This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2023. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
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.
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.
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]
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.
No, we don't. An official statement by the subject, published on a UN website, clearly can be used as a source for her position and the topics she discusses as they relate to her, including the existence of the open letter she replies to. The Xarxanet source isn't really necessary to address this at all, it's just an additional source. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not using it as a source for statements about "other people", that is just nitpicking. It is an official statement by her published on a UN website. It is an open letter by her to another open letter, both published on the official websites of very reputable and established organizations. The open letter is really only used to support the fact she she is responding to an open letter, which she clearly is in her own open letter, and to support her positions. The existence of the initial open letter is supported by the open letter as published on the official website of a reputable organization, and is used as the source for the opinions of those organizations, like her open letter is used as a source for her opinions. There is no ban on using e.g. a UN website as a source or requirement that we must always have a "news" source. Plus, we do have one third-party news source. Perhaps there are more established outlets out there, but I've seen nothing that indicates that it's wholly unsuitable as a source. Especially when the information is supported by other sources from official websites, including her own official UN website. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "There is no ban on using e.g. a UN website as a source or requirement that we must always have a "news" source." The policy I quoted requires us to use sources with a reliable publication process, with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and this should be demonstrable. In terms of how Wikipedia policies operate, the letter is WP:SELFPUB. It's a letter written as part of her job and put out on her job website. Can you provide any evidence for any editorial control over the letter?
I disagree that it's "nitpicking" to follow the SELFPUB policy. We can possibly use the letter to make statements about Alsalem and her views, but not about third parties like AWID or Sex Matters.
I disagree that "we do have one third-party news source". Xarxanet, which has no wikipedia page, is not an established news source with any reputation for fact-checking. It's akin to a group blog.
As for Jens Theilen's article, the journal Michigan Journal of International Law has no wikipedia page and appears to be student-run. Hence, it appears poorly sourced for a BLP.
The most respected law journals in the US, including Harvard Law Review, are "student-run". They follow standard procedures with peer review. The Michigan Journal of International Law is one of the US' leading international law journals (in fact described as among the world's preeminent international law journals). Once again you resort to nitpicking. Are we using Alsalems letter to make statements about other people? No, we are using it support her positions and arguments. "No clearly reliable source, like a newspaper, picked up on the open letter and its response": Untrue, a clearly reliable, very respected academic journal did. Alsalem herself published an official statement on a UN website on it. And so on. WP:SELFPUB addresses "anyone [creating] a personal web page", forum postings, social media and related topics. The relevance of this policy here is dubious at best. We are talking about an official statement on a UN website by a mandate holder, in response to an official statement on the website of a major, established reputable organization, that was also discussed in a peer-reviewed article in a well-established scholarly journal. This is different from some random guy creating a personal website or forum post. I see no evidence on that way that those sources cannot be used to support the positions of the respective parties here. The Xarxanet source isn't really needed at this point. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
