Talk:Rosie Duffield/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources for lockdown breach

Another odd thing is the sources quoted for her lockdown breach, BBC and Guardian, normally considered left-leaning, and the Shropshure Star. Well the Telegraph may or may not be paywall but if you are going to have a local paper surely a Kent source would be more appropriate, but that of course may have many hostile readers' comments. Strikes me that someone us trying to do a PR job on this page, but to my mind it's a bit too obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.161.202 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean you can add a new source if you feel so strongly about it. I don't see how it would change much but you absolutely can do that. Alex (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Twitter-sourced info

I believe that sourcing controversial information to Twitter doesn't meet the policy on reliable sources and that the addition by 45.154.138.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) violates both WP:DUE, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. As such, per WP:BLP the must be removed. In order to add them, they need 1) a reliable source, both to support the statement and to show that it is "due weight", 2) be rephrased to remove the non-neutral editorializing and "original research" that connects the alleged Twitter actions with Duffield's seat as MP. Sjö (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible NPOV issues

I've already attempted to discuss this with the IP editor who made the changes, and tried to encourage them to post here to seek a consensus. I'd appreciate it if folks could take a look over the most recent edit to the article. While it's improved from an earlier version, I believe that it still has the same NPOV issues. I've asked them to self-revert, due to the issues below, but so far they've not responded.

I believe that Women's Declaration group in support of women's sex-based rights is both unsourced, as Sky News does not name the fringe event, and also a non-neutral description of that group as it uses their preferred term "women's sex-based rights" uncritically and without quotation. I'm also fairly certain that it introduces a NPOV issue by stating "gender identity theory" in wikivoice, with regards to the formation of the LGB Alliance. Finally, though not a NPOV issue, I don't really see a need to merge the two paragraphs at the end of the section, given the time gap. That said, the 2019 Parliament section could probably use a copy edit to make the timeline more coherent. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the changes made and reverted them for exactly these reasons. There are lots of non neutral terms in there. Rankersbo (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This is hilarious. Talking about being neutral whilst pretending that Pink News is a reliable source. The article is not neutral if you include the point of view of only one side and refuse to even allow any context, let alone rebuttal. It is a fact that the group whose fringe event Rosie Duffield attended is called Labour Women's Declaration. It doesn't matter whether it is named in the article (which you have clearly deliberately chosen rather than consider other sources too in order justify not including the name), it is what she attended and should be noted. The same handful of groups demanding punishment of Rosie Duffield for wrongthink is important to include, but it doesn't merit entirely separate paragraphs as if each is somehow newsworthy. You haven't even included the reason why they are kicking off this time - that Rosie Duffield has said that she wouldn't call Eddie Izzard a woman. Why not? It couldn't be perhaps that to do so would make them sound a bit ridiculous to the casual reader would it? LGB Alliance are not in 'opposition to Stonewall' for no reason. Gender identity theory is quoted in the next line for Christ's sake. It's also quoted in the link provided - now I can quote in the article but it would of spoil the flow of the sentence. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, well removing Rosie Duffield's own words about how she feels she is being treated, sourced from a BBC article, really says it all about neutrality when it comes to the people editing this article. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Once again you just can't help yourself. "A group formed in opposition to Stonewall's stance on trans issues" is a neutral description of LGB Alliance. If some people think that makes them transphobic, they are entitled to - but saying that a Labour trans group thinks they are transphobic is not a neutral description. It is not required, especially considering that Labour trans group's opinions of her are already cited repeatedly in the article. This page is about Rosie Duffield, not an excuse for every single utterance of Labour trans activists who dislike her to be uncritically noted as if each is particularly relevant. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, "a group formed in opposition to Stonewall's stance on trans issues" isn't a neutral description of LGB Alliance - it is that group's partisan description of itself. And the attributed statement that the relevant group within Labour believes the Alliance to be an anti-trans lobby - which is the view of just about anyone who isn't transphobic and has put at least 30 seconds of thought into the question - is undoubtedly due in the article of an MP whose main, recent claim to fame is their precarious position within Labour because of their stance on trans issues. Newimpartial (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a neutral description of them. "In opposition to Stonewall's stance on trans issues" can be interpreted as transphobic if someone wishes. But stating that LGB Alliance are transphobic is not a neutral statement, it is opinion. It is highly contested opinion. It is not neutral or factual simply because you share it. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

And here is why I stated in an edit summary that I don't think you understand NPOV. The version of the passage you insist on removing attributes an opinion about the Alliance to a highly relevant group. It makes a factual (sourced) statement about that group's opinion of the Alliance and makes no implication about how widely that opinion is shared (though it is quite widely shared).

The version you keep re-inserting, by contrast, repeats in wikivoice a self-serving statement made by the Alliance about its founding. That is WHITEWASHING and/or COATRACKing, not WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You have replaced on 'partial' description (as you put it) with another partial description. It is astounding that you are incapable of seeing this.

The version I am re-inserting is a neutral description about their founding. LGB Alliance formed in opposition to Stonewall's stance on trans issues. It is neither a positive or negative statement. Some people believe that opposing Stonewall's stance on trans issues is transphobic. Stating that some Labour trans group thinks they are transphobic is opinion - and not the only opinion that exists.

I can go and find numerous statements from Labour politicians, past and present that give a positive opinion about Rosie Duffield and a negative opinion about the behaviour of trans activists within and outside of the Labour party. Same goes for the LGB Alliance. I could ram them in somewhere in this article as if relevant. But they aren't particularly, neither is what you are including. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be falling into the fallacy of WP:FALSEBALANCE. The most important element for readers of this article to understand is why Duffield's views and actions are controversial within the Labour party, and your edits and arguments on the topic seem dedicared to obscuring the relevant facts, for whatever reason. Newimpartial (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

There you have it. As far as you're concerned the most important element for readers of this article to understand is that Duffield is transphobic. Your edits and arguments on the topic seem dedicated to obscuring any right of reply. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

(1) Please don't put words into my mouth - that isn't by any means what I said; (2) wherever you might want to argue that the Alliance should have a right of reply, it wouldn't be here because this article isn't about them. I have never made an edit or argument concerning thus article that would "obscure" Duffield's "right of reply" here (though I would, of course, support a reliance on WP's sourcing standards in determining appropriate inclusions). Newimpartial (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you prefer instead the words of Taiwo Owatemi, the former Labour Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities who said that the LGB Alliance "should be rejected by all those who believe in equality"? Or perhaps we could add that the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights' 12 point pledge card was endorsed by Rebecca Long-Bailey, Angela Rayner, and Dawn Butler (source)? Unless you wish to declare those three to also be "trans activists"? Sideswipe9th (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

How about the outcome of the current vexatious attempt to remove their charity status by the children's charity Mermaids - the group being investigated by the Charity Commission for child safeguarding concerns, who appointed a very dodgy trustee recently, that one. We'll get that soon, would the finding of a court be more acceptable to you?

Keir Starmer refused to endorse the pledge card, why not include him also? Or the many people who criticised those pledge cards? You see, we can both find lots of people with opinions one way or the other. It would make the article far longer than it needs to be though. So either include both points of view or present any opinions in a more neutral manner. The views of trans activist groups are not fact. If you are unable to do remain balanced, stop editing Wikipedia articles because you are unsuited to the role. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Since you seem unable to distinguish between opinions reflected in wikivoice and facts about opinions, I think your opinion about this article can safely be ignored. Newimpartial (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

How about the outcome of the current vexatious attempt to remove their charity status by the children's charity Mermaids Mermaids is one of five UK charities who are jointly appealing the LGB Alliance's charity registration. The other four are LGBT+ Consortium, Gendered Intelligence, LGBT Foundation, and TransActual. The case itself is still ongoing, having returned to the court room today. No judgement has been issued as yet, so there is no outcome to report. I, and I suspect a great many others, are eagerly awaiting the outcome of that case, and its inevitable appeal should it go the "wrong way" for either side.

Mermaids - the group being investigated by the Charity Commission for child safeguarding concerns, who appointed a very dodgy trustee recently, that one You are referring to The Daily Telegraph investigation and resignation of Dr Jacob Barlow. For the former, despite inaccurate reporting by The Telegraph and The Times, Mermaids are not under investigation by the Charity Commission. A regulatory compliance case is not an investigation, and Mermaids are engaging with that compliance case. As for Dr Barlow, regardless of the circumstances that lead to the appointment, Mermaids have said that they have commissioned an review of their trustee recruitment process by an independent external agency, and will enact the recommendations from that review (source). While it is regrettable that he was appointed as a trustee, his immediate removal from that position and an external review into the relevant recruitment practices are both the actions of a responsible charity when such an incident occurs.

Keir Starmer refused to endorse the pledge card That is only partially correct, as Starmer endorsed the 10 point pledge, which also called for many of the same things as the Labour Campaign for Trans Right pledge card.

So either include both points of view This is called false balance, and is prohibited by policy. The views of trans activist groups are not fact. in this context that is true, which is why we quote from their views on the LGB Alliance in a contextually relevant manner.

If you are unable to do remain balanced, stop editing Wikipedia articles because you are unsuited to the role. Four separate editors; Rankersbo, TSP, Newimpartial, and myself, all concur that content you added is non-neutral, based on contributions here on the talk page, and edit summaries on the article itself. You can continue to believe all of these editors are biased if you wish, however as the multiple warnings on your talk page state, personal attacks on other editors like this are disruptive, so please stop doing that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Shortly after you wrote that, on 2 December 2022, the Charity Commission opened a statutory inquiry into Mermaids.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/regulator-announces-statutory-inquiry-into-mermaids

In July 2023, the court dismissed Mermaids' action against the Charity Commission, in regard to the registration of LGB Alliance, on grounds of lack of legal standing.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mermaids-v-Charity-Commission-judgment-060723.pdf

Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)