Talk:Reem Alsalem

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi @Amanda A. Brant, please read Wikipedia:Aboutself, we can't use her statement on the UN website to support statements about other people, such as the open letter (the claim that a letter was written and signed by third parties). AndyGordon (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

I have now added another, scholarly source discussing her anti-trans positions and the AWID letter. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Amanda A. Brant,

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.

Above all, is this even WP:DUE to mention on a BLP? No clearly reliable source, like a newspaper, picked up on the open letter and its response. AndyGordon (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

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 page 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)

Also, the claim that the Michigan Journal of International Law doesn't have a Wikipedia article isn't really true. It is a redirect to a section and could be a stand-alone article. Most of its sister journals, some of them even younger and less established, have their own articles. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Amanda A. Brant,

When you say I'm resorting to nitpicking, I'm not, I'm trying to understand how our rather complicated policies apply here.

OK, I didn't know about this tradition of student-run journals. Thanks, I'm going to take your word that it's a respected journal, and I agree then that we can use that article as a secondary source about the existence of the AWID letter. But note that its a primary source for Theilen's opinions about Alsalem - we can't use them unless there is a secondary source.

The fact that its a UN website doesn't necessarily make her letter reliable, as per this discussion.

WP:SELFPUB applies because the UN is publishing an official letter by a UN representative. However, reading the policy again, I realize that we can consider the letter reliable as she is a published SME concerning the topic. For NPOV, we need to mention the other letter “Let the UN Special Rapporteur on VAWG Deliver her Mandate” in her support. AndyGordon (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Re "note that its a primary source for Theilen's opinions about Alsalem - we can't use them unless there is a secondary source": That is not true, that is not how we use academic journals as sources. Theilen's article, a peer-reviewed article in a widely recognized journal, is a high-quality third-party secondary source offering independent analysis by an expert, a legal scholar with his PhD on human rights law, of the actions of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls in the field of transgender rights. We don't need any other source to cite his article. We have hundreds of thousands if not millions of articles using sources in this way, and they tend to be viewed as high-quality sources. News media rarely if ever discuss the material in social science, humanities or law journals, particularly not in any detail, and a tabloid news story about the analysis of a legal scholar or a gender studies scholar published in a scholarly journal (which seems like a fantastic, unrealistic scenario; I've never seen such an article) wouldn't be preferable to a scholarly source. The source is the highest quality source that is available in a field like this. In fact, it is clearly stated that peer-reviewed journals are among the most reliable sources, and that whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. Primary sources are sources that are often accounts written by people who are directly involved, but Theilen isn't writing about himself or his experiences in any way, he is offering independent analysis of a UN mandate in a scholarly context, published in a high quality venue with editorial oversight, on a topic he is an expert on.

We did mention the other letter that Sex Matters was behind and that she links to in her own open letter. You insisted we couldn't mention other people (aka Sex Matters) so I shortened it to just the parts that are clearly only about herself and her own actions. I still think it's quite acceptable to use her open letter on a UN website as a source for the fact that she invokes the support of the Sex Matters open letter (which is the third open letter published as part of this public conversation). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, yes, sorry I misspoke about Theilen. What you had written is a good use of a WP:SECONDARY source. Thank you. AndyGordon (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources re Israel-Palestine situation

The paragraph is poorly sourced.

The first source is an Unherd article: MeToo unless you're a Jew - UnHerd Unherd is a dubious source generally seen as opinion pieces. See this discussion.

We rely on a PDF published by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. According to our article this annual list of top-ten anti-semitic incidents is controversial, with one person describing it as "fake news". I don't think we can consider it a reliable source in a BLP.

Then we have this which is a self-published press release.

And also this is another self-published press release.

I think the final source, from The Algemeiner, does count as reliable, as its from an established newspaper. That's the only one of these that is reliable, albeit with a clear POV, so we need to adjust the paragraph to only summarize the contents of that article, or find more reliable sources. AndyGordon (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

'Open letter' wording

Amanda A. Brant The New Statesman source says: Alsalem’s insistence on recognising the difference between sex and gender has landed her in trouble. She has been on the receiving end of two open letters signed by NGOs and women’s groups, accusing of her being “anti-trans”, an allegation she forcefully rejects. “Why is it so problematic for women, girls, and also men, to say, ‘This is important; many of our needs emanate from being female, or male, and there are certain instances where it’s proportionate, legitimate and perfectly necessary to keep a space single sex’?” While “that doesn’t apply to everything in life”, it is important, Alsalem believes, for prisons, women’s shelters and sport.

This is not reflected in your recent amendments to the article. Maybe her critics consider that her attitude that it is important to recognise that sex and gender are distinct is automatically ‘anti-trans’, but Wikipedia should be neutral and informative. Your version does not explain why she was accused of being ‘anti-trans’. The wording Her call to recognise that sex and gender are distinct led in 2023 to open letters….. has been in the article for some time, and you have not provided any justification for removing the information which I reinstated. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edit specifically made a claim about the motivation of AWID for publishing their letter, that is not supported by the content of the letter and actually not even by source you cite. The New Statesman is a biased source in the context of trans rights, known, like many other British media, for publishing anti-trans content (note that neither AWID nor Alsalem have anything to do with the UK, so there is no reason to prioritize a UK perspective here, especially considering its highly problematic reputation in this area[1]), but even that source highlights the key point here, that the letter accused her of being anti-trans. Linking that to a claim that "the difference between sex and gender" was the motivation for the letter is a form of original research and POV, that the source doesn't even say outright, and even if it did, it would be a biased way to phrase it when framing this issue here, as this is very much TERF rhetoric rather than an objective description of the position of AWID and the other organizations that issued a letter specifically condemning anti-trans views.

However, my primary, preferred amendments to the article consisted of simply removing all superfluous and biased language, as I did here, which also made the sentence more concise[2], resulting in: In 2023 an open letter published by the Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) [...] accused her of being "anti-trans", which she denies. The sentence still includes the key point that is highlighted both by the letter itself and in the description of it in The New Statesman. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I ask you again to please stop wielding that council of europe statement as an excuse to downplay UK perspectives and UK journalism.

The pertinent part that's omitted by your edit is that what is at issue is the "difference between sex and gender" which completely reframes what the source says. Void if removed (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Transphobic discourse in the UK is not relevant to this article about a Jordanian individual who has been criticized by an organization founded in the US, as well as by many other American or global organizations. "Difference between sex and gender" is a misrepresentation of the letter and AWID's motivation and biased language that promotes anti-trans talking points. Many UK sources are inappropriate and biased in the field of transgender rights for exactly the same reason that Russian media are considered biased in this and other fields. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)