble providing a reliable source to support this.. I have not engaged in argument about whether Mr Linehan is, or is not, an anti-trans activist. I said that a reliable source is needed. I see that blindlynx has said there is one at the Times. I don’t have access to the Times. I can only see the beginning of the article, which describes him as ‘an outspoken commentator on transgender issues’. Does it actually say he is an anti-trans activist? What does it actually say about him?

(6) I don’t agree that it is due to include this description of Mr Linehan in this article. This is not the article about Mr Linehan, nor is it an article on transphobia. It is the article on Mermaids. There is a link for him – if anyone wants to know about him, they can read the article on him.

Sweet6970 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

While i don't think this is necessary—as it is plainly obvious from the overwhelming majority of recent coverage of him that he is an 'anti-trans activist'—here is the guardian explicitly calling him that [11]. The fact he is an anti-trans activist is relevant context regarding his opposition to the charity receiving national lottery funding as he is the one who kicked off the row in the first place—blindlynx 19:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• The article does not provide any factual backup for its claim. And, as important, it uses the sloppy, opinionated expression ‘war on trans women’ which it does not define. The article is the factual backup for its claim; that's what an WP:RS is for. Insisting that every RS have its own RS is a rabbit-hole that would lead to no sources being reliable at all. I would argue it does provide citations in its links - but it doesn't have to. And the fact that you personally dislike a source's wording is not relevant to whether it is a WP:RS - what matters is their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Otherwise, again, people could remove any source they disagree with by saying that any language that goes against their beliefs is a sign of unreliability; what source could possibly convince you of these things when the very fact that a source says them is, to you, a sign that it cannot be trusted? I myself take issue with the wording used in many sources on this page, but obviously I can't remove them based on that alone. --Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Re 2 - My understanding is that sources are not automatically considered unreliable by virtue of not having been discussed. There is a glass half full philosophical point there as to whether or not this means we automatically consider sources reliable until proven otherwise. Given how strongly you feel on this however, I would suggest that perhaps the strongest course of action would be to open a discussion at WP:RSN, as any decision on the reliability of rabble.ca will affect multiple articles across the wiki.

Re 3 - I didn't feel it necessary at the time. However if you insist that such a thing is necessary, I will do so on a paragraph by paragraph basis. Though I would suggest any such analysis is better reserved for a discussion at WP:RSN, to avoid local consensus issues.

Re 4 - Citing secondary sources, and what they say in context is explicitly not original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Nor have I done any synthesis of these sources to imply a conclusion that they do not assert. The term war on trans women is largely self explanatory. It refers to the current culture war against trans people and trans rights, vis-a-vis the Anti-gender movement. That being said, that culture war is expanding its targets to encompass all LGBT+ people and rights. While the NY Times piece is relating to the assault on LGBT rights in an American context, these fights do not happen in isolation. To give a pertinent example relevant to the UK, I refer to what has been happening in relation to Stonewall, including abuse on social media, the circumstances surrounding the formation of the LGB Alliance, and the recent controversy of the Diversity Champions and equality guidance, all of which occured subsequent to that charity's shift in policies relating to transgender rights in 2015.

As for The article does not provide any factual backup for its claim, the key sourcing policy on Wikipedia is verifiability. On any given topic, we publish only what reliable sources say on the matter. Accordingly the threshold for including content is verifiability, not truth. When it comes to writing an encyclopaedia, unless we are discussing the reliability of a source at WP:RSN, we generally don't and won't go into a full analysis of how a source reached the conclusions it did. For our purposes, outside of a handful of very specific discussions like medicine, it's neither relevant nor a good use of editorial time. All that is relevant to the vast majority of articles is that the source is reliable, and that we can verify that the source supports the claim it is being used for. Assessing the truthfulness of the source is not our job as editors.

Re 5 - Well that is the matter of this discussion is it not? You feel as though rabble.ca is not a reliable source. Others, including myself disagree and believe that it is a reliable source. As for accessing The Times piece linked by blindlynx, in general I would always recommend checking the more popular archival websites (Wayback Machine, archive.today, etc) for paywalled newspaper articles. With the exception of content that is only a few hours old, you will very often find that paywalled content has been archived in full there. For the link provided by blindlynx, it's archived in full on archive.today.

Re 6 - Fair enough. I disagree, and cannot see a way to convince you otherwise. Lets leave this point at that for now, and see where consensus lies once one starts to emerge shall we? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Rabble does distinguish between news and opinion (opinion pieces go in their columnists section or their blog section); this is in its news section. If you feel Rabble is generally unreliable you could take it to RSN, but this is an extremely unexceptional statement about Linehan (he is perhaps the most well-known anti-trans activist in the world and it can, today, reasonably be described as a major part of his notability); of course, that also means it is easy to find additional sources. But more generally your objections to Rabble seem more based on your personal opinions about what it's saying than any problem with the source - the fact that it makes you feel bad to have a source use the term TERF doesn't mean anything; it's a term used in numerous high-quality academic sources. Similarly, the fact that you personally dislike the way they describe Mumsnet means nothing - the links in that article are all sources, but even if they weren't, your disagreement would have no significance; after all, if you say "I personally do not believe this, so this source unreliable for disagreeing with me!", you could dismiss any source that disagreed with you on anything; no source would ever convince you that Mumsnet is a driving force behind anti-trans activism, because you would immediately dismiss any source that said these things as wrong. When you want to dismiss a source as unreliable, you need to focus on their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not on your personal opinions about what they've published. A quick Google Scholar search, at least, suggests that they have significant WP:USEBYOTHERS. --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• That Linehan is best described by the phrase "anti-trans[gender] activist" has been discussed to death at Talk:Graham Linehan. There is no need to repeat this on a second article. The phrase can be well-sourced and indeed has been by Aquillion with a Guardian piece. — Bilorv (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to Sideswipe9th for providing the readable version of the Times article. It does not refer to Mr Linehan as an ‘anti-trans activist’.

@Aquillion: Your comment is full of assumptions about what I like or dislike, which are unfounded. It is inappropriate to make comments about what you imagine that I think/like/dislike. My reaction to the piece is that I am appalled at the low standard of the writing in the source. It almost reads like a parody. My point about the supposed ‘war on trans women’ is that this expression doesn’t mean anything. Instead of making comments about what you imagine I like/dislike, it would be helpful if you would provide a suitable source to support the description of Mr Linehan which you want to be in the article. Bilorv has said The phrase can be well-sourced and indeed has been by Aquillion with a Guardian piece. I have looked at all the refs to the Guardian in the Graham Linehan article, and I can’t find one referring to him as an anti-trans or anti-transgender activist. Please direct me to the relevant source.

I saw that he is described as an anti-transgender activist on his ‘own’ article – but, as we all know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

I am surprised at the volume and the tone of the responses to my point – which is that the source is unsuitable. It seems that I apply higher standards for journalism than others participating in this discussion. It would be simpler just to answer my point, and provide a suitable source for the description of Mr Linehan. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Rabble.ca is quite suitable as a source; using the volume and the tone of the responses in objection to your ungrounded criticism as evidence that you are actually "right" seems very Alice in Wonderland to me.

But if you don't like that source, the Guardian piece that has been added to this article might WP:SATISFY you. Newimpartial (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Your comment is full of assumptions about what I like or dislike, which are unfounded. No, I am summarizing your position as I see it. You have indicated that you personally dislike the fact that the source uses the word TERF and disagree with the way they describe Mumsnet; you are entitled to those opinions. I, too, often disagree with the language and conclusions of sources. But without something to back that disagreement up, it is merely your personal opinion and has no relevance to RS discussions or to article content - you cannot dismiss a source simply by disagreeing with its language or conclusions; if you could, no source could ever convince anyone of anything at all. If you feel that the source is so severely wrong to make those statements that it impacts its reliability - or that they are so far out of the mainstream as to be WP:FRINGE, which by my reading is the real thrust of what you're trying to say - you must present sources backing that feeling up; and even with another source that disagrees, we would have to consider their relative weight. Right now, though, you are just stating your personal feelings and opinions. You can feel as appalled as you like, but reliability is judged based on a source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not based on what you personally find appalling, or on what language you personally find disagreeable, or on which statements in sources that you personally have decided to doubt. --Aquillion (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Here are two more sources that explicitly use the term 'anti trans activist' Pinknews [12] and the daily mail [13]. I want to reiterate that neither of these are needed For us to describe him as an 'anti trans activist' there are plenty of RS that make it plainly clear that he is one—blindlynx 01:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: It appears there is nothing I can do to make you read what I actually wrote – you will still insist on reading something I haven’t written. There is no point in continuing this conversation with you.

@Newimpartial: I am not using the volume and the tone of the responses in objection to [my] ungrounded criticism as evidence that [I am] actually "right". I don’t even understand what you mean by this. I was gently pointing out that there has been a pile-on of people here, and there seems to be more interest in arguing about the subject than in providing a suitable source. Now, that does make me feel like I am Alice in Wonderland – but I think that’s not what you meant. But thank you for providing the source! (Now, if you had done that in the first place, we would all have been saved a lot of trouble.) Of course, there is still the problem that the rabble source is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and that it is probably undue to refer to Mr Linehan in this way in this article, but the White Rabbit tells me that unless I leave now, it will be too late……Sweet6970 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about rabble as a source, and that it shouldn't be used on Wiki then the appropriate venue is WP:RSN.

there seems to be more interest in arguing about the subject than in providing a suitable source. That seems like a rather inaccurate reading of the discussion. There was, as far as I can see, a consensus that it was already a suitable source to use. You disagreed, as is your right. But unilaterally requiring a different source to be used is not how consensus works. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• According to its About Us page, Rabble.ca has been at the forefront of reporting on national politics with a progressive lens that centres issues of social movements, of labour, and of grassroots activism. "With a progressive lens" is an admission of being a WP:BIASEDSOURCE, as is obvious from their site and the specific article anyway. As such, using it to support such a contentious label in Wikivoice is not appropriate. Its use on other Wikipedia pages is irrelevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Crossroads: you may wish to review the text at BIASEDSOURCE because Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. As such, it is completely inaccurate to say using it to support such a contentious label in Wikivoice is not appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, Crossroads. I don't think you're reading WP:BIASEDSOURCES correctly. By your reading, all The Times and The Telegraph content on gender identity issues should be taken out of wikivoice because of the bias of these sources, but somehow I remember you arguing exactly the opposite. Newimpartial (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  It supports information about viewpoints, yes, but all the same BIASEDSOURCES notes: Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Of course in-text attribution doesn't apply to uncontroversial banal facts that any source would support, but stuff that is BLP and politically charged is another matter. I would never support citing a conservative-leaning source to decribe someone as a "women's sex-based rights activist" or somesuch in Wikivoice, and I expect other editors to likewise follow the NPOV standard. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Fortunately the article text now has multiple sources on this, representing vastly different viewpoints, all supporting the language used. Newimpartial (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's again a misunderstanding/misreading of BIASEDSOURCE. When the majority of sources state a fact, as they do when they describe Linehan as anti-trans (in this context), then we do not need to attribute According to rabble.ca, anti-trans activist.... To do otherwise would imply false balance, and that said description is still under dispute. Which in this case, it is not. And per WP:CITEOVERKILL we should not overcite a fact, regardless of how controversial it may be to some readers.

  Also I feel strangely like we've had this discussion, multiple times in the past. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• That was why I added other sources before commenting here, yeah. I don't think that it's a non-WP:RS but I would not want to rely on it alone, unattributed, for a BLP-sensitive statement. Fortunately we don't have to! If you're going to argue that the Guardian is biased, though, then I'm going to have to insist that we treat the Telegraph the same way - this is a fair connection to make, since WP:DUE weight is relative and giving more weight to sources that are biased in one respect (by eg. removing / objecting to the Guardian and not the Telegraph) would be a violation. Of course, right now we're giving the Telegraph dozens of times more focus than the Guardian already, so it's a problem as-is, but certainly we can't remove the Guardian as biased while citing the Telegraph for massive blocks of text. --Aquillion (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

What are we actually arguing about here? Is it the quality of the sourcing, as the section title suggests, or whether we should use that description at all, as suggested in the first comment? If the former, then the description is more than adequately referenced now. (Maybe it wasn't before. I'm neutral on that.) If the latter, then the question is one of relevance. Given that the content refers directly to his anti-trans activism, and not to his comedy writing, the description "anti-trans activist" seems highly relevant to explaining the nature of his involvement and is in no way excessive given that he has devoted the last few years of his life pretty much exclusively to anti-trans activism at the expense of his career. Is there anything more to discuss here? Can we draw this to a close now? --DanielRigal (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

it really looks like WP:CITEOVERKILL we don't need there sources saying hes an anti trans activist, one is more than enough. The guardian is the highest quality of the three currently included can we agree to just include that one and get rid of the other two? Also is him being an 'Irish comedy writer' really relevant here? (ping @Aquillion:)—blindlynx 15:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Susie Green and WPATH 8 SoC

I've removed the sentence on the changes between the 7th and 8th edition of the WPATH SoC, citing WP:COATRACK. This is an article on a UK charity, it's not the article on the SoC. Presenting the changes between the SoC versions is best handled at the primary article for it, as there we can go into sufficient depth for why those changes occurred. We do a disservice to our readers by presenting the changes in the form that was present in this article, as the reasoning for each change is significantly more nuanced than can be conveyed in a single sentence.

For example, the removal of the lower age limit for prescribing of puberty blockers coincided with a recommendation that such treatment should only commence at Tanner stage 2. Despite fear mongering by certain elements within the press and on social media, this change is not controversial, and brings the WPATH guidance in line with the 2017 Endocrine Society guidelines. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed the inclusion is a misreading of the source—blindlynx 15:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My reason for my edit (as explained in my edit summary) was that it seemed that the previous revert was based on a mistake about the content of the source. It seems to me that, bearing in mind Sideswipe’s comment here, the inclusion of this text is borderline, and I not intend to dispute Sideswipe’s revert of me. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Excessive reliance on the Daily Telegraph as a source

Despite the discussion above regarding the WP:BIASED nature of the telegraph as a source and the fact that we already have two sections largely devoted to citing it for controversies that originated there, a third section entirely about Daily Telegraph coverage has been added. We cannot rely solely on a single source, especially one whose coverage of British politics has a clear point-of-view. I'm going to kill the most recent addition unless secondary coverage can be produced. --Aquillion (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, a section just called "Controversy" is unacceptable. WP:CRITS discourages them and this one is particularly bad. The previous title "The Daily Telegraph investigation" was also bad. The fact that people can't find a good title to say what this alleged "controversy" is actually about shows how insubstantial it is. This was a sting operation that set out to find evidence of wrongdoing and, finding little to nothing, decided to list uncontroversial activities as if they were sinister and run it on the front page anyway. The scare quotes around "harm reduction" are also completely unacceptable POV. Either this needs to be worked into the existing coverage, in a much more balanced way, or we need independent coverage of the "investigation" itself as a sting operation. I'd favour the former as I doubt we will ever find non-partisan coverage of the latter. We can say that Mermaids offers binders, and mention that some people think that this is controversial, when describing their charitable activities. We can do this without participating in pearl clutching and innuendo ourselves. DanielRigal (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I completely agree with both Aquillion and DanielRigal. Both The Telegraph and The Times have put out a lot of, what could best be described as attack journalism, into Mermaids. With only a few exceptions both publications have a pretty strong ideological bias anti-trans bias that is reflected in both the nature of the stories that they publish, and the frequency at which they publish them (CNN on anti-trans rhetoric in British media). While we could base our entire article off of such publications, we would almost immediately run into NPOV issues by uncritically covering only the anti-trans publications.

I do like Daniel's suggestion of saying that Mermaids offer binders as a charitable activity, potentially including a sentence or quotation for why they provide the service, and a brief neutral mention that some find this controversial. That is I think a much fairer way to describe it than the section removed by Aquillion, regardless of how it is titled.

One concern I have that hasn't been talked about, but is illuded to by Daniel, is the sting operation into the Mermaid's discussion forum. Were I a journalist, or an opinion columnist I would likely describe it as a fishing expedition based purely on ideological culture war lines. Of course it should go without saying that we can't say that in an article without very strong sources who state that. Accordingly, I think excluding that sentence is probably our wisest approach, as while everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, verifiability alone does not guarantee inclusion. Including that sentence, even as a quotation, is I think giving undue prominence to the culture war derived bias inherent in much of British media at present.

I'm also somewhat opposed to the quotation from Miriam Cates for similar reasons. Her own article details some of her opposition to trans rights, in particular self-identification and gender fluidity, as well as statements against both Stonewall and Mermaids, however as an MP she doesn't appear to have any experience at any level with a relevant ministerial brief. It seems like cherry picking on the part of The Telegraph to go to her for a quotation over other MPs that they allude to, and it seems like cherry picking for us to uncritically include it. If there was a related quotation from Joanna Cherry, the only other MP mentioned by name by the Telegraph, you could at least argue that she has some relevant experience through her two party spokesperson roles for inclusion, even if she too is biased. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Secondary coverage from The Times added. Void if removed (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The title is not the only problem. The current title is not as bad but still not good. I see two possible approaches:

1. Reduce the overage and work it into the existing coverage. (No need for a title at all.)
2. Find a better title and expand the coverage to balance it out. A sentence half-heartedly tacked on the end doesn't cover it. The use of "a harm reduction position" in quotes needs to change. It reads as scare quotes.

DanielRigal (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If something along the lines of 'they offer chest binders for X reason and others find this controversial because Y' is added, that would be good and better than nothing at all. However, I don't endorse the argument above that a CNN article can be used to dismiss large chunks of the British mainstream media. Generally, we consider news outlets to be WP:Secondary sources in their own right (the primary sources in this case would be the Mermaids forums and policies themselves). The Times is also a secondary sources, adding more WP:WEIGHT. One could just as easily argue that the US media is biased towards a freewheeling approach toward child gender transition (whereby they frame any other approach as "anti-trans"). Also, WP:BIASEDSOURCES can still be reliable for facts, and in fact many sources that are biased in favor of the freewheeling approach are routinely cited in articles like this and defended. I agree we don't need the Cates quote, but revealing what goes on on their forums seems like standard investigative journalism to me (cf. the many, many examples of journalists writing up forums for far-right activity). Crossroads ^-talk- 16:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's be clear, though. The Telegraph's article lead was A transgender children’s charity is giving potentially dangerous chest-flattening devices to 14-year-olds against their parents’ wishes, an investigation by The Telegraph has found. This is POV, advocacy journalism, the kind where the publication's known "gender critical" POV has to be taken into account in interpreting their selection and presentation of facts. Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This is another case of the same perpetrators ganging up and bullying others into taking things out of the page. It's utterly shameful as several of you here argued the exact opposite regarding another page. Have some decency. If articles from the Times and the Telegraph are considered less reliable than Pink News, then there's no hope. The sources are sound. If this was a page that some of you didn't like, you'd have paragraphs by now. It's really disappointing and is a complete disservice to those who use Wikipedia. Please put your own bias to one side and add details of an investigation that has been reported in the mainstream press. Samcowie (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: If articles from the Times and the Telegraph are considered less reliable than Pink News, then there's no hope - The Times and The Telegraph are less reliable on these issues than PinkNews. PinkNews doesn't engage in ethically dubious infiltration of safe spaces for young people in the service of "gotcha" journalism. You can see The Telegraph's POV in their sidelong references to Susie Green's trans "child" (actually a daughter) - some well-executed dog-whistle fanservice for the audience The Telegraph is targeting on this issue. There isn't anything about being a mainstream UK broadsheet that guarantees coverage of a quality worth following uncritically on WP, at least not for topics when RS have commented on the paper's biases. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And you think you have the authority to judge that? I think it is reliable, considering The Times and The Telegraph have been used as sources for other articles similar in nature to this one. The bias shown on the page is shocking and does an huge disservice to Wikipedia. Samcowie (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Your bias is clearly shown in your talk page. You shouldn't be editing articles if you can't do it effectively and with a neutral POV Samcowie (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss editors' contributions on article Talk pages, not your opinions of editors themselves. As far as The Telegraph and The Times are concerned, their objectives and tactics have been discussed in high-quality academic sources (e.g., [14]). This is scarcely some random thing I happen to believe. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. There is nothing unreliable or factually incorrect about the coverage from The Telegraph or The Times, both of which are considered RS by WP:RSP. As for the articles being POV and advocacy, so are articles from PinkNews, but you would never advocate for removing those. Secondly, we should judge sources based on accuracy, not bias. If you cannot prove that the articles are inaccurate, then there is no reason for them to be removed. Remember, Wikipedia isn't here to right great wrongs. I could not agree more with Samcowie. X-Editor (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm appalled at the unprecedented level of bias on this page. Thank you for speaking up. Samcowie (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

We also have a policy linked as WP:NOTNEWS, while Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. These policies apply even if there were nothing questionable about The Telegraph's reporting on the topic, and we have had high-quality sources commenting on The Telegraph's promotion of "gender critical" positions. There is every reason to believe that, until we had coverage outside of the bubble jointly constituted by The Times and The Telegraph concerning this "investigation", we did not have the diversity of sourcing required to achieve NPOV (and WP:BALANCE) concerning the emerging controversy. Now that we have some corroborating but contrasting coverage from PinkNews, we probably do. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that there is nothing in WP:RSP that suggests articles from The Telegraph, The Times, and other British media that are "gender critical" should not be used, which will only continue to create confusion. I also doubt that you would apply the same standard of removing content and diversity of sourcing requirement per WP:NOTNEWS if PinkNews and other pro-LGBT outlets were the only ones that offered coverage on a specific issue without anything from "gender critical" outlets. X-Editor (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I see a false parallel here that seems to imply that "gender critical" and "pro-LGBT" sources sit as some kind of parallel outriders to a "mainstream" position. I don't actually believe this to be the case. In most contexts there is a broad consensus (e.g. that gender identity is a real thing, that trans people should have rights, etc.), which is reflected by mainstream scholarship, professional medical sources, and most media, and then there is a dissident position expressed mostly by WP:FRINGE practitioners (like SEGM) and also by, e.g., The Times and The Telegraph. There are certainly issues - like the appropriate age for young trans people to have access to Puberty blockers and gender-affirming surgery - where most mainstream opinion falls into a middle range, a fair distance away from the positions set out by partisans on either side. But the existence of these issues should not lead to a FALSEBALANCE that proposes The Times as being the same distance as PinkNews from the consensus view on such basic questions as, "is gender identity real, or is it ideology?" Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, I am not suggesting that The Times and The Telegraph should not be used, here or in any other article but, rather, that WP:BIASEDSOURCES applies, notably the linked passage at NPOV: A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not that simple. A gender-critical person might say that gender identity doesn't exist or is meaningless, but a PinkNews-style activist might argue that gender identity supersedes all else, with the result that there should be no limitations whatsoever on hormones for children because their gender identity is more important. These are both activist positions. And I don't see The Times or The Telegraph being as biased for a gender-critical position as PinkNews is biased for a "gender identity only" POV; you don't see the former tarring opponents as "anti-woman" in their own voice while this does occur with PinkNews and "anti-trans". At the very least PinkNews is very much a BIASEDSOURCE itself. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If you disagree with the CNN report I linked earlier, I have a multitude of other reliable sources I can provide that asserts an anti-trans bias from mainstream British media sources, particular so in articles published by both The Times and The Telegraph. This includes other international news organisations, research by charities (including Mermaids), articles from subject matter-experts, and scholarly research. I'd be happy to share some, just say what you'd like to see, though I am collating it for a much larger discussion at an appropriate noticeboard at some point in the future. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Dude, you haven't even established that PinkNews advocates a "gender identity only" POV; this appears to be yet another of the things of which you are so deeply convinced that evidence is not required. Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The editing of the section on an investigation by The Daily Telegraph to put a citation to Pink News' spin on the investigation first, and to change all the embedded references to direct readers to the Pink News article instead of the actual, primary article, is pure POV and bias. There is no good reason to have done this. All of the existing references already supported the text. Void if removed (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

We are supposed to prefer primary sources over secondary sources now? I'm afraid I didn't get that memo, Void... Newimpartial (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right, it is completely ridiculous that a "newspaper" can claim that binders hurt 97% of people that wear them, and use this "fact" to attack a charity. The reality is explored very well on this thread, which points out that under the same criteria used for this study (where "harm" can equal some soreness, itchiness or skin irritation!), high heels and bras would be available on prescription only! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That Twitter thread is discussing this study published back in 2017. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Which is the best candidate I've seen for being the basis of Cass's comments that are quoted (out of any meaningful context) in The Telegraph. Newimpartial (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a pretty fringe position from the paper and should lead us to being cautious about inducing it in this article—blindlynx 01:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That thread is, bluntly, partisan nonsense. The pdf of the study is here and you can see that while 97% is "any" outcome, which will include some low-impact issues, high-impact problems are all very high and participants experienced multiple, overlapping issues, eg. 74% "any pain outcome", 50.7% "any respiratory outcome", "Any skin issue" is 76.3%. You can't look at the 97% and dismiss it as padded by people being itchy or uncomfortable, its a complete misreading of the paper. You're trying to refute a finding in a peer-reviewed source, assessed by experts as part of the Cass Review, reported in a reliable national newspaper, with a random tweet that doesn't bear 30 seconds of scrutiny. Void if removed (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting to bring up the Cass Review. So far we only have an interim report published by the review, and the only mention of binders or anything chest binding related is a single sentence on page 45 which reads We have also heard about the distress experienced by birth-registered females as they reach puberty, including the use of painful, and potentially harmful, binding processes to conceal their breasts. We have no more context or information than that, no information as to how the panel determined that brief sentence, or what the actual risks are in "potentially harmful".

A poorly fitted bra will cause pain, respiratory problems, and skin issues. High heels will cause pain and skin issues. Skinny jeans that are too small will cause pain and skin issues. Tights (or pantyhose for any American editors) can cause skin issues and bacterial or yeast infections. Yet we don't require parental permission or a prescription for those common items of clothing. It is pure fear mongering on the part of The Telegraph and those quoted within to combine the 2017 study, with the brief sentence from the Cass interim report, to suddenly decry binders as a "safeguarding issue". Not to mention the complete misuse of the term safeguarding issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph Investigation

Someone was looking for an additional source before this section could be included. Here's one https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/37b9fc6e-3d8b-11ed-b24d-96120f17513d?shareToken=e2335236b951493b086a56833cf3413e 37.228.200.172 (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Also: Mermaids responds to The Telegraph amid row over breast binders (pinknews.co.uk) AndyGordon (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's good balancing coverage. Unless the Telegraph "investigation" grows into a scandal in its own right (like "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women" became a journalistic scandal) I don't think that we want to bloat this coverage out too much. In fact, I think it having its own section is overkill, at least at the for the time being. Nonetheless, I think we should find a place to use that Pink News article to balance what we have. DanielRigal (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of The Telegraph and PinkNews reporting on Mermaids

So an IP editor attempted to add material from a Telegraph story alleging that the Mermaids was being investigated for safeguarding concerns. However, according to PinkNews, it seems that the central claim of the Telegraph story is false:

However, the Charity Commission confirmed in a statement that there is no investigation into Mermaids at this time. “In general, allegations involving vulnerable young people are serious in nature and our guidance is clear – safeguarding should be a core priority for all charities and trustees,” a spokesperson said.

Samcowie and X-Editor, are you prepared to adjust your prior assumption that Telegraph coverage of Mermaids is no less accurate, and no more biased, than PinkNews coverage? Or is it time to take this to another venue to obtain a higher level of consensus? Newimpartial (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you're working off a Pink News article from yesterday. The Telegraph article is from today. Earlier this week The Telegraph reported potential for investigation. Today they have confirmed that there will be an investigation. I don't know the wording the IP editor used but from what you said, they're correct. This should be added but there will no doubt be further articles about it by days end. Samcowie (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess I am learning to recognize doubling down when I see it. Newimpartial (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it's learning that bias and insincere editing in these articles has gone on too long, but what do I know. Samcowie (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)