Talk:Fred Sargeant

Did You Know Nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the first NYC Pride March, originally named Christopher Street Liberation Day, was proposed by Craig Rodwell, Fred Sargeant, Ellen Broidy and Linda Rhodes at the 1969 Eastern Regional Conference of Homophile Organizations in commemoration of the Stonewall riots?  Duberman, Martin. (1994). Stonewall. New York: Plume. ISBN 978-0-4522-7206-4.
  • ALT1:... that in November 1969 Craig Rodwell, Fred Sargeant, Ellen Broidy and Linda Rhodes proposed the first annual Christopher Street Liberation Day (later known as the NYC Pride March), to commemorate the Stonewall riots? Duberman, Martin. (1994). Stonewall. New York: Plume. ISBN 978-0-4522-7206-4.

• Reviewed: No QPQ required (second time nominator)
• Date request: June 28 (anniversary of Christopher Street Liberation Day)

Created by Lilipo25 (talk). Nominated by Autumnking2012 (talk) at 19:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC).

• @Autumnking2012: Sorry that your nomination didn't reach the main page on the date you wanted. You did nominate it in time, but as you can see we have hundreds of unreviewed nominations and not many active reviewers. Next time, please post a note at WT:DYK to alert editors that you'd like a speedy review. Best, Yoninah (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• AGF on the Alt1 hook source. New enough, long enough. No QPQ needed. Passes earwig. --evrik ^(talk) 04:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this. A few observations: (1) We usually move the bolded link to the front of the hook. (2) We try not to use names that don't have Wikipedia articles. The hook fact is hooky, though, so perhaps you can shorten this a bit? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• ALT1a:... that in 1969 Fred Sargeant, Craig Rodwell, Ellen Broidy and Linda Rhodes proposed the first Christopher Street Liberation Day (now the NYC Pride March), to commemorate the Stonewall riots?
• ALT1b:... that Fred Sargeant, Craig Rodwell, Ellen Broidy and Linda Rhodes proposed the first Christopher Street Liberation Day (now the NYC Pride March), to commemorate the Stonewall riots?
• @Yoninah:, thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 20:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Evrik: thanks for the alts. Personally, I think the hook fact is that the liberation day commemorates the Stonewall riots. It takes time to get past this list of names. We also don't put parentheses in hooks. If you want to keep this hook angle, why not write:
• ALT1c: ... that Fred Sargeant was among the gay rights activists who proposed the first Christopher Street Liberation Day—now the NYC Pride March—to commemorate the Stonewall riots?

Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah:, Approving Alt1c--evrik ^(talk) 20:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Politics Section

Medium is a banned source on Wikipedia, as it is a blog. In addition, the Daily News Op-Ed does not say he "condemned trans women". It is not "whitewashing" to remove contributions from banned sources and which do not say what the source says. I will therefore remove it again. Newimpartial, you have never edited this page before, and once again, you are WP:HOUNDING me in retaliation for challenging you. You came here immediately after I made a report about WP:PERSONALATTACKS violations you have made on the Linehan page to an administrator, apparently after checking my user contributions, to begin an edit war with me. You have done this before in retaliation against me when I challenge you. I ask again that you cease. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a complete characterization of my activity on WP and a personal attack. Please don't do that.

Medium is not a "banned" source but anyway, I have revised the text and improved the sourcing, using LGBTQ Nation and citing Sargent's Tweet in his own words (which is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF for inclusion and DUE because it is referenced in LGBTQ Nation, a high-quality RS). Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial I have no idea what sources you have used now, as both of your citations show up only as CITE ERRORS. Please cite correctly or remove the content. In addition, LGB Alliance is not an "anti-trans" organization. They are a lesbian and gay rights organization. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I was trying to follow WP:CITEVAR but was unfamiliar with this page's format. There is no longer a cite error, now. Also, there are multiple RS that label LGB alliance as "anti-transgender", including LGBTQ Nation already cited. I will add another. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Although I can now see the sources, they are still showing up with CITE ERRORS attached. The correct citation format is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Harvard_citation_no_brackets

I would prefer not to get into yet another edit war with you, but I am sure you know there are many sources which say the Alliance is NOT anti-trans. Please attempt neutrality. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed.

So far, I have been unable to find any sources staring that the LGB Alliance is not anti-trans. Could you share what you have? Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Your Cite Errors are still not all fixed. User:Ucucha/HarvErrors is a tool that lets you see where the errors are happening. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that say LGB Alliance is not a hate group, but we both know that we have had this discussion many times. You ask for sources, but no matter how many reliable sources are then provided to you, you say they don't count. You use only sources from "LGBT" news sites and websites that will inevitably be against a group that believes transgender activism should be separate from gay and lesbian activism. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo, I never said that LGB Alliance was a "hate group", so people saying it is "not a hate group" are not relevant. I am not restricting myself to LGBT news sourves, either; the reason I dropped the New York Post is simply because it is a lower-quality source, not because isn't notably queer.

Anyway, I'm not sufficiently technical to use the script but I believe I have fixed the last of the sources I added; at least they each click through perfectly for me. This reminds me of why I disagree on principle with CITEVAR. :(. Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You almost exclusively use LGBTQ sources when including information about LGB Alliance on Wikipedia, as they are the ones that will say that it's "anti-trans" for lesbians and gays to believe that because transgender is not a sexual orientation, it is a separate cause from theirs. There is no reason to include the LGBTQ Nation characterization of him at all; it would be more appropriate to report that he has supported LGB Alliance and include his statements. You have previously dismissed sources that say LGB Alliance isn't anti-trans, like trans woman Dr. Debbie Hayton's column in the Spectator [1]. This is bias.

You also cannot include in the article statements like "his views came to light after JK Rowling liked one of his tweets". The source doesn't say that, and it makes it sound like his views were a secret that was exposed. In fact, his views had been reported by the media when he first voiced support for LGB Alliance and he had given interviews about them and had been tweeting them for some time already at that point. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The point about "came to light" is valid, so I have amended the text for accuracy. I don't recall ever discussing the Debbie Hayton piece, but it isn't a RS for anything besides her own opinion, which would not be DUE in this article. On the other hand, the LGBTQ Nation piece concerns this article's subject and connects him to the organization which it labels as "anti-transgender". This most certainly is relevant to this article, and DUE as the best RS I've seen that comments on his social media activity. I added the Gaynation cite to pre-empt the objection that only LGBTQ Nation regards the LGB Alliance that way. In fact all RS that I know about use "anti-trans" and similar terms for the LGB Alliance. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There were still a number of errors with your sourcing, including the references not being put in alphabetical order and the misspelling of Sargeant's name, which I have fixed. I have also moved the section so that "Personal life" remains last and eliminated the unnecessary source calling him "anti-trans" as it was an opinion that added nothing of value to the article. I changed some minor wording, as well, and used an unbiased news source (The Telegraph) to describe the LGB Alliance, as well as including the full quote of the tweet you had used, but most of your material is still in there. Hopefully, you will accept this as a fair and neutral compromise that adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I have re-added LGBTQ Nation as still the best source on the controversy, and replaced the Telegraph material with a more accurate selection from the same source. Tweet left intact. Newimpartial (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I have left in the LGBTQNation source and the part you added about gay and lesbian attraction being based on biological sex (removed the quotation marks around that as they aren't necessary) but put back in the Alliance's belief that T rights are separate from LGB, which is the main belief on which it is criticized. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Swastikas

Sargeant has started posting pride flag swastikas on twitter (see [2] [3]). No coverage currently, but if this or something similar does get picked up how should it be handled? There is currently a "social media controversy" section, but "controversies" sections should be avoided for BLP where possible.Wikiditm (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I introduced the "controversies" section as a lesser evil here, since there was RS material that didn't yet carry a more coherent storyline. I would suggest that we stick with that heading until something clearer emerges from the RS, or unless one particular theme gains enough mindspace that it needs a dedicated section. Newimpartial (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Source of LGB alliance controversy/criticism

The current wording on LGB alliance controversy reads: "...LGB Alliance, which has generated controversy for advocating the ideas that lesbian, gay and bisexual rights are separate from transgender rights and that lesbian and gay identities are defined by attraction to biological sex rather than gender identity." This is a poor wording for a couple of reasons, in relation to the source used, which is [4]. Firstly, this wording is not really found in the source. It is a very liberal paraphrase of numerous sections, and there is no indication in the source that these are what has generated controversy. Secondly, this source is covering the formation of LGB Alliance, and not the controversy and criticism it subsequently generated, so it cannot be stretched in any reasonable way to support this sort of claim without making substantial inferences bordering on WP:OR. For this reason, I searched for a reliable source which covers specifically the controversy/criticism which LGB Alliance has attracted, and I found this: [5]. The headline is "‘LGB Alliance’ group faces criticism for being transphobic" and there are many more relevant details on this controversy for the interested reader. In order to maintain neutrality and avoid any contribution from personal bias, I decided to reword the sentence copying the reliable source wording as closely as possible. This then read "...LGB Alliance, which has faced criticism for being transphobic." This sentence was then much more concise, accurate, and close to the source, which in turn was more relevant to the claim. I think this is clear improvement over the previous wording for these reasons. This was subsequently reverted shortly with the reason "This is biased and unsupported." which is ridiculous.Wikiditm (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The Telegraph is a very reliable source and my article paraphrased what it said, which is what we are supposed to do. The paragraph was more than fair and agreed upon. You have never edited this page before and are now engaging in the exact same edit warring and slanting of this article to your POV that you did on the Linehan page. I ask that both you and Newimpartial stop WP:HOUNDING me to other pages I edit and stop tag-teaming me with these edit wars. Please. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Both the Telegraph and the Independent are reliable sources. Rather than edit warring back and forth to use one or the other, why doesn't everyone try to work together on a compromise wording than incorporates information from both? Enough with the reverting - try proposing changes below. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The Telegraph is absolutely a reliable source. My complaint is not that it's not a reliable source, but rather that it isn't relevant to the claim being made. The claim is about the criticism and controversy which LGB Alliance has received. The Telegraph source covers the formation of LGB Alliance, not the subsequent criticism and controversy, and so is not a good source for the claim. The Independent, on the other hand, is explicitly covering the criticism and controversy, and so is perfect for this claim. Further, the paraphrasing of The Telegraph source is poor for the reasons I gave above. It is nonsense to accuse of edit warring when I made a single edit. As per Girth Summit's suggestion above, it is clearly most appropriate for the Independent to be used as a source for the criticism/controversy which LGB Alliance has faced. If you wish to add a sentence to the section which covers the formation of LGB Alliance then it would make sense to source this with the Telegraph.Wikiditm (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit So despite this explicit instruction from you to stop reverting and propose changes here, it's perfectly fine that Newimpartial again reverted and made changes without proposing or discussing them here first? Can you tell me what the point is in me taking part in the discussion at all or following your instructions if they are allowed to simply disregard them and revert anyway, replacing it with whatever they want with no discussion first? As always, I cannot get any edits in at all with two editors tag-teaming to revert my edits and eliminate well-sourced material. If I revert back, I'll be accused of edit warring (also, Newimpartial has once again done the sourcing incorrectly and caused CITE ERRORS). Lilipo25 (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The edit of this section previously agreed upon in the discussion in the "Politics" section above was clear and factual. Wikiditm's edit simply makes the section less clear as it gives no indication of why LGB Alliance is controversial, and it does not say what the source used says (it quotes critics saying the organization is transphobic; it doesn't say it is). Furthermore, the controversy surrounding the LGB Alliance is entirely about its views, which were well covered in the Telegraph article, despite Wikiditm's claim above that they were not. And in Wikiditm's use of the Independent as a source, they made no effort to include those views or the controversy around them, so it makes no sense to claim it is a better source for covering the controversy. Newimpartial had already included the quote from an LGBT source calling Sargent "transphobic", which I had left in as a compromise. Newimpartial agreed with this edit.

We have had this exact same debate over this characterization of LGB Alliance on the Linehan page and it went on for months with the same two editors, along with a third (Bastun) merely tag-teaming anyone who tried to get a non-biased description of LGB Alliance into the article. Repeatedly deleting reliable sources that give clear, concise descriptions of the organization's views in order to just call it "transphobic" is not helpful to readers of the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

With regards giving an indication of why LGB Alliance is controversial, we could easily use the opening line of the Independent article, which says "heavily criticised for excluding the transgender community, prompting people to label it transphobic." The claim that my edit didn't say what the source says is bizarre. My edit was "LGB Alliance, which has faced criticism for being transphobic." It boggles my mind to suggest that this is not supported by the article "LGB Alliance group faces criticism for being transphobic." As above, though, if you want to include a sentence on the formation or views of LGB Alliance, it makes absolute sense to me that this would bounce of the Telegraph article. Finally, I think it's worth noting a distinction between wikipedia calling LGB Alliance transphobic, and acknowledging that reliable sources call the group transphobic.Wikiditm (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo, please AGF. This article does (Edit:) not call primarily for "clear, concise descriptions of the organization's views" based on spokespeople for the organization itself; this article needs to answer from an NPOV perspective why it is that Fred Sargeant's support for the LGB Alliance on social media is controversial. It is only the controversy, as documented in RS, that makes inclusion of Sargeant's tweets DUE. Every time you edit to tone down or whitewash these reasons, you undermine the NPOV of the article through undue deference to the subject and those he allies himself with. A source that directly addresses the reason the organization's views are controversial simply trumps a source that simply repeats the aims of the founders, for purposes of this article. If you want to create an LGB Alliance article, the Telegraph source would be appropriate for that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC) (Edited later to reflect my original intention. Newimpartial (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC))

Wikiditm, it's more subtle than that. The Independent does not say that LGB Alliance is transphobic - it says that other people have accused it of that. Whatever content is added to the article based on these sources ought to worded carefully in order to reflect that - it has been accused of whatever, not that it is whatever. I don't understand why you are continuing to edit back and forth on this, removing perfectly good sources, rather than proposing content and discussing it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The article says "LGB Alliance group faces criticism for being transphobic." My edit read "LGB Alliance, which has faced criticism for being transphobic." My wording there is inarguably supported by the source. It is absurd to claim that there is any meaningful difference between those two wordings apart from a change of tense. The accusation that I am "continuing to edit back and forth on this" is false. I have made a single edit. I ignored your previous implication that I was edit warring, but now you have repeated it so I feel the need to address. Please retract that comment.Wikiditm (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikiditm, the article does not say "LGB Alliance group faces criticism for being transphobic" - that's what the headline says. WP:HEADLINE is a worthwhile read, and it outlines some of the problems with relying on what headlines say - they're intentionally sensational, they condense complex stuff into a single catchy line, and are often not written by the person who wrote the article. Our content should be based on the body of the text of an article, which is likely to be more nuanced and in-depth. I am happy to make it clear that I am not accusing you, specifically, of edit warring, and to apologise for the way I worded that. When I look at the recent article history, I see a lot of back and forth editing (where the red number matches the green number) - that's a sign of edit warring, but it was clumsy of me to imply that you, specifically, we responsible for it. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This was a good read. Thank you. I think something based off the opening sentence would perhaps be more appropriate then, as in my comment above. I still maintain that it makes most sense, if Lilipo wishes this, to have a sentence on the controversy backed by the Independent, along with a sentence on LGB Alliance's founding backed by the Telegraph article. Also thank you for the apology, this is accepted.Wikiditm (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikiditm, I would suggest going from the body of the article, rather than exclusively off its opening sentence - as with our lead sections, journalistic lead sentences are catchy summaries. It's always better to attempt to summarise the body of the text. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I took the "summarize the body" approach when I edited the text refer to the subject's support for the LGB Alliance, which has faced criticism for excluding the transgender community and transphobia, as well for as the organization's skepticism about gender as "a social construct". I am not implying that this text us the be-all and end-all, but it is intended to summarize (accurately) from the body of the Independent source. Newimpartial (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit And Newimpartial has just reverted the edit again, despite you specifically telling us to stop reverting and discuss.Lilipo25 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have also taken the time to review the new source and align the text more closely to it. It is not as though there was a "stable version" preceding Wikiditm's edit: the section has been in active development since it was first added. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

...and continues to make more edits instead of continuing to discuss here. I cannot win in an edit war with them tag-teaming, and they ignore all discussions on Talk pages and even admin directions to discuss and just make the changes they want anyway, then claim their edits are simply right and I'm just difficult and unreasonable to object. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please contribute to the discussion above regarding possible wording using both sources.Wikiditm (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss here, Lilipo. What I am not happy to do is to see you revert suggested improvements as though BRD applied to the passage in question - which it does not, since the section has been in active development more or less continuously since it was added. If you have some reason to believe my edit has not ensured the necessary clarity about POV, I would be happy to discuss it here. Just stop reverting improvements, please. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, you know that I did not revert the article after the admin explicitly instructed us to stop reverting. You did. Saying "Just stop reverting, please" in an attempt to make the violation seem two-sided is disingenuous at best. And there is, once again, no point in continuing to discuss when the two of you just ignore the discussion and make the changes you want anyway, even with an admin having told you to stop. Nothing I say or any point I make can make any difference at all under these circumstances, which continue from article to article. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It would really best if you are able to engage with the discussion about a potential wording which includes both sources.Wikiditm (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo, I am *not* following you "from article to article". If you were to cease making IDONTLIKEIT POV edits about "gender ctitical" topics, I would stop reverting them.

And you and I have each made two reverts to this article in the last 24 hours; let's not climb on any high horses either of us. (On June 28, I made two and you made three.) At some point, you just have to accept that engaging in one-against-many POV disputes is not an effective approach to editing on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The ONLY edit I made after Girth Summit told us to stop reverting was to remove the italics from a block quote I had put in the article when I originally wrote it, so the formatting matches the other block quote. I did not revert or edit the section in dispute. YOU ignored the admin's direction, reverted the section in dispute and then rewrote.it. All of this can be seen by checking the time stamps. I have not reverted it again. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been pinged several times in this discussion, but I'm losing track of the threads so am putting this comment down here in the hope that all of you will be able to see it. Lilipo25, I'd like to clarify what my role as an administrator is, if you'll bear with me. I can offer advice and guidance, but I don't have authority to issue instructions which other editors are required to follow. I do think that Newimpartial would do better to propose changes here, because they know that this is contentious, and frankly I think it would be the polite thing to do.

Newimpartial, you have put 'social construct' inside quote marks - I think you're doing it because it's a direct quote, but it looks a bit scary. Social construct is a widely used term - we don't need to present it as a direct quote, we should simply wikilink to the term. I also wonder whether it would be better to actually inform the reader about the organisations views, and explain what it is about them which has been criticised. How about something along the following lines:

He voiced support for the organization LGB Alliance, an organisation which advocates for the position that gender is a social construct and that sexuality is based on biological sex,(ref the Telegraph) a view which has been criticised for excluding the transgender community.(ref the Indy)

Would a form of words along those lines be an acceptable compromise? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It would need to say "sexual attraction" rather than "sexuality", which is too broad and can mean several different things, including biological sex. Both sources specify sexual attraction. The "social construct" is also confusing because the group's critics also largely believe gender (as opposed to sex) is a social construct, so that isn't really part of the controversy. The main criticism of LGB Alliance centers on what is quoted in the Telegraph article: that they believe transgender activism is separate from lesbian, gay and bisexual activism because transgender is not a sexual orientation like the other three.

"He voiced support for the LGB Alliance, an organisation which advocates the positions that sexual attraction is based on biological sex and that gay activism is separate from transgender activism because the latter is not a sexual orientation. (ref the Telegraph) This view has been criticised by some as "transphobic". (ref the Indy)" Lilipo25 (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the controversy to know whether your wording is more accurate, but if that is what the criticism is really about then obviously that would be better. The second sentence needs to avoid weasel words (...by some...), and shouldn't have transphobic in scare quotes - it should just link to transphobia. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I personally would be fine with something in this line, but with a bit of wordsmithing. As a result of an edit conflict I have seen Lilipo's version and have incorporated it in part, though I believe my emphasis here reflects the logic of both sources more closely.

He voiced support for the organization LGB Alliance, an organisation which advocates for the position that sexual attraction is based on biological sex, while gender is a social construct.(ref the Telegraph) This view, and their belief that transgender activism should be excluded from LGB organizing and lobbying, have been criticised as transphobic.(ref the Indy)

I am not wedded to this wording, but I think it follows the logic of both sources more closely than that proposed by Girth Summit or by Lilipo (though without COPYVIO). And yes, my scare quotes were inspired by the source, but I would be happy for the article to do without them. Newimpartial (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in the Indy about criticism of the view that gender is a social construct - maybe I'm missing something, but the criticism all seems to be about separating LGB activism from T activism. We don't want to get into too much detail in this article obviously, but how about:

He voiced support for the LGB Alliance, an organisation which advocates for the position that sexual attraction is based on biological sex, while gender is a social construct,(telegraph) and by extension that transgender activism should be excluded from LGB organising and lobbying. This view that has been criticised as transphobic.(indy) GirthSummit _(blether) 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

And Lilipo, the reason to include the "social construct" of gender in this phrase is because the LGB Alliance holds the position (expressed elsewhere) that gender identity is not "real", and this is part of their otherwise peculiar use of the slogan that "gender is a social construct". The social construction of gender and sexuality means something quite different to their critics. Without dragging this whole issue into this passage, I think it is important to indicate (based on the RS) why this conflict arises: it isn't some random belief on the part of the Alliance that sexuality is for biologically sexed bodies and a tangentially related belief that transgender people have nothing to do with LGB politics. It is, rather, a motivated belief that gender identities don't exist/don't matter, and consequently a re-centring on biological sex in order to exclude the T from the LGB umbrella. To treat the Alliance's positions as happenstance does both them and their critics a disservice IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I'm not sure how much we can say with any degree of confidence about people's motivations for their beliefs. Please can we keep this discussion focussed on how best to summarise reliable sources, and not get side-tracked into a discussion of what we think about the subject we're writing about? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding due to edit conflict, Newimpartial's statement on the motivations of the LGB Alliance is highly inaccurate. The belief that biological sex is the basis of sexual attraction is motivated by their view that Stonewall, the organization they split from, was implying that lesbians were transphobic if they weren't attracted to transgender women. It is not a belief created merely to exclude the T from LGB.

Changing "separate" to "excludes" has a strong judgmental slant to it. The only direct quote with the word "excludes" in the Independent article is one in which Bev Jackson of the LGB Alliance specifically says they do not exclude trans people. I would agree with Girth Summit in removing the quotes from transphobic and the words "by some". As for gender, there is no real argument that it isn't a social construct by either side of the debate.

"He voiced support for the LGB Alliance, an organisation which advocates the positions that sexual attraction is based on biological sex rather than gender identity and that gay activism should be separate from transgender activism because the latter is not a sexual orientation (ref the Telegraph), views which have been criticised as transphobic. (ref the Indy)" Lilipo25 (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The circumstances surrounding the supposed "split from Stonewall" are not in themselves germane to this article, though I will note that Lilipo's account given above is highly deferential to the organization's own account (per ABOUTSELF) rather than the statements reliable sources have made about it. Their statement that my interpretation - which I am not proposing to include in the article - is "highly inaccurate" might fit with the Alliance's own spokespeople but doesn't align with what most RS say. Do you happen to have a COI on this one, Lilipo? I have none, having never been associated with either the Alliance or Stonewall.

Anyway, my main reaction to Lilipo's proposed text is that the phrase "because the latter is not a sexual orientation" should not be included because it shows undue deference to the Alliance's views and therefore violates NPOV. There is nobody arguing that transgender identity is a sexual orientation, so the logic here is also faulty and this particular herring is not due per RS.

So I hate to impose on you again, Girth Summit, but could you try reformulating? It seems clear that any further drafts from me will be met with hostility. Newimpartial (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy to reformulate, but before I do so, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, can I ask both of you to step back from any comments that the other party might find objectionable. We're getting somewhere here, but the needling isn't helping that - Newimpartial, you're not happy with Lilipo25's use of the phrase 'highly inaccurate' about something you said; well, I don't imagine that they're very happy with your suggestion that they have a COI. Seriously - let's just keep this about the content, and try to take some steps back towards a non-toxic editing environment. I'll propose a compromise wording shortly, I'm about to reread the sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

While I could indeed now huff in indignation that it is "unbelievable" and "outrageous" that Newimpartial has accused me of having a COI (both words Newimpartial and Wikiditm threw at me when I asked Wikiditm the exact same question on the Linehan page about these same organisations) and then go open an ANI declaring it UNCIVIL and a PERSONAL ATTACK (which Wikiditm did and Newimpartial supported), and spend a month dragging Newimpartial through the mud with accusations including suggestions that Newimpartial is the same as those who let the Nazis kill Jews (thrown at me by Newimpartial in the ANI), I'll just answer instead, since that's what we're supposed to do when someone asks if you have a COI on Wikipedia: No, I don't have a conflict of interest. I have never been associated with either Stonewall or LGB Alliance in any way. You're welcome, Newimpartial. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

e/c I meant to say, Girth Summit,as far as the "gender is a social construct" element in the controversy, you are right that it is only alluded to in The Independent (in the tweets they cite), but it is referred to explicitly by many other critical sources. I am not saying that it has to go in, but it is most definitely an element in the controversy. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as COI questions are concerned, apparently Lilipo feels that they are fine so long as they are "logical". Newimpartial (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, please! I am doing what I can to de-escalate the tensions here. Let's try to move forward, not hark back to stuff from weeks/months ago.

I see what you're saying about the social construct thing, but we couldn't add anything based on those sources (I appreciate that you're not suggesting that we do) - one is an polemic on a blog site, the other is just reporting on a bunch of people's Twitter or Instagram feeds, nothing in the way of real content. Let's keep it focussed on the RS. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, here's my thinking...

• Separate versus exclude - the Telegraph article doesn't use the word 'exclude', but it does talk about trans inclusion (a phrase it uses twice) being the trigger that led the LGB Alliance to part company with Stonewall. Exclude seems to me to be the natural opposite of include, but I have offered an alternative phrasing below.
• I've tried to accommodate the social construct thing as well - it seems relevant to link to it, since they use it themselves and it's mentioned in the Indy.
• I tend to agree that the 'because the latter is not a sexual orientation' thing isn't necessary - if we start to give justifications for their position, we probably have to explain the other position, which will end up making the thing bloated. Better to keep it brief - we don't want to turn this article into a coatrack.

Therefore, I propose the following:

He voiced support for the LGB Alliance,(twitter) an organisation which advocates for the position that sexual attraction is based on biological sex, while gender is a social construct,(telegraph) and by extension that transgender rights should not be included within the remit of LGB activism. This view that has been criticised as transphobic.(indy)

Any thoughts on that? GirthSummit _(blether) 15:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't love it, but I can live with it (with the addition of "is a" between the first and second words of the last sentence, for the sake of grammar). Lilipo25 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops! Struck 'that', it now says what I meant it to. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This wording seems fine to me. The only issue I can see is the apparent implication that advocating for gender being viewed as a social construct in any way logically extends to trans exclusion. The former being a view promoted by many famous gender theorists and queer theorists, for example Judith Butler. The latter being a position that the majority of these selfsame theorists oppose. This is not a huge issue, but I can imagine editors wanting to improve it in future to avoid this implication.Wikiditm (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe drop "by extension" so it just reads, "and that transgender rights should not be included under a common LGBT umbrella", or something. I'm not fond of "included within the remit of", but I'm not attached to the umbrella metaphor either (though it is certainly used often enough). Basically I am comfortable with this approach; thanks, Girth Summit. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think "by extension" works well and makes the sentence clear. If we can all agree on this version, I will add it as Newimpartial's edits have left the page with Cite Errors again due to improper sourcing, which I need to fix. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

For me, by extension is a reference to their thinking - we're talking about the position that they take, not saying whether it is correct or commonly held - I'd prefer that the phrase, or something like it, be included. I don't have a major problem with the umbrella phrasing, I just tend to try to avoid figurative language within articles. I'd be happy with changing this to "and that transgender rights should not be included within the common umbrella of LGBT activism"? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I like Girth Summit's last formulation. Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, i can live with it. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Veteran vs witness

Fred Sargeant shouldn't be described as a Stonewall Veteran, he did not participate in the riot simply witnessed it. His boyfriend at the time isn't describe as a Stonewall Veteran on his Wikipedia article either. P12Midori (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I will correct the page of Craig Rodwell, too - thank you for letting me know. Both Rodwell and Sargeant were at the Stonewall during the first night of rioting: Rodwell is described in several sources as having shouted at the cops as they were making arrests; it was the resistance to these arrests that set off the first riot. More importantly, both Rodwell and Sargeant returned for every night of the riots as they continued throughout the week. Both were participants, not merely witnesses. The sources are clear on this.

The source you cited for making the change to "witness" does not say that at all - in fact, it isn't even about the Stonewall Riots. It is about the planning of the first Gay Pride march a year later. Your edit is therefore unsupported by the source and I have reverted it again.

I see that you have created your account solely to make this edit, and have no other Wikipedia edits. Please understand that Wikipedia editing must follow the sources and maintain a neutral point of view. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have previously made Wikipedia edits but hadn't created an account before. The source I put was not the right one but I have fixed this. There is no evidence of Fred Sargeant participating in the riots in any capacity. He himself describes as just stopping to look at what was going on and does not describe as having been involved in the riot in any way. P12Midori (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Rodwell was also not a veteran. Veteran is a word that implies fighting. Neither Rodwell nor Sargeant fought during the Stonewall Riots. They did support the side of the rioter, but they did not fight and therefore are not veterans. P12Midori (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This source does NOT support the edit, either. In fact, he specifically describes returning to the riots every night that week with leaflets and participating in the gay rights demonstrating, along with Rodwell. "Veteran" means those who participated in the protest - they did. You are just skipping through the list of sources and sticking different ones on the wording you want, but none of them support it. Please stop or I will have to report your account for the vandalism. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No he did not participate in the protest, he watched the riot. Stonewall was not a protest, it was a riot. Riot means fighting. Veteran of a riot means fighting in a riot. Neither Sargeant nor Rodwell fought. They are not veterans, the source clearly indicate all he did was observing. You are misusing the word veteran. P12Midori (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Stonewall was a protest. Many of the participants have objected to the characterization of it as a riot. But that is neither here nor there: "veteran" does NOT mean "fighting". I gather you have this impression because we refer to those who fought in war as 'veterans', but the word doesn't refer only to that. And the fact remains that there are multiple sources already cited which support the fact that he participated in the protest. No, we will not use the Pink News hit piece as a source. Pink News and Sargent engaged in an open feud after he criticized their attacks on JK Rowling, and they retaliated with that piece which was utterly defamatory (claiming that he celebrated the murder of a black transman by the police, when in fact the transman had just stabbed to death a young black man and Sargent said his sympathy was for the murder victim - Pink News didn't mention that. The murderer had posted a Facebook video hours earlier stating that he was going to murder the young black man and then commit suicide by pulling a gun on police so he wouldn't go back to prison - Pink News didn't mention that, either). There are numerous reliable sources already cited which prove your wording wrong. Just stop.Lilipo25 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I also notice you have had the time to revert the "witness" to "veteran" 2 or 3 times but haven't changed the page of Craig Rodwell. This shows you have a political motive to classify Sargeant as a veteran, which you do not have for Rodwell. Therefore your change isn't just not supported by sources but also politically affiliated and not neutral. P12Midori (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't changed the page of Craig Rodwell because I went over and checked and what you said is false - I can find nowhere on the page where he is referred to as a "witness" at all. Therefore, there is nothing to be changed. You are a single-purpose account created entirely to change this one article for your own agenda, so I would suggest that attacking my motives is not a particularly smart idea.

Please learn to indent your replies by putting the colon in front of them so ppl can follow threads (I have used a single colon indent here, so any reply you make should have two colons at the start of it).Lilipo25 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

He isn't referred as a witness but he isn't referred as a "veteran" either. The issue I'm having is that we cannot and should not use the word veteran. ::I'm happy to hear alternatives to witness. But I can't let "veteran" be on this page. P12Midori (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You specifically said Rodwell was called a "witness" on his page. He is not, so what you said was false and there is nothing for me to change. So don't attack me for not changing what does not exist. And it is not up to you to "let" things be on this page. That's not how it works. I will consider "participant" instead, but not "witness". Lilipo25 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Well sorry that colon attempt was a fail P12Midori (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Stonewall WAS a riot and many actual Stonewall veterans oppose its description as a protest. Wikipedia itself describes Stonewall as a riot. It wasn't a protest, you are not in agreement with the encyclopedia when you describe it as such.

Also, the definitions of veteran: "person with long experience of a particular activity. (figuratively) A group, animal, etc. with long experience of a particular activity. A person who has served in the armed forces, especially an old soldier who has seen long service; also called a war veteran to distinguish from veterans that weren't in armed conflict" Clearly, only the last one applies here and it would NOT apply if Stonewall was a protest as we don't talk about veterans of a protest. Stonewall was a riot and Stonewall veterans are people who fought in the riot. This is the agreed upon stance of Wikipedia on Stonewall and on veteran. If you want to change those then you should first change the definition of veteran and the description of Stonewall by Wikipedia. But as long as this isn't the case, Sargeant CANNOT be described as a veteran. P12Midori (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I will compromise and call it an "uprising" via this source [6]. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia literally calls it a riot, if you disagree with the way Wikipedia describes it then take it up with the Stonewall Riots page.

One more thing, the things you say the PinkNews article doesn't do, does precise. It does say that McDade was accused of murdering someone but it turns out, it cannot legally call McDade a murderer because he wasn't tried and sentenced for murder. You don't like PinkNews to be used as a source because of your political beliefs. There is no reason PinkNews can't be used as a source. On top of that, this article cites 2 different sources to support that Sargeant wasn't a Stonewall Veteran, I just thought it was better to give a source that wasn't behind a pay wall. You have no source to support your allegation that he was a veteran whereas I had 2 supporting that he wasn't. It is unproductive to revert to a description that is not supported by sources rather than one that is, even if you don't like the sources. P12Midori (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We will not use a source that engaged in an open feud with the article subject because he criticized them. That is not unbiased. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not unbiased to dismiss a source that doesn't agree with the person in question. Being unbiased means showing several points of view, not ignoring the ones you don't like. P12Midori (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You have been told by AutumnKing2012 to stop changing the page repeatedly while the discussion is ongoing. WP rules state that you should engage in the discussion until a consensus is reached. You have made over a dozen edits while this is going on in violation of that.. I will ask an admin to step in and look at the page as we are getting nowhere. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have provided multiple alternatives, as well as sources to back my point of view that veteran is simply inaccurate, I have among other things suggested "witness" and "self-described veteran" but you have refused to move an inch in my direction. So yes, this is going nowhere but isn't my fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P12Midori (talk • contribs) 18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I in fact suggested "participant" as a compromise and you ignored it. Also, you cannot sign out of your account and edit as an IP account just to make more reverts than the rules allow. You are not engaging in good faith here and have repeatedly changed the page while I am attempting to engage in discussion with you, and you are ignoring all of the many sources which describe him participating in the uprising over the entire week it took place. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your suggestion of "participant". What evidence do you have that he indeed participated in the riot? Craig Rodwell is being called a participant because he chanted and shouted "Gay Power", what participation did Sargeant have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by P12Midori (talk • contribs) 19:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The "evidence" I have is the sources that are in the article, which state that both Rodwell and Sargeant returned for every night of the protest throughout the week, bringing flyers about gay rights they had printed to hand out that called the police corrupt and demanded they stop harassing gay bars. They encouraged the protesters to fight back and join their gay rights movement. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

P12Midori, please can you discuss these changes with others and gain consensus before reinstating your edits (or any similar compromise version)? I see that you have been reverted now by multiple editors - I'm going to leave some advice on edit warring on your talk page. I appreciate that you are new, but the way to go about getting your changes accepted is by discussing them with others, not by trying to push them through. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

2022 incident

None of the sources provided for this section support its inclusion. They're based entirely on his self-reported claims via Facebook posts, some of which have exaggerated the claims made on his Facebook page. No an unbiased source. At most it can only state that he claims certain things, there's no independent sources for this information.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a week, and no dissenting views, so I propose removing the section until, or rather if, there's reliable citations from third party sources, not just repeating (and exaggerating) what he himself put on his Facebook page.219.88.68.195 (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The National Review article includes corroborating information from the Burlington police and the emergency room. Their article was not based solely on Facebook. Schazjmd (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The National Review doesn't really corroborate his statements with information from the police beyond the most general.

"In an email to National Review, Burlington police said they were first contacted about the incident by a parade attendee who reported a man who was “allegedly carrying an offensive sign and was upsetting people in the parade.” The caller said someone poured coffee on the man, presumably Sargeant, who had “elbowed her friend.”

More than two hours after the parade ended, Burlington police received another call from an emergency room nurse who reported that a patient had been assaulted at the parade. By the time an officer followed up nearly three hours later, Sargeant was no longer at the hospital, according to the police department." That's a far cry from what Sargeant and the article say, which is "Sargeant was shoved, smacked on the head repeatedly, knocked to the ground, robbed, and had coffee dumped on his head, while bystanders stood and watched, or filmed." It definitely needs editing to reflect that.

Both the National Review and the Scottish Daily Express have pretty clearly political bents, so it's worth either finding other sources or editing the article to reflect that Sargeant's statements aren't easily corroborated. Jhhillman (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians experienced in this controversial area of gender politics know that the current LGBT and leftist, and even mainstream media, often will not cover these types of conflicts, maintaining complete silence even on physical violence such as this incident. They see it as too volatile and don't want to take a side and get dragged. When it's covered, it's hard to find any source that all parties agree is neutral. Established editors who maintain articles in this field know the pattern well. For this reason only, I am more lenient on the sourcing here, and allow for sources we often have to use with a critical eye. There are videos and photos online of the assault, and social media commentary from participants and witnesses. We're not using any of the conservative (or liberal) sources for their opinion, which may be biased, but only for their third-party publication of incidents it's easy to confirm happened. This assault of a founder of Pride, at a Pride march is notable for many reasons, and a significant sign of the times. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the only source for the description of events is the subject's account himself via social media. The only video posted is of a woman merely trying to grab his sign, then giving up, without directly physically assaulting him, he also didn't post any pictures of anyone assaulting him. The details are not easy to confirm as having happened as he presented them, and he is obviously an inherently biased source because of the context. It's not up to anyone to be more lenient with Wikipedia policy in regard to biased sources or any other factor (especially considering WP:BLP being so strict), nor to bring personal opinion of sources to bear either way. At present the citations, being entirely based on his account without any attempt at qualification to that effect within the article are not sufficient for inclusion. Can't just say, 'well there's no unbiased sources we'll all agree on, so let's just run with ones that don't meet the criteria and present them as fact'.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, also the assertion that the perpetrators of any alleged assault or theft were specifically 'trans rights activists' is entirely unsupported.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because you don't like what third-party sources report doesn't change the fact that they are third-party sources. It seems that you either don't understand how third-party sourcing works, or you do and are purposely misrepresenting policy to try to blank content in order to push your POV. You are also twisting established editors' words to imply we have said things that we have not. None of this behavior contributes to the collaborative editing environment that is required on Wikipedia. His protest concerns a highly controversial topic that requires clear heads, calm, and the ability to write with a neutral voice. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

That reply doesn't correlate to anything I wrote, either you are misrepresenting what I said or didn't read it correctly. There are no third party sources for what occurred, nor who perpetuated whatever occurred, they are only reporting on his (uncollaborated) claims on social media. Social media posts are not enough to assert their content as unqualified fact. I didn't twist anything anyone said, and am sincerely baffled at the claim. I would ask you also not to project POV pushing. The section is not written with a neutral voice, it is merely asserting unsubstantiated claims as fact without suitable reliable sources for the specific claims asserted. As such it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. How anyone feels about the subject, even whether it is controversial, is totally irrelevant and a red herring to the actual points raised.219.88.68.195 (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You keep mentioning these third-party sources, what are they? Aside from the brief statement from Burlington PD which contains none of the details Sargeant describes, I have been able to find no third-party sources corroborating the current description of the incident. WP:RS is very clear on this.

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

I can't wrap my head around how the description of the event that we currently have in the article doesn't meet this criteria. It's certainly contentious and virtually unsourced. Based on the policy, we shouldn't even be having this discussion, but I don't want to get into an edit war. I mean this completely seriously, what are the reliable and fully corroborating third-party sources here?

Additionally, the way that the current section describes the incident clearly violates WP:IMPARTIAL. Specifically, it states that "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes" and "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." The current section only quotes Sargeant and people endorsing his version of events, including J.K Rowling and the LGB Alliance. All of these people are directly engaged in the dispute. There is no source here that doesn't have a clear axe to grind, and "these incidents are too controversial for mainstream media so we have to use obviously biased sources" is a poor defense of their inclusion in this article that reveals how clearly unsubstantiated these claims are. Jhhillman (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Social media and continued activism" section is poorly cited and lacks neutrality

The only relevant source about the events in question is the National Review article, which itself solely cites Fred Sargeant's personal Facebook page. Given that the National Review is known to promote misinformation, and that Mr. Sargeant clearly has his own agenda due to his involvement with the LGB Alliance, it would be prudent to further discuss the incident from other perspectives. As the article stands, calling the act of holding a sign which compares being transgender to black face "activism" is itself promoting gender critical ideologies and minimizing the anti-trans rhetoric used by Mr. Sargeant. 73.52.221.2 (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to start a new section for this as it's the same thing you've been on about.

Your argument is wholly politically-motivated and has no place here.

You are again misrepresenting the cited sources; we now have a handful of them, including Philadelphia Gay News and a local VT news outlet who is interviewing people on the ground. There are conservative outlets we don't usually use covering this, but it's useful to read them just to see what they have, and ones we can't use like the Daily Mail, which, in this case actually isn't opining but has the photos that support the text. Quit trying to cut content that doesn't match your POV. I don't agree with all the views of the people whose articles I edit. It doesn't matter what their views are. We are here to neutrally document them. Stop trying to use WP to push a POV. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be under the erroneous impression that the person you are replying to above is myself: they are not. This is the first comment they've left here and as such are not doing anything 'again'. Nor are they or anyone else raising this issue to 'push a POV', despite your baseless dismissal and ignoring the points raised. Engage with the arguments presented instead of mistaken projection. The article at present contains significant assertions of fact which are not supported by the cited sources. As Jhhillman explains above it should be removed for the reasons outlined. Also the pictures on the Daily Mail, which are all from the subject's own social media, do not support the text. They show one woman attempting to grab his sign, who then gave up, and did not directly assault his person. The article at present asserts things as facts which are do not have reliable sources, such as the assertion that any perpetrators were 'trans rights activists'. This is not a matter of POV, it is precisely about neutrally documenting facts. If anything is pushing a POV it is the section as it currently stands. I also don't see any of the cited sources which have been 'interviewing people on the ground'.219.88.68.195 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The above points have remained unaddressed, despite a comment later in the page asserting that one need engage in talk and seek consensus. The proposal and rationale for this section to be removed still stands. At present this section does not have reliable sources for the assertions of fact that it makes.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

What we have now is sufficient. WP:DROPTHESTICK. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Uh, no it really isn't, as explained above. Your input in this thread is inappropriate, stop projecting. A flat baseless assertion does not substitute for an argument or a point. The section as it stands makes assertions of fact which are not supported by the sources.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so it doesn't seem like you're interested in engaging on this subject. You can't really expect that refusing to address any of the points raised, and hand-waving with baseless accusations against other editors means that's the end of it as your attempt to cite dropthestick suggests, so moving on, since there is a clear violation of policy the proposal to remove the section stands.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it's been discussed. There's no reason for people to keep repeating themselves. Attempts to wear people down on talk pages by going in circles is a form of disruption. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Well no. You have not discussed the points raised, and continue to substitute sniping ad hominem attacks on others rather than do so. The only person attempting to 'wear people down' here is yourself. You don't WP:OWN the page, that you can sweep in, dismiss the valid points raised without actually addressing them and then unilaterally declare the matter closed. The policies are clear, the article at present explicitly makes assertions of fact which are not supported by reliable sources and constitute contentious material. It should be removed immediately as per the above discussion and as a matter of unambiguous policy.219.88.68.195 (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay fine, it appears you don't have any interest in actually discussing the issues raised, I'll remove the entire section in a week unless the issues are addressed. Just baselessly accusing others of bias and saying the sources are good enough because there's no good ones aren't valid arguments. And saying basically "it's been discussed, I said no, that's the end of it" is just being deliberately obstructive and obtuse, and smacks of WP:OWNERSHIP. Including unverified and contentious specific assertions as facts is introducing bias into the article, not the removing of it.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't have consensus to remove anything. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It unambiguously violates strict policy, so it isn't needed. You on the other hand don't have consensus for its inclusion and haven't made any attempts to address the points raised, anyone's mere opinion amounting to nothing more than a 'vote' is moot WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, you are not engaging in good faith, and fairly ironically given the subject, engaging in WP:STONEWALLING.219.88.68.195 (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Pitts Citation broken

The Pitts 1969 citation holds no actual, citation content that I can see. Snokalok (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I assume it's referring to the 1969 radio interview by Charles Pitts on WBAI. He's got it on his website here: https://fredsargeant.com/audio.219.88.68.195 (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep, the editor who added the ref noted the source in the edit summary but neglected to add it to the list of sources in the article. I've fixed it. Schazjmd (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"Gender critical"?

Being part of the stable version doesn't necessarily ensure that article text is WP:NPOV or well-sourced. From the edit history, I would have thought that there was no consensus for "gender critical", so it could be removed per WP:ONUS. However, since two admins have reverted to that version (and yes, it was the stable version), it seems that we should discuss the sources for "gender critical" - and its POV status - here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I was very surprised to find through web searches that there is not adequate sourcing to describe him as "gender critical", either in his own words or any of the sources we're using. I think it wound up in the article because he has been vocal in his support of others who self-describe that way, or perhaps it was a well-meant rewording of less neutral language that tends to get added by the drivebys. He self id's as supporting "same sex rights" which is not very clear language. The Scottish source does mention him protesting what he describes as the "gender ideology movement." I'm tweaking the text a bit to align with the sources. Also, @JackyTheChemosh: this is not a pass on your driveby reverts and misrepresentation of controversial language as "WP:NPOV". You need to engage on talk and seek consensus. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

POV push and blanking of sources

Jhillman, as I said on your user talk: Adding loaded descriptions about a controversial group, especially while debate continues about how to describe the LGB Alliance on that page, to other articles is inappropriate as well as WP:COATRACK. Supportive sourcing from the police who are investigating, where they simply say they are investigating, is not "editorializing". Your edit summary was inaccurate and this blanking of sources and content has all the characteristics of a POV push. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll say what I said on my user page:

I edited the description of the LGB Alliance in the Sargeant article to almost exactly match how the page on the LGB Alliance itself describes it. It's wildly inappropriate to mention the LBG Alliance with no note of the controversy around it. The summary of the LGB Alliance I gave is an abridged version of the first two paragraphs of LGB Alliance. How can you advocate keeping the part quoting the organization's description of itself without mentioning why it's a controversial organization? Reading the current description, you wouldn't know the LGB Alliance has any particular opinion on the transgender debate at all.

In regards to the "2022 incident" section, it's you who is violating WP:COATRACK. Your version is mostly made up of quotes from various media commenters (mostly from groups or people who have already stakes out a very clear side in this broader ideological debate) about the event and how awful it was. This is a very clear coat-rack. Please explain how a J.K. Rowling tweet is relevant information here. Additionally, it's very unnecessary to include Sargeant's explanation of the sign he was carrying, I think the simple description of it suffices.

In regards to the sources about the incident itself, I would point you toward my previous comments, which I made nearly three weeks before editing the article with no pushback from you or anyone else. Specifically, refer to Wikipedia:IMPARTIAL and the passages "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes" and "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone". Not only does your edit quote directly from Sargeant, every single source you include cites only Sargeant's comments in the incident. There are no third-party sources here. This is a very clear violation of WP:IMPARTIAL.

I would also like to note that the police statement is not what you make it out to be either. All that the police said is that they had received reports of some type of incident, with no additional details. They said at the time that they were "looking into it", but three weeks later there has been no additional statement from Burlington PD about the incident, so the claim that it is being investigated appears to be out of date. The fact of the matter is that the only person who had provided any details about this incident is Sargeant himself, and that directly contravenes WP:IMPARTIAL.

Your behavior around this article and toward other editors is also in very clear violation of WP:STONEWALLING and WP:OWNERSHIP. You have repeatedly blocked and reverted good-faith attempts to correct the blatant violations of Wikipedia policy in this article and provided no clear justification for any of it. If you continue doing this I am happy to invoke WP:DR and pass this issue up the chain to someone who can resolve it, as an edit war wastes everyone's time. I'll wait a couple days before making a reversion. I sincerely hope that you are making these edits in good faith and attempting to follow Wikipedia's polices rather than push your own ideological perspective, but the longer this goes on without you providing any sources beyond Sargeant's comments or any justification for the inclusion of things like articles about tweets about the incident, the harder that is to believe. If you're not willing to do that, I believe we should make a report on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Jhhillman (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine to say the LGB Alliance is controversial, but the description has to be brief and NPOV. There is a long, ongoing discussion on the talk page of that article about how to accomplish that with such a controversial group. You included language that has been taken out of that article. Calling them a hate group is not NPOV or impartial. My only POV here is to make sure the incident is covered neutrally. You are claiming that a lack of further press means the investigation is dropped or didn't happen. Investigations often stay open for years. You blanked the source that confirmed the police were contacted. That shows you are invested in deleting evidence of the incident, which has been the push by the IP SPAs. Rowling was quoted in the articles; the third-party sources found her commentary notable. I'm no fan of Rowling, but it's in the sources. We don't have a lot of sourcing for this, as controversial events like this are not getting wide coverage. If you are part of the LGBT community you know about this. My concern here is that people are trying to censor and blank what few sources we have, and you are engaging in that behavior. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"That shows you are invested in deleting evidence of the incident, which has been the push by the IP SPAs." This is yet another ad hominem, and a personal attack fairly obviously directed towards myself considering there has only been one other editor to comment once with an IP on the subject, and even a cursory glance at my edits disproves the allegation of being an SPA. I am in full and independent agreement with Jhhillman above about your behaviour in relation to this page. Your concession that this is controversial and poorly sourced in of itself should dictate immediate removal of the section in question as per policy, especially since it makes direct assertions of fact which are not supported by any source, strongly pushing a non-neutral POV. It is also deliberately misleading to include quotes such as Rowling's which misrepresent even what the primary subject himself has stated. It seems very likely you would engage in edit warring over this, arguably you already are, and have zero interest in discussing the issues raised or actual neutrality. Ample opportunity has been given to do so. @Jhhillman please do escalate the issue as you suggested.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You both, assuming you are two people and this is not an instance of WP:LOUTSOCK, cherrypick and gaslight by claiming there are no sources or that the sources haven't been discussed. We had a discussion; you just want to keep rehashing it to wear people down, which is a disruptive tactic. Jhillman's insertion of biased text ("hate group"), and deletion of supporting text and sources (the comments by the investigating police), show a clear POV push and desire to censor rather than cover this neutrally. It's very difficult, and maybe impossible, to collaborate with users who WP:GASLIGHT this way. It does not matter whether or not we agree with Sargeant's views; our role here is to neutrally document. You have shown you cannot do that. I think you should find other articles to work on instead of trying to disappear content and sources you don't like from this one. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There's an negative opinion piece from a writer for the Philadelphia Gay News cited as a source. The opinion writer compares Sargent to an extremist fundamentalist group that argues for the death of gays at Philadelphia Pride marches. It doesn't seem to have original reporting or interviews. Is this a reliable source? Claudine06896 (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The editorial in Philadelphia Gay News is by the editor of the paper, which makes it more notable than it being just by "an opinion writer". PGN has been publishing since 1976. I wouldn't call it "negative", per se, as he says that, though he doesn't agree with Sargeant's views, physical assault was not appropriate. I think many share the editor's perspective. However, it's not cited to promote any of his various viewpoints; it's cited largely for WP:V purposes, as are most of the cites, since we've had users trying to claim the photographed and reported-upon event didn't even happen. In covering something this controversial, it's not expected, or a requirement, for the sources themselves to be completely neutral. That would be ideal, but it's not always possible. The requirement is for us to write about the BLP subject and events in a neutral, encyclopedic voice, no matter what the sources say. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw mention about this on social media. Sargent said that the editor failed to reveal that he is married to the publisher of PGN about whom Sargent had written critically over the summer. Sargent had written about the publisher's association with a British LGBTQ figure with paedophilic issues. The conflict might explain the tone. Claudine06896 (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Eeek. The more you know.... Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"assuming you are two people and this is not an instance of WP:LOUTSOCK," -sounds more like a bad faith insinuation, again trying to attack other editors rather than address the actual issues raised. No, I am not Jhhillman, something I believe there are methods to detect which you're welcome to pursue, since I know we're not. And no, you have not addressed the issues that have been raised. Merely saying you've discussed it is not a resolution to the matter, you've not actually done so in any case. Again you are engaged in blatant WP:STONEWALLING and WP:OWNERSHIP, and it seems fairly apparent in pursuit of actually pushing your own POV. It is precisely for the sake of neutrality that the section as it stands should be removed. It makes unqualified assertions regarding facts which are objectively not supported by any of the sources, such as they are.219.88.68.195 (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Claudine and I are discussing sources, while you continue to make the same personal attacks, over and over, wasting people's time. Some of us are dedicated to improving articles on Wikipedia. Others are not. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The precise opposite is actually the case, demonstrably, it's you who keeps making personal attacks and wasting our time, like the aforementioned underhanded insinuation and constant snide dismissive remarks that have nothing to do with improving the article nor, more importantly, any of the points that have been raised. You're engaging in WP:STONEWALLING and maintaining objectively non-neutral and unsupported contentious content.219.88.68.195 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Another couple of examples of a false and misleading assertions in the article explicitly contradicted by the source cited, firstly: "Burlington Police Chief Jon Murad reported receiving several calls about the incident, from parade-goers and hospital staff,". The source details merely three calls, the first complaining about (presumably) Sargeant upsetting people with an offensive sign, the second to complain that 'the man with the sign' had elbowed a friend of the caller, and one from the hospital to report that a patient (Sargeant) had advised them he was assaulted and wanted to make a report, but had left by the time they could respond two and half hours later (fair enough really). The first two do not regard 'the incident' as it is implied, and in fact are complaints about him (and one an allegation of those an allegation that he assaulted someone). The third is by proxy regarding a report from the primary subject. Secondly: "After seeing images of Sargeant being assaulted", there are no such images, and the source merely states "After seeing images of Mr Sargeant". Also the uncritical inclusion of two quotes alleging he was 'beaten', even going so far as to say, 'beaten to the ground by a mob', when even he made no claim to that effect, conflates this as 'the incident', singular, presenting a false narrative. The inclusion of Rowling's quote seems more an excuse to platform the broader view she was expressing in the Tweet. She has direct involvement with, nor relevance to what happened in of herself. There's also no grounds for the claim that anyone involved was 'trans rights activist', no one was engaged in any activism, they were at a parade, nor does it seem likely that Mr. Sergeant engaged with them sufficiently to be aware of anyone's general activity in relation to such matters. His opinion on the matter is clearly a biased source. Also "He added that they are still looking into the incident." which has already been commented on, ignores the later part where he stated “If additional information becomes available, particularly if complainants come forward, the BPD will take appropriate next steps.”, indicating that further steps were in fact conditional on that.219.88.68.195 (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

External link - Interview

On most BLPs this wouldn't be controversial, as even people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Steve Bannon, et al have ext. links to interviews and media appearances so readers can see them speak for themselves. But with the efforts to silence this BLP, I'm noting this here. As mentioned above, due to some of Sargeant's views being rather controversial, he has been largely deplatformed in the usual LGBT media, and only conservative outlets are interviewing him and covering news he's involved in. Not ideal, but, it's our job to sift through the sources and do our best. This Oct 11, 2022 interview with Sargeant is also on the Log Cabin Republicans' news site, OutSpoken. As the org obviously has a certain political position, and some sensationalist headlines that would be seen if we link directly to the interview on their site, I'm using the link to the interview on Vimeo, but including the page link here on talk for completeness. The interview itself does not advance The Log Cabin Republican views but is a straightforward interview with Sargeant, largely about gay history and his role in it, and includes mention of the recent events and his perspective on recent developments in the community. It meets the criteria for an external link. Best, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"But with the efforts to silence this BLP", gross mischaracterisation based more on your own POV pushing and stonewalling, and an example of your continued hostile attitude to other editors and refusal to engage.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)