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 page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is rated Start-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 Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union 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.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Debbie Hayton, writing for UnHerd, has written an article about the editing of this page.[[1]]
I am neither endorsing nor denouncing her comments, but I think other editors should be aware of them. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "This is just one example of what goes on behind closed doors at Wikipedia." was a funny choice of words, it's not a very closed door, is it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closed doors? The article isn't even locked. This seems more like demonization of transgender activists and blowing one issue on one article out of proportion to suggest that this is indicative of Wikipedia as a whole. The author of the UnHerd article could've just edited the page to fix the problem, which would have avoided all the drama. X-Editor (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article's talk of "closed doors" is overdone, but the currents of WP editing bias can be quite opaque. I don't think this is a very good article - I'd say it lacks a balanced perspective - but if it is picking on just one problem, that problem, introducing bias into an article by selective deletion of sources, is a very serious one, and I'm entirely for attention being drawn to the fact that this is done, how easy it can often be to do, and the seriousness. Consciousness-raising about the problems of POV-pushing in Wikipedia as worthwhile a goal as the quiet fixing of problems that we do. Despite the failure to present a balanced perspective, I'd say the article overall does more good than harm.
Furthermore, X-Editor's claim that this article demonises trans activists is entirely unfair: if I thought there was any merit to that accusation, I would not say the article does more good than harm. Perhaps it would be good to reread the article more dispassionately? — Charles Stewart(talk) 09:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that the article demonizes trans activists, i was saying that about the author of the UnHerd article. You have also failed to explain why the article is biased. X-Editor (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, X-Editor, the article I referred to was the UnHerd article. For all I know, the author may elsewhere have engaged in demonisation of trans activists but I think that did not happen in the UnHerd article. I'd say if you can't find a link to something that justifies your claim of demonisation, you should reconsider your accusation. Bias in UnHerd pieces does not make them unusable by us, but it does mean we have to carefully separate assertions of fact from assertions of opinion. I did not actually say the UnHerd piece is biased (it clearly has a strongly gender-critical POV), I said it was unbalanced. My basis for saying this is that it suggests that Wikipedia's coverage is biased, suggesting a bias overall, but the basis for that assertion is essentially a single edit. It is possible to argue a POV without being imbalanced in this way, and this imbalance suggests we should treat the article's factual claims with care. — Charles Stewart(talk) 18:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that UnHerd should not be used as a source. Maybe they are not demonizing trans activists, but the title of "On Wikipedia, trans activists are always editing" is definitely suggesting that there is a group of people doing malicious things. This is despite the fact that the bias came from only one edit from one editor and not from a group of people. X-Editor (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for causing this problem and article. Obviously Hayton has her own agenda and I don't necessarily agree that the current wording is NPOV (the summary of the PACE activity omits the main concerns raised by activists, de-conflate implies they were wrong to condemn the UK along with Hungary et al) and would prefer wording that neutrally describes the full extent of Antoniazzi's actions, but I'm happy to go with the current wording if that's consensus.Hotpantsraindance (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not OK to silently delete balancing sources, although we are all human and I've had my own baptism of fire. Kudos for coming here and apologising: that takes guts. If you think one source is better than another, the right thing to do is provide some context for the sources: here saying Hayton is a GCF campaigner would be appropriate. — Charles Stewart(talk) 09:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, I think this wording does now fairly describe why she was criticised and defended. Hotpantsraindance (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
