Jump to content

Talk:Reem Alsalem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndyGordon (talk | contribs) at 15:47, 23 February 2024 (Her views on women's rights and transgender rights: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Her views on women's rights and transgender rights

@Amanda A. Brant I'm removing whole section on "Criticism for anti-trans positions" because its written in one-sided tone that violates NPOV.

  • We need reliable secondary source re the AWRD petition.
  • We need to summarize what her view was, as well as the response by Scottish feminists
  • We can say that she spoke at FiLiA, but its not NPOV just to say its been called transphobic without mentioning other perspectives.

Happy to try to help with this but we need to be neutral.

Regards, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't require a WP:FALSEBALANCE, on the contrary. The third party source that discusses her participation at the gender-critical anti-trans conference literally mentions that the event was criticized as transphobic, which is also highlighted in the headline and several articles on the protests against the conference (indeed, most coverage of the event focused on that, and the protests, and the fact that the venue tried to cancel it due to transphobia). Regarding the Scottish feminist organizations' criticism of her, these were all the major established feminist organizations in Scotland, and it would not be appropriate to give "equal validity" to the anti-trans POV, although I agree we could explain better what they were criticizing, by first explaining her intervention in the Scottish debate. The special rapporteur on the relevant theme, Victor Madrigal-Borloz, intervened in the same debate, rejecting her claims, as did other UN officials. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Amanda A. Brant. I'm unsure about Xarxanet as a reliable source. Can you say why you think we can treat it as a reliable source in a BLP? Thanks.
AWID issues a statement against 'anti-trans agendas' at the UN (xarxanet.org) AndyGordon (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a third-party source. Secondly AWID is a very reputable source in itself, akin to SPLC and other very established organizations. Thirdly, the subject has directly addressed the AWID letter on her own official website, which means we both have her response and some kind of coverage of the AWID letter from the subject herself, as a source for the fact that she received this letter and deemed it important enough to issue an official response. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Amanda A. Brant
Sorry for my delay in replying.
The question about reliability is not about AWID, it's about the secondary source Xarxanet that could be summarized to report about AWID's statement. It doesn't matter whether or not the subject has addressed the AWID letter.
See WP:SOURCEDEF: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
I don't see that Xarxanet is a respected mainstream publication, nor that it has a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. I don't see evidence that the author Carmen Porta is known as an authority on the subject. We need evidence to demonstrate that its a reliable source.
If we don't have that evidence, we need to remove that source and the content supported by it. AndyGordon (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]