Talk:FiLiA

Trans Safety Network

The Trans Safety Network—which is not a blog, but is described by reliable sources as an organization[1] or research network[2]—is routinely cited as an authority on transphobia in the UK by major media organizations including The Guardian,[3] Vice[4] PinkNews[5], NBC News[6], The Independent[7], the BBC[8] Hence the source is reliable (which was also the conclusion when we discussed it previously elsewhere). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a WP:SPS and a blog, with no known editorial oversight or corrections procedure. They have been quoted by those sources on stories that are notable enough to be covered by those WP:RS. That does not mean their own unverified opinion or every blog post meets notability criteria, especially when making exceptional claims about a registered charity. They are potentially fine for direct quotes to augment a story reported in WP:RS but not as a sole source for inflammatory wikivoice claims in the second sentence of the lede. Void if removed (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Void if removed agreed that it is WP:SPS. @Amanda R Bryant, what is your evidence that it is a WP:RS? AndyGordon (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Tagging @Amanda A. Brant Sorry had your id wrong AndyGordon (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Add link to previous discussions here and here.

There's no real consensus, but some key points to note:

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

Right now, TSN is being used to make allegations about the criminal behaviour of living people, not general statements about FiLiA. It should arguably be removed on that ground alone.

The bigger question is whether or not the source is WP:DUE for the remainder of the content. If there aren't any established NEWSORGs or scholarly works that have provided weight to the particular parts of this report, then the answer is that it's almost certainly WP:UNDUE.

I concur with this, if TSN is being used to determine whether something is notable for inclusion in the first place, that's WP:UNDUE, we should depend on a better source to determine if some aspect is notable, and then if necessary have a direct quote from TSN.

I think this suggestion sums up my position:

Reliable for its own opinions and uncontroversial facts, WP:DUE decides whether it gets in a particular article Void if removed (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede

The current lede is:

FiLiA is a British feminist organization established in 2013. It describes itself as feminist and states that the organization supports "sex-based rights", but has been described by critics as anti-transgender or transphobic. It hosts an annual conference, which claims to be the largest of its kind. One of its key figures is Heather Brunskell-Evans, the founder of Women's Declaration International (WDI). It is known for its opposition to transgender rights and is described by The Daily Dot as "openly transphobic" and "opposing the idea that you can even be trans".

• Why is the conference - the primary function the org was founded to achieve - relegated to the third sentence, after criticism? I had a change here that was reverted that moved the conference forward and cited the times to make clear it is a women's conference.
• Why is the same dailydot article cited twice for criticism in the lede? The first criticism merely repeats the second. It is repetitive.
• Why is the dailydot cited at all, let alone twice, and credited for its opinion? The article is 90% tweets, and dailydot aren't a high quality source. Why does the random dailydot writer's opinion matter here? This is WP:UNDUE.
• Why is Heather Brunskell-Evans prominently featured in the lede? She doesn't seem to be notable beyond being their spokesperson at one point, the source isn't exactly great, and it is unclear that she is still in any way connected to the organisation. Their CEO and co-founder is Lisa-Marie Taylor (and here). Their current spokeswoman is Raquel Rosario Sanches (and here).
• "It is known for its opposition to transgender rights" the citation here actually says:

When Theresa May proposed changes to the process of obtaining a gender recognition

certificate under the GRA 2004, it seemed a relatively uncontroversial move [...] the ball was rolling on a new and, at the time, UK specific iteration of trans-exclusionary feminism, bringing together long-time trans-exclusionary figures and newly concerned individuals.

This single-issue movement quickly gave rise to campaign groups in the UK (e.g. Women's Place UK, Fair Play for Women, Filia, Resisters, Sex Matters, LGB Alliance, to name a few), and found some support from columnists, media and press figures, mainstream publications, politicians, peers and social media users.

I don't think "known for its opposition to transgender rights" is a fair summation of that section, and certainly not one to be presented in wikivoice.

You could perhaps say that FiLiA campaigned against the Conservative Government's 2017 proposals for reform of the Gender Recognition Act. That is more specific, and more accurate.

I suggest something like this:

FiLiA is a British feminist organization established in 2013. It hosts an annual women's conference, which claims to be the largest of its kind. FiLiA states it supports women's sex-based rights, and campaigned against the UK Government's 2017 proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act. It has been described by critics as transphobic. Void if removed (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

We cannot describe it as feminist in Wikipedia's voice. Fairly neutral RS have described it as gender-critical, which is the term this movement uses itself and which is the most specific and relevant target article (feminism is an incredibly vague term and broad article). Gender-critical simply describes this movement that considers itself feminist specifically. We can have a sentence after that mentioning how it (i.e. its mission statement) describes itself as feminist (which is clearly not accepted by everyone), and then mention the critical description as transphobic. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll support @Void if removed:'s version until something better comes along - so if we're looking for consensus count me in. However, I was glad to see the Claire Thurlow quote set out, since it's behind a paywall - I'd originally assumed she must have written an extensive breakdown of FiLiA's activities if she was being quoted as a reliable source on the organisation (she's a PhD student at Cardiff University). But what she says doesn't make sense - she only lists FiLiA among a number of "campaign groups" that she says Theresa May' proposal "quickly gave rise to". Sadly, we're told by Wikipedia that FiLiA was founded in 2013; Theresa May didn't become PM until 2016. So nothing that Theresa May did could have "given rise" to FiLiA (though it might have inspired them to take a particular stance). Just shoddy writing. The best we can derive from Thurlow is "FiLiA has been listed among a number of campaign groups that protested against the Conservative Government's 2017 proposals for reform of the Gender Recognition Act." I've no doubt they did campaign against the changes, but surely it needs a truly independent source and one that specifically describes FiLiA's role - eg national newspaper, BBC, or even public copy of FiLiA campaign statements. John O'London (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Best I can find so far from a secondary source of their stance on GRA reform is this from 2018:

Some type of reform is clearly needed. The law must protect anyone who is within the widening transgender spectrum – from gender non-conforming at one end to transsexual at the other, and encompassing non-binary and gender-fluid identities. Everyone on that spectrum must have proper protection from victimisation, and their access to education, employment, healthcare, housing and so on must be unimpeded. At the same time, service providers must be the ones to choose whether to provide single-sex or single-gender services, and funding must be ringfenced for a certain number to be single sex, balancing the needs of both demographics without placing them in conflict. To alleviate the growing concerns over sexual predators identifying as women, those who have committed specified crimes of male violence against women should be barred from acquiring a new birth certificate during the rehabilitation period specified in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Fundamentally, any change to the law must be workable and coherent, its aims clearly delineated and its implementation accessible. The current interplay between the GRA and Equality Act does not meet that description. Neither service providers nor trans people should have to navigate a legal landscape littered with obstacles. Reform must provide clarity and not further ambiguity. Julian Norman is a barrister at Drystone Chambers and the chair of FiLiA, a women’s rights charity

Now, caveat: this is the opinion of the chair of FiLiA, not necessarily FiLiA itself. Their public positions on these subjects are largely WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS eg. here, here and here, and they certainly responded to the GRA consultation here. But aside from anything else this makes the "known for its opposition to transgender rights" framing questionable, seeing as she calls for greater rights and protections for a wider range of people but also clarity on single-sex exceptions and a balancing of rights. Void if removed (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Void if removed:. Keep up the good work. Horses have it easier - stallions, mares and geldings. Geldings don't demand to be treated as mares (which would probably mean pulling a cart) and compete with the mares in "women's sport", instead they get out there with the boys and run with the stallions in horse races - and often win. John O'London (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We call the Women's Equality Party feminist in wikivoice. Not sure the objection. They actually call themselves a "Women’s Liberation" org, though they do mention their "feminist" conference.

TBH I'd favour "women's liberation" over feminist, as that is how they term it, backed up by this, though that refers to them as "feminist" more times. More for feminist here, here, here and here. But I would still prefer their self-description as "women's liberation" per WP:ABOUTSELF (it is not unduly self-serving or exceptional).

I don't see gender-critical anywhere in their self-description. Most press mentions of gender-critical are about speakers or attendees views. I can find only one source that actually calls them a "gender-critical charity". Void if removed (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We should mention that they describe themselves as "women's liberation", but it's best done in a sentence like "it describes itself as part of the women's liberation movement" (which is how they phrase it). The current version "is a British feminist[1] organization established in 2013.[2] It describes itself as feminist" makes no sense and unnecessarily repeats the same description. Then the first (wikivoice) description should be changed to something more neutral. The feminism of the Women's Equality Party has never been called into question, whereas this organization is described by many critics as transphobic rather than feminist. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry - aren't even TERFs feminists first and foremost? I'm changing it again - unless you can PROVE from unbiased sources it is not primarily a FEMINIST organization. John O'London (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Stop unilaterally adding feminist twice without consensus. It's ridiculous to have the same description twice. Wikipedia is also based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources and there are plenty of sources cited in the article that describes it e.g. as transphobic, gender-critical etc. While gender-criticals consider themselves a feminist movement (which is disputed by critics), the word feminism in itself is so broad and vague that it makes no sense to have it twice in the first and second sentence. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll delete the second one. John O'London (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

... or perhaps "women's rights organization" ? John O'London (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not, we are going to attribute their description of themselves as "women's liberation" (which is how they describe themselves) to them. The wikivoice descriptor needs to be neutral, hence the word "organization". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry - who are "we"? I've not seen a consensus! John O'London (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Um, you are the one introducing a contentious term in Wikipedia's voice (instead of the neutral organization) and repeating the same description twice, so you are the one who needs to obtain consensus. Stop edit warring. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, you are the one who mucked around with the introduction by removing the first ref to feminist - I've now replaced it and removed the second instead - it still has the same source. You did this while we were still (I thought) trying to reach a consensus on @Void if removed:'s proposed version. John O'London (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I already implemented their proposal to include the "Women’s Liberation" description. The first wikivoice descriptor should be a neutral one when there are such varying views and descriptions of the organization. This is what we did in other articles on controversial organizations too. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, who is 'we'. Because it appears to actually be pretty much a single person based on the edit histories. The same one person, who started all these issues by radically changing the original page and is now pushing back against the formation of a consensus amendment. This is not how Wikipedia is meant to operate. scolly69 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC) — Alligator24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Don't bother @Scolly69:- if you look all the way back to the beginning you'll see this page was originally started by the same contributor who has been consistently managing it as a hate-piece directed at FiLiA. FiLiA's original and consistent main purpose is support of women's rights, safety and well-being around the world. But see <https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=FiLiA&diff=1180579749&oldid=1117976933> (24 Oct 2022) for the first version - to which that contributor has been adding ever since. Sadly FiLiA (quite properly) got caught up in the argument about transgender rights and had to make a decision (ie how do we define a woman) - as would any organisation with similar objectives. They are obviously being pilloried as the wrong sort of feminist. Check that same contributor's contributions and editing history - [and this is not personal insult @Amanda A. Brant:] -I'm afraid I have to say I think they joined Wikipedia with one objective - to create and contribute to pages on "trans-gender" issues. And since they make their own opinion on this matter so clear throughout I suggest they are the very sort of person who should NOT be editing on a page on this controversial issue. The claim to represent "Wikivoice" (spellcheck tells me there's no such word) is ludicrous. I know I'm not supposed to mention "legal proceedings" but I love the idea of the law court when Wikivoice is finally hauled before the judge to answer multiple cases of slander and libel - "Wasn't me M'lud, it was all those Wikipedia contributors". Why aren't Wikipedia Admins taking an interest?

Anyway, I'd better bow out - I've no vested interest - as I said, I only started editing on this page because an old friend (woman, lesbian and radical feminist) was going to the Glasgow conference and I'd never heard of FiLiA so looked it up on Wikipedia. I was horrified - I'd never read such a single-minded, slanted "hate-piece", masquerading as a Wikipedia "NPOV encyclopedia entry" in my life! And I've been using and contributing to Wikipedia since 2011.

But I'm probably going to get barred anyway. John O'London (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You have already been cautioned once about Wikipedia:No legal threats. Also see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You said "We cannot describe it as feminist in Wikipedia's voice." I would propose to call it a "feminist charity" in the opening sentence. I don't see any sources that dispute that it is feminist, ie, explicitly say it is not feminist. And many sources refer to it as "feminist" and as a "charity". The group itself does:

JK Rowling has faced down the trans lobby – and put our cowardly politicians to shame (telegraph.co.uk)

Try to cancel us but feminists won’t be silenced (thetimes.co.uk)

If Labour is truly the party of equality, it wouldn’t shut down the trans debate | Sonia Sodha | The Guardian

and so does The National

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23851055.venue-forced-u-turn-cancelling-transphobic-event-legal-action-threat/ AndyGordon (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Some people may be committing the No True Scotsman fallacy with regard to who they consider a "feminist", which is perhaps a bit ironic given that some of those in the debate are actually Scottish, and the newspaper The Scotsman is even cited in the above discussion. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dtobias Maybe! If you agree with my proposal to describe Filia as a feminist charity in the opening sentence, please say so explicitly - here or in few thread with that as the title - many thanks AndyGordon (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndyGordon I think that's a reasonable description (despite "feminist" being somewhat hard to coherently define). *Dan T.* (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dtobias Thanks. These are the words frequently used by reliable sources in their voice. AndyGordon (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated long comment from John O'London, almost identical to Special:Diff/1180592422

Don't bother @Scolly69:- if you look all the way back to the beginning you'll see this page was originally started by the same contributor who has been consistently managing it as a hate-piece directed at FiLiA. FiLiA's original and consistent main purpose is support of women's rights and safety around the world. But see <https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=FiLiA&diff=1180579749&oldid=1117976933> (24 Oct 2022) for the first version - to which they have been adding ever since. Sadly FiLiA (quite properly) got caught up in the argument about transgender rights and had to make a decision (ie how do we define a woman) - as would any organisation with similar objectives. They are obviously being pilloried as the wrong sort of feminist. Check that same contributor's contributions and editing history - [and this is not personal insult @Amanda A. Brant:] -I'm afraid I have to say I think they joined Wikipedia with one objective - to create and contribute to pages on "trans-gender" issues. And since they make their own opinion on this matter so clear throughout I suggest they are the very sort of person who should NOT be editing on a page on this controversial issue. The claim to represent "Wikivoice" (spellcheck tells me there's no such word) is ludicrous. I know I'm not supposed to mention "legal proceedings" but I love the idea of the law court when Wikivoice is finally hauled before the judge to answer multiple cases of slander and libel - "Wasn't me M'lud, it was all those Wikipedia contributors". Why aren't Wikipedia Admins taking an interest? Anyway, I'd better bow out - I've no vested interest - as I said, I only started editing on this page because an old friend (woman, lesbian and radical feminist) was going to the Glasgow conference and I'd never heard of FiLiA so looked it up on Wikipedia. I was horrified - I'd never read such a single-minded, slanted "hate-piece", masquerading as a Wikipedia "NPOV encyclopedia entry" in my life! And I've been using and contributing to Wikipedia since 2011. But I'm probably going to get barred anyway. John O'London (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have posted the same thing twice? *Dan T.* (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

No I didn't, Amanda A. Brant warned me about "legal threats" and "personal attacks". When I tried to confirm it (in spite of her "warnings") it appeared twice! But you only need to read it once! But I'm going to keep posting it until someone in Wikipedia Admin takes notice. John O'London (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It is clear that your edits Special:Diff/1180416580, Special:Diff/1180592422, and Special:Diff/1180608708 violate the policy against legal threats. Please do not "keep posting it", as legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 13:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

17 October 2023

Thread retitled from "‎user: Amanda A. Brant - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership of content". — Newslinger talk 13:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Any chance of anybody (who is familiar with the labyrinthine Wikipedia bureaucracy) reporting @Amanda A. Brant: concerning "ownership" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content of this page? They seem to think they have the privilege of vetting any other contribution and maintaining the article as a scarcely veiled attack on one aspect of FiLiA's activities. It would at least draw the attention of Admins to this ongoing problem!

And, no, Amanda A. Brant, this is not a Wikipedia "personal attack" - my complaint is about the scurrilous content of the current "Wikivoice" article - now of course if you wish to assume "personal" responsibility for that content that's another matter.

As for "No legal threats" - I made no legal threats. A joking reference to how the present article might stand up if someone took the trouble to take Wikivoice to court. But frankly why would anybody bother? Its bias is so obvious - any sensible person will conclude "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they". John O'London (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Um, you're the one who refused to discuss and just reverted to your preferred version, that included the same description twice, when not making legal threats above. Having a neutral descriptor in the first sentence, followed by their description of themselves as part of the women's liberation movement, seems like a reasonable compromise to me. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The opening sentence is OK, but the rest of the article is still too heavily slanted toward critical things activists say about the organization rather than what the organization actually does. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I keep meaning to stop commenting, but see https://thecritic.co.uk/a-conference-that-really-was-for-women/ - Would Wikipedia accept this as a reliable source to include in its report on the Glasgow conference? John O'London (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

For the record, Special:Diff/1180416580, Special:Diff/1180592422, and Special:Diff/1180608708 constitute violations of the policy against legal threats. Legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 13:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:3RR violation by User:108.26.188.159

I think User:108.26.188.159 may have exceeded the limit in reverting to "gender critical feminist" instead of "women's liberation" in the lede. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite agree - is it worth another revert, or seek some sort of block or semi-block - it's surely malicious vandalism, they don't even attempt to change the link to a source to support their claim it's gender critical feminism! I thought some consensus was emerging. John O'London (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: FiLiA is a UK-based feminist charity

I propose that we describe FiLiA as a "UK-based feminist charity" in the first sentence. There are multiple reliable sources that refer to it as feminist and as a charity, and these are basic facts about the group.

@Amanda A. Brant undid the word "charity" and said: "more neutral description in opening sentence; compare LGB Alliance which legally also holds the status of "charity" but isn't described as such in the first sentence as "charity" isn't a neutral term, particularly not for an organization considered to be anti-trans (like LGB Alliance or Filia)"

There has been legal controversy over whether LGB Alliance has charitable status, but no controversy legal or otherwise as to whether FiLiA is a charity, so the comparison doesn't imply any lack of neutrality using the word charity for FiLiA.

The word "feminist" informatively qualifies the scope of the charity. FiLiA has been called feminist since its founding as the group that ran the Feminism in London conference. AndyGordon (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Since when do activists have veto power over a group being considered a charity when it in fact holds that legal status? The article on Mother Teresa says "Mother Teresa was admired by many for her charitable work, but was criticised for her views on abortion and contraception, as well as the poor conditions in her houses for the dying." In other words, the criticisms are noted, but also the charitable work. Since the legal challenges to LGB Alliance have been resolved in favor of it keeping its charitable status, perhaps it should be called a "charity" in its article too. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and we have been over this before. There are many sources that describe it as as anti-trans or gender-critical, so we could just as well describe it as an anti-trans organization. The best solution here is using a neutral descriptor in the first sentence (as discussed before), followed by their self-description and the critical assessments. The word "feminist" does not "informatively qualify the scope" of the this article; first, the word feminist in itself is so vague and can refer to so many things that it's meaningless as a descriptor without qualification (such as gender-critical or trans-exclusionary radical) in this context, secondly it is primarily seen as anti-trans or gender-critical. Regarding "charity", that is not a neutral descriptor and is avoided in the first sentence of articles on comparable organizations such as LGB Alliance. It seems like mere praise when using it in Wikipedia's voice in the opening sentence, especially when their "charitable" activities consist of anti-trans activism. We can note that it holds the legal status of charity later in the lead. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

We agree on: "The best solution here is using a neutral descriptor in the first sentence (as discussed before), followed by their self-description and the critical assessments. "

From WP:WIKIVOICE: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice."

Many reliable sources use the words "feminist" and "charity" about FiLiA in their own voice. Mainstream news sources using both words are STV The National The Herald with the Guardian calling it a "women's rights charity". Other mainstream news sources calling it "feminist": Sky News, The Scotsman and The Times.

You may have the opinion that "feminist" is vague or "primarily seen as anti-trans or gender-critical" or that "charity" is not neutral, but AFAIK no reliable sources contest that it is a feminist charity. Putting the uncontroversial fact that FiLiA has legal charitable status at the end of the lead is against neutrality, implying there is some doubt that it is a charity.

As per WP:WIKIVOICE, we should follow what the reliable sources say in their voice. AndyGordon (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The suggestion that 'charity' is 'not neutral' is nonsense. It is a legal term. FiLiA is registered as a charity by the Charity Commissioners and remains a charity unless the Charity Commissioners decide to remove it from the register - just as they have confirmed that LGB Alliance IS a charity. No amount of special pleading by opponents who claim 'it's not really charitable' can alter the legal position. And we can presumably cite the Charities register entry (it's already in the links) for both the fact and date of registration, and indeed for FiLiAs objectives, as approved by the Charity Commissioners (may be self-description, but vetted by an authority?). John O'London (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Filia is described by many sources (in their own voice) as gender-critical (otherwise known as trans-exclusionary radical feminist), a specific ideology that considers itself a branch of feminism, but that is considered a right-wing to far-right populist ideology and part of the broader anti-gender landscape by many feminists. Others have described Filia as an anti-trans or transphobic organization. The word feminism is so vague that it can refer to ideologies that are diametrically opposed, and it's not a good descriptor, particularly not for a controversial organization that is strongly criticized by many feminists. In fact, for most self-styled feminist groups it's usually better to specify what kind of feminism they represent: radical feminism, liberal feminism, marxist feminism, or in this case: gender-critical feminism. We don't refer to LGB Alliance as a charity in Wikipedia's voice in the opening sentence either, even if they hold exactly the same status; instead we note that they hold the status of a charity under UK law. In fact this issue appears to have been debated extensively over a long period of time, so it's a solid precedent. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

FiLiA is registered as a charity under the laws of England and Wales - and see Charitable organizations. Wikipedia itself defines "charity " and "charitable organization" by their legal status in different countries. With some exemptions, you can't be a "charity" without being registered with either the Charity Commissioners or HMRC - the corollary must apply, as long as you are registered, nobody can dispute that you are aa charity, no matter how much they disapprove of your activities. The best your opponents can say is 'legally they are a charity, but they should never have been registered'. And does any of the sources actually say "FiLiA is NOT a charity"? Has anyone (as with LGB Alliance) actually disputed FiLiA's legal status or right to be described as a charity. If so Wikivoice can balance it against the Charity Commissioners and decide whether or not to include "charity" in the primary description in the first sentence.

Actually the first sentence has been changed so many times that the three references supposedly supporting it no longer do so.

(1) Guardian simply calls it "FiLiA, a women’s rights charity"; (2) ITV News headline refers to "FiLiA Women's Rights Conference in Cardiff"; (3) The Times headline refers to "feminist conference in Glagow" (rest is behind paywall) - on the basis of these sources it would be totally proper to refer to FiLiA is both "charity" and "feminist". This is not a "lede" which should surely reflect Wikivoice's view of the consensus of opinion - added as a first paragraph (without the need for references) but only after the main article is complete. Since the first sentence has references it is clearly not the lede - it should reflect what those references say. If you want to leave out "charity" and "feminist" you'll have to replace them with references that say it isn't either! John O'London (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Amanda A. Brant, @John O'London, @Dtobias

On Monday 6th, I started this proposal. @Amanda A. Brant has argued against using the words "charity" and "feminist" in the opening sentence. At this point Saturday 11th, myself, @John O'London, @Dtobias have given reasons to use those words, responding to Amanda's points, essentially that they constitute neutral descriptors used by mainstream news sources in their own voice.

@Amanda A. Brant are you persuaded? I'm trying to get to a consensus. AndyGordon (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed, ad nauseam. It's completely inappropriate to describe this anti-trans or gender-critical group as just "feminist" in Wikipedia's voice in the opening sentence. It's appropriate to note that they have the status of a charity somewhere in the lead, but it doesn't belong in the opening sentence (per the solution used in LGB Alliance, a very similar group). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Amanda A. Brant - No, it hasn't been discussed - various ideas have been put forward and you have repeated your objections ad nauseam. And LGB Alliance is not 'a very similar group'. John O'London (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to confirm my support for 'feminist charity' as a statement of fact, up front with no reservations - perhaps with a wikilink on each word, for those who don't know what they mean when used in Wikipedia? I quote from the feminism article 'Numerous feminist movements and ideologies have developed over the years, representing different viewpoints and political aims'. John O'London (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

TERF ideology emerged as a fringe movement[9][10][11] in US radical feminism. All large, established feminist organizations in the US view it as a fringe movement and a hate movement (see e.g. this statement[12] from the National Organization for Women which even mentions WDI, which is closely associated with Filia – their first spokesperson was WDI's founder) Or this statement from the National Women's Law Center[13] It's not feminist in a mainstream sense, it's discussed as an extremist movement linked to the far right, anti-feminist and anti-gender movements by most feminists and feminist/gender studies scholars. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The external sources cited in the first sentence call it "feminist" - we need to respect the sources we cite, not just cherry-pick what we quote. What some other organisations within the feminist movement think of its policy in what is after all only of its own wide-ranging activities (see under Conferences - if you look at feminism you'll see it is "feminist" in Wikipedia terms) - then those references (if you can find a non-partisan source) goes under Criticism. They are feminist until proved otherwise. John O'London (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

And other sources call it anti-trans and gender-critical. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Re "charity", @Amanda A. Brant says "It's appropriate to note that they have the status of a charity somewhere in the lead, but it doesn't belong in the opening sentence". Please can you spell out in terms of policy why we you object to "charity registered in 2015" in the opening sentence. Comparing to LGBA in itself is not a policy-based reason.

Re "feminist", on 7 November, I cited 7 mainstream news sources using that word in their own voice. Is there another adjective used more frequently in their own voice by source as reliable as them? This isn't an article about TERF ideology or WDI. We are summarising the reliable sources speaking about FiLiA itself. AndyGordon (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This is explained by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[B] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. Their status as a charity is a technicality, it's not why they are notable. It belongs in the lead, but having it in the first sentence is WP:UNDUE and unnecessary. It could be in the second sentence, though, if worded in a concise manner (e.g. FiLiA is a British organisation registered in 2015 that describes itself as part of the women's liberation movement.[1][2][3] A registered charity, FiLiA organizes a conference .... "Feminist" is a vague term that doesn't convey much information on its own, and there are multiple sources that use more precise terms, including gender-critical (feminist). Furthermore there are many sources that dispute that this ideology is even feminist, and many sources that describe this group as an anti-trans group. When British tabloids have in fact used the word "feminist" in headings of articles about Filia, these article have in fact focused mostly on protests against the organization (due to its transphobia). Furthermore, British media have been widely criticized for being biased in their coverage of transgender issues (as also discussed many times, also on Talk:Gender-critical feminism) and must be used with caution in this area. The fact that some sources that have themselves been widely criticized for promoting transphobia describe an anti-trans group as "feminist" in headings of articles mostly about protests against that group's transphobia doesn't mean that we should use such a contentious (and vague) word in Wikipedia's voice, when there are better alternatives that adhere to basic Wikipedia policies including neutrality and verifiability, and that are not contentious. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Amanda A. Brant "And other sources call it anti-trans and gender-critical." Who cares? No reason in law why a feminist charity shouldn't be gender-critical. Why should Wikipedia prioritise the clearly and viciously partisan over the mainstream sources that @AndyGordon cites that identify FiLiA as both feminist and charity? John O'London (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

TERF ideology is a fringe movement in the context of feminism and viewed as a hate movement by mainstream feminist activists and scholars. Filia is primarily an anti-trans group. There is nothing feminist about transphobia, from the perspective of mainstream feminists. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

"Filia is primarily an anti-trans group." That is a lie! John O'London (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Peace everyone. Reminder, we're talking here just to collaborate to improve the quality of this page about FiLiA.

Re "charity", the lead as a whole establishes notability, it doesn't need to be the first sentence. Appealing to WP:UNDUE as a reason to use "organization" instead of "charity" would only make sense if these are competing points of view about whether FiLiA is a charity. It's a simple uncontested fact that it's a charity established in 2015. As you agree it belongs in the lead and the first sentence makes most sense as it's the place we establish the sort of thing FiLiA is, a charity. There might be a case for "organization" if there are sources arguing it's merely an organization and not a charity, but you've not provided any.

Re "feminist", the point is that "feminist charity" is much more specific than "charity" on its own, and moreover is used in many sources that I have provided above. If there are sources that dispute it is feminist, please provide them. To avoid original research, we'd need to "cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented" (see WP:OR), ie, a source directed related to FiLiA that directly says FiLiA is not feminist. Your discussion starting "Furthermore there are many sources that dispute that this ideology is even feminist,..." doesn't cite any sources about FiLiA.

@Amanda A. Brant says: "Filia is primarily an anti-trans group. There is nothing feminist about transphobia, from the perspective of mainstream feminists." That is original research. One suggestion for improving the page: we don't have much explicitly on what it is that makes their critics describe FiLiA as being anti-trans - it would be great to find more sources on that.

Re "gender-critical", we do mention it later in the lead. That term is more contentious than feminist, and has only been applied very recently to FiLiA, so for those reasons its better later in the lead, alongside terms like "anti-trans" and "transphobic". As we agree, better to keep the opening sentence as neutral as possible. AndyGordon (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@AndyGordon -- Apologies to AndyGordon and everyone. As I said before, I had never heard of FiLiA until a friend said she was going to Glasgow for the FiLiA conference. So I looked it up on Wikipedia (this was just before the conference started). I was shocked - what sort of organisation was my friend (lesbian, left-wing feminist) getting involved with? But the article was so obviously biased and unfair, not neutral Wikipedia-speak. You've done wonders, AndyGordon, in providing some balance. As to "primarily an anti-trans group" - it is the adjective "primarily" I object to - particularly with no source cited to prove that anyone has suggested that it is such (FiLiA is not even mentioned in Wikipedia's Gender-critical feminism article). Surely statements made as "fact" on a Talk page need to cite a reliable external source? John O'London (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing contentious about the term gender-critical. It has been used in a neutral fashion by multiple sources, and is a specific term, and there is nothing derogatory about it, it's the term coined by the movement themselves. The term "feminist" doesn't refer to any specific ideology. There are countless competing ideologies that call themselves feminist, ideologies that are diametrically opposed: liberal feminism, radical feminism, queer feminism and so on. Gender-critical feminism is an ideology that originated as a fringe movement within radical feminism, and its description as feminist can be considered the most controversial of all ideologies/movements calling themselves feminist, as most feminists tend to view it as a hate movement linked to the far right. Even in articles about far less controversial groups it would normally be appropriate to use a more specific term than just "feminist", for example "radical feminist" in the case of a traditional radical feminist group. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Good morning!

@John O'London thank you. Yes I agree we should limit discussions on this page to what sources say about the topic.

@Amanda A. Brant re "gender-critical" yes agreed that the term was probably coined by gc people. Indeed both the PinkNews article and the Herald interview with Lisa-Marie Taylor use the term re FiLiA.

What about we move the words "gender-critical" from later in the lead and say "gender-critical feminist charity registered in 2015" instead of "organisation registered in 2015" in the opening sentence? I'd be content with that and hopefully it meets your concern that "feminist" on its own is not specific enough.

Regards, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, gender-critical feminist is fine with me. I also think it should be registered charity in that case, which I understand is the formal term and which clarifies its meaning. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Good morning!

Please suggest a form of words. I don't understand your concern here. The word "charity" is used in plenty of references. Are there any that use the term "registered charity"?

Regards, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps "FiLiA is a British gender-critical feminist charity founded in 2015 that describes itself as part of the women's liberation movement." I believe charity as a stand-alone word has a less precise meaning to many non-UK English speakers, but it's not a big deal since we can just link to the article on UK charities. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think we have probably reached a consensus on the first sentence. Thank you for the discussion! AndyGordon (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Filia source regarding Antifa

Filia's website is perfectly acceptable as a source for what that they think of Antifa (Anti-fascism). It's not a claim about "third parties" because Antifa (Anti-fascism) does not refer to any specific group or people, it refers to an ideology, like "socialism". So if another group published a statement blaming "socialism" for immigration, this wouldn't really be a statement about third parties because no third parties were named. Socialism or anti-fascism is far too vague to refer to a third party. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Since there is no response I take it that there is no further objection to this material. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for my delay in responding. Well, reading the source, Filia is talking about "local antifa groups" and a "local antifa page". Those are the only mentions of the word "antifa". Therefore they are talking about third-parties, the local antifa groups, who Filia say are "posting incorrect information about FiLiA on social media and asking people to send in complaints to Portsmouth council and the Guildhall", rather than the overall ideology. So, this self-published material doesn't qualify as WP:ABOUTSELF, so we can't use it. AndyGordon (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This is like referring to "local socialists". It does not refer to any specific people or organization. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Good morning. Filia is referring to the third-parties who have "posted incorrect information about FiLiA..." There must have been one or more persons who did that. They are third parties whether or not FiLiA names them. AndyGordon (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, user 73.227.241.153 has restored this material, saying only that it's well-sourced. It's not, for the reason I give above. Please explain why you think it's well-sourced. Many thanks. AndyGordon (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No response so I will remove the statement. AndyGordon (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is textbook WP:SYNTH. You are reasind into and interpreting the statement based on your preconceived notions, rather than simply reporting what was said. I have restored the material.

208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@208.87.236.180 The source talks about antifa groups, the third parties. I'm not synthesising anything. If anything the text you restored is misleading because the word group is dropped. AndyGordon (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, WP:SYNTH is part of WP:NOR, that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. We're not discussing any original research. It's not relevant. AndyGordon (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

No response, so am proceeding to remove this material. AndyGordon (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)