Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: Reply
Tag: Reply
Line 171: Line 171:
::#[https://evanstonnow.com/activist-group-challenges-d65-race-and-gender-curriculum/ The fourth source] says (all emphasis mine) {{tqq|While children should have the right to declare a personal pronoun voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they '''must''' use alternative pronouncs '''and announce their own''' '''''may''''' also violate their religious rights.”}} That's not "opposed to transgender rights".
::#[https://evanstonnow.com/activist-group-challenges-d65-race-and-gender-curriculum/ The fourth source] says (all emphasis mine) {{tqq|While children should have the right to declare a personal pronoun voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they '''must''' use alternative pronouncs '''and announce their own''' '''''may''''' also violate their religious rights.”}} That's not "opposed to transgender rights".
::So that leaves us with just the one local news source, which isn't enough to meet [[WP:DEFINING]], [[MOS:LABEL]] or even [[WP:DUE]]. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::So that leaves us with just the one local news source, which isn't enough to meet [[WP:DEFINING]], [[MOS:LABEL]] or even [[WP:DUE]]. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:::The first, is [[WP:SIRS]] coverage, and should [[WP:WEIGHT]] should be determined by the coverage present in the source, so unless there are more prominent sources that [[WP:BALANCE|contradict]] their statements there, it's a high quality source for this purpose and their claims are un-contradicted in [[WP:RS]]. The source also notes the transphobia of Shrier, but even if you ignore that, they give [https://www.glaad.org/gap/robert-george evidence] of another board member being homophobic/transphobic, which includes calling for a "national rebellion" against marriage equality and making homophobic/transphobic comments such as calling gay relationships "immoral" and the existence of trans people an "absurd" "superstitious belief".
:::The second was cited in another RS to support the claim that {{tq|While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with '''the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates'''. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates}} in the third. In this context, that makes Passage more due, and its relevance not so easy to discount.
:::The fourth (not third), you are ignoring the [[WP:BLUESKY]] implication there, i.e., FAIR believes anyone can misgender a transgender student if they feel like it, rendering the protection moot. A rule that says "you can't misgender classmates" having a "free speech" rider means anyone can misgender the student, and therefore the rule is for all intents and purposes overturned. The source explicitly says {{tq|protections for transgender students encountering misgendering in school}} are in {{tq|the Student '''Rights''' and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook}}. "Of course we're glad about the new rule against homophobic slurs and insults, but we believe that other students have the right to use them because of religious freedom and free speech"...
:::The fifth (not fourth), let's look at FAIR's words directly shall we? Their letter is included in the source: {{tq|Certainly, any student who wishes to declare their pronouns voluntarily should be permitted to do so. Additionally, it may be polite to use the preferred alternative pronouns of others. However, compelling students to do either is likely inconsistent with the First Amendment.}} - IE, once again [[WP:BLUESKY]], "go ahead and misgender other students with impunity".
:::To those previous two sources, the analogy would be them saying "we believe gay people can love who they want, they just shouldn't be able to get married", then someone arguing they're not opposed to LGBT rights because of the first half of their statement...
:::So that gives us 1 piece of [[WP:SIRS]] coverage describing them as {{tq|anti-LGBT}} and noting their homophobic/transphobic board members. 1 RS citing another source to state they have {{tq|the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates}}, the source referenced explicitly contrasting their claims to advocating civil rights with their push to allow misgendering and further detailing their activities. Another RS that states the {{tq|Student '''Rights''' and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook}} contains {{tq|'''protections for transgender students''' encountering misgendering in school}}, which they note FAIR opposes (school recognized it as a right to not be misgendered, FAIR argued it shouldn't be recognized as a right and students only have the right to say what their pronouns are, not have them respected). And another RS that corroborates them doing the same again, arguing that schools should not be able to prevent students misgendering other students and that trans kids shouldn't have that right to respect. So that's 4-5(4.5?) RS supporting "opposed to transgender rights", and no RS proving otherwise.
:::Note, for example, if two RS say an organization opposes gay marriage, describing that as anti-LGBT and/or explicitly calling gay marriage an LGBT right, other sources corroborating that they oppose gay marriage without explicitly calling it a right '''still''' adds to the weight that they are "[[WP:DEFINING|commonly and consistently]]" known for opposing an LGBT right. [[User:TheTranarchist|TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:TheTranarchist|talk]]) 07:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Bad RFC''' No reason to have this one when the same editor started one just a few hours earlier. I would suggest closing this as redundant. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 04:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
:'''Bad RFC''' No reason to have this one when the same editor started one just a few hours earlier. I would suggest closing this as redundant. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 04:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::2 editors said the original was overly broad, and I concur, so unless you think the over-generalized one is better then the original should be closed as redundant [[User:TheTranarchist|TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:TheTranarchist|talk]]) 04:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
::2 editors said the original was overly broad, and I concur, so unless you think the over-generalized one is better then the original should be closed as redundant [[User:TheTranarchist|TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:TheTranarchist|talk]]) 04:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:11, 23 February 2023

Major POV issues with this article

This article has major POVs and lacks a balance of sources.

  • The lead states "the board is made up of conservatives who've variously been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, homophobia, and transphobia" sourced to the Colorado Times Recorder, which is a fringy upstart news site that may not be reliable. That article sources those accusations to a host of other sites that include activist outlets like Climate Nexus and GLAAD. BLP issues here for sure.
  • Also included in the lead is a quote from the San Antonio Current describing FAIR as "horribly misnamed". This article only mentioned FAIR in passing, so inclusion of this opinion in the lead is very undue.
  • The "Reception" section of body of the article quotes a potentially defamatory claim from Idavox about Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali: "the anti-Muslim activist Hirsi Ali who wants a physical war with Islam."
  • The treatment of Meg Smaker and her documentary film in the "Other lawsuits" section is woefully biased; compare to articles about Smaker and Jihad Rehab.

01:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good points.
I wish to also highlight some specific wording that (it seems to me) is not from a neural POV:
-- it says "inventing the Critical Race Theory panic" which is not sourced. "Panic" is a loaded POV word. This could be changed to "causing concern about Critical Race Theory."
-- it says "anti-trans writer Abigail Shrier". Again, this is POV. Her writings are anti-surgery in some cases, not anti-trans. The source for that is Media Matters, which Wiki's perennial source list says is only "marginally reliable" and "as a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed." So either that attack on her needs to be attributed to "the partisan advocacy group Media Matters" or it should be lost.
-- it calls Chris Rufo as "an anti-civil rights activist", which takes a strong POV. This could be changed to "conservative activist" as it reads on his page. The source for this also appears to be Media Matters, so the same logic applies as above.
-- This quote: "accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, homophobia, and transphobia" is actually a quote from the "Colorado Times Recorder." If it is included, it should be formatted as a quote and explicitly attributed. Also, the "Colorado Times Recorder" is not listed as a reliable source on Wiki's perennial sources list, and appears to be fringy new site -- so I suggest that this wording should be dropped entirely.
BonaparteIII (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some changes I made:
Moved SA current from the lead
Shortened lead's description of the board, added sourced statement to the Colorado Times Recorder in Reception
I added a ref for Rufo being "credited with inventing", the source links to a lengthy New Yorker article, and switched the text to "conservative activist"
Some notes:
If you can find more reliable sources to create a "balance", please do, but I wrote this by compiling all the reliable sources on the topic and only left out things like passing mentions, particularly if they echoed something better covered in a reliable source.
The Idavox statement is sourced and properly cited, issues of defamation would only be at play if we were stating that in wikivoice
The MMFA article gives a source for "anti-trans" where it discusses some highlights, such as her book that endorsed the pseudoscientific theory of ROGD and insisted on misgendering trans teens, her comparisons of trans people to anorexia, self-harm, and involvement in witchcraft/demonic possession. GLAAD lists some more of her greatest hits, such as opposing the equality act, describing trans rights as a "war on women", and more misgendering people. For some more anti-trans activities just off the top of my head, she's an advisor to the conversion therapy organization Genspect. So not just "anti-surgery in some cases".
If the section on Jihad Rehab can be expanded on, please do. But we have reliable sources saying that FAIR and Smaker said the film was being "cancelled" because of her ethnicity and that notable critics insisted that wasn't the case and pointing to their actual criticisms. That seemed to be the relevant bit.
TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead clearly has issues with IMPARTIAL. It needs to start with factual statements about the group, what is is, what it's stated mission is etc. It is not acceptable to follow every, "the group does X" with "but critics say Y" statements. It also is a problem to have a bunch of subjections with non-neutral headings (Oppose X etc). Given how new this article is, it should probably be draftified until these issues can be sorted out. Springee (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of problems with this article, and NPOV is one of them. Issues include selective use and overuse of sources (regardless of reliability) that lend undue weight. The lead framing the organization as conservative right off the bat seems to rely heavily on the Colorado Times Recorder characterization, which I think misrepresents several things: it obliquely labels a handful of advisory members (over 50 people per the FAIR website) as "disgraced" including Robert P. George, Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer due to accusations of bad stuff (and the author also cites her own op-ed to justify one of the "has been accused"). Does that seem like something that should be accepted at face value? I won't argue that FAIR lacks conservative members because of course it does, but it is not described first and foremost as a conservative organization by many prominent sources like the New York Times, New York Times again, NBC News, Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, Deseret News, The Telegraph, and I'd be surprised if the majority of sources in this article even frame FAIR as such. While it is true that Washington Post article explicitly calls it a conservative organization, and Spokesman-Review writes FAIR "describes itself as nonpartisan and “pro-human” while also championing a number of conservative causes in education", the sources that try to explicitly pigeonhole the organization into one of 2 sides seem to be in the minority. Even if the Colorado Times Recorder had a spotless record of factual reporting, its voice should not be elevated above all others.
Another issue: the "but critics have noted" in the lead's paragraph seems to me a bit of synth and false balance (unless "critic" is a stand-in for "any writer"): neither the Lancaster Online or Valley News are acting as critics of FAIR by noting it has conservatives on its board. A neutral statement like "Joe has red hair" should not be massaged into "critics have noted that Joe has red hair". The latter source also states "its backers are all conservative commentators and intellectuals" but are John McWhorter, Daryl Davis, Kmele Foster, Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Lee Fang, Shermer, Pinker, etc. really examples of prominent conservatives? --Animalparty! (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first NYT source is a two sentence mention that doesn't describe them, except for preceding their mention with The pushback against antiracism education has taken on aspects of an ideological uprising
  • The second NYT source is a 1 paragraph mention about their involvement, only stating in it's own voice The organization, founded by Bion Bartning, has filed other lawsuits challenging what it says are forms of discriminatory overreach by organizations trying to implement diversity programs
  • The NBC article is 1 sentence and calls it an advocacy group formed last year to oppose “woke ideology.” This is basically immediately preceded by Some medical professionals have pushed back on the utility of race-conscious policies in health care.
  • The Tribune article calls them a special interest group and says The organization, founded in early 2021 by Bion Bartning, claims on its website to be nonpartisan and a nonprofit. Its goals include supporting fairness and a “pro-human mindset,” described as “one human race, individual civil rights and liberties, and compassionate opposition to racism and intolerance that is rooted in dignity and our common humanity.”, and The organization strongly pushes back against those who would call it partisan
  • Newsweek says the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, an organization founded by private school parent Bion Bartning earlier this year, whose mission is to oppose critical race theory teachings in schools and promote what it calls a "pro-human" agenda.
  • The Deseret article is an interview with a member and only says directly that He represents the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, “a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding, and humanity.”
  • The Telegraph states They included the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), a civil liberties group that opposes de-platforming.
The majority of these are 1 sentence passing mentions, or merely state how FAIR describes itself, and are not WP:SIRS coverage like those that analyze the organization itself in-depth and conclude it's conservative. They barely frame FAIR as anything and aren't particularly due for describing the organization. That being said, some more exposition on the various forms of racial equity measures is due in the lead and these sources could be used for that.
The Lancaster Online and Valley news aren't the only ones to point out it's heavy conservative backing, and when they mention FAIR they explicitly contrast it's claims to being non-partisan with their board's membership.
In regards to the members, using just the information already in their wikipedia articles: McWhorter's comments that Black people's attitudes and not white racism are holding them back and equation of anti-racism with racism are not exactly mainstream liberal views. Foster is a libertarian who explicitly opposes anti-capitalism. Haidt labels himself a centrist and is a founder of the Heterodox Academy, who's sole purpose seems to be to increase conservative representation in social psychology and claim that universities have a free speech crisis. Williams wrote the initial draft of the Harper's Letter, an open letter decrying "cancel culture" signed by many people known for their history of biased and inaccurate reporting on trans people. Al Mutar has many connections to the Intellectual Dark Web. Pinker has been criticized for his racist comments and defended the idea that gaps in gender-representation are due to innate biological factors. Shermer is a self-described libertarian who has praised Matt Walsh's What is a Woman? and agreed with most of it's claims (that part was found by a quick google search of his views on trans people since I remembered hearing the name before). Fang seems to be the only left-wing person mentioned, and his position there is somewhat ironic given his previous reporting on the Koch Brothers. Davis's political ideology is not mentioned, and while I think highly of his work with formers his presence does not determine whether the organization is conservative or not. In short, very few of the people listed are not actually conservative or known for their conservative opinions.
Suffice it to say, reliable sources have commented on the large amount of conservatives on their board, called it conservative, opposed it's self-description as "non-partisan", and said it is known for pushing conservative causes. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Organizations that oppose transgender rights

Transgender students have a right to be respected in their schools. Campaigning to repeal protections for transgender students to allow faculty and other students to misgender them with impunity is indeed opposition to transgender rights. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories should be used to categorize content in neutral matter, not to advance political campaigns. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where does "advancing political campaigns" come into this exactly? Neutrally speaking, the term for an organization that opposes transgender rights, is "an organization that opposes transgender rights". Do they not do that? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Compelling the speech of people who are not transgender is not protecting rights of those who are transgender. It's aggressive ideological authoritarianism. The idea that FAIR opposes the rights of transgender individuals is merely the idealogically-motivated opinion of hard-left activists. That opinion should certainly not be stated in wikivoice, and categories are wikivoice. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, and on multiple counts just plain factually wrong. We should not include your opinion that misgendering people is OK in wikivoice, for a start see MOS:GID, where even wikipedia has a set policy on respecting the names and gender of trans people. Faculty and students don't have the right to insult students, use slurs, or discriminate against them based on any immutable characteristic. Does "aggressive ideological authoritarianism" and your apparent free-speech absolutism extends to all forms of bigoted or cruel things a person could say to a student? If a teacher has the right to misgender a student, they have the right to misgender a cis student and refer to them by a name they don't use. Or just plain insult them, maybe toss in a slur. It's protected speech, right? Students have a right to be respected, which includes not being harassed for who they are. Your insistence that it's ok to refuse to use a students name or pronouns solely because they're trans is not reflected by reliable sources. You casting the issue as "hard-left activists" is laughable - I'm sure every trans kid who doesn't have a safe school environment and who's schoolmates or even faculty refuse to respect them isn't really hurting, they're just upset "far-left activists". Trans people are a demographic, not a political or ideological position. In addition, see here, where it lays out how in the United States Title IX indeed protects students from misgendering and deadnaming. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTranarchist: I think there is a difference between what you (or some sources) interpret as opposing rights, and how the majority of sources describe the organization. Many of the examples in the overstuffed "Opposition to transgender rights" section do not clearly support the opposition, although you have framed it that way. Opposing policies that may seem on face value to be antiracist or promote equity and transgender protections but may be poorly written or executed seems the MO for this group. WP:DEFINING is a categorization guideline, and subjective categories are discouraged per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. To keep this category (if it survives scrutiny) on the article, you need to provide sources that explicitly state it is opposing the rights of transgender people, not that it is simply advocating for measurers that activists think might lead to rights erosion, or that you think are opposing rights. When the ACLU defends the rights of neo-Nazis to march or say hurtful things, that doesn't mean the ACLU opposes the rights of Jews, Blacks, or anyone that may be hurt by the speech. Also, just for the record, one of FAIR's advisors and DEI presenters is a transgender man nationally honored as Social Worker of the Year. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The push for educators to address structural racism has prompted its own outcry, turning critical race theory and new histories such as The New York Times’ “1619 Project” into fodder for the nation’s ongoing culture wars. At Smith College, for example, a former staff member has attracted a passionate YouTube following for criticizing the school’s insistence that employees undergo anti-bias training that centers on white privilege. Several academics recently formed the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism to combat what they see as an overly cynical emphasis on race, gender and sexual orientation, rather than “common humanity.”[1]
  • A different incident report attached a “get to know you” form distributed by an unnamed French teacher that allegedly asked middle school students as young as 12 years old to circle their preferred pronouns ... In Kim’s letter, she contends that such compelled speech is prohibited under the First Amendment.[2]
  • An organization called FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism) says some of the curriculum in Evanston/Skokie School District 65 is anything but fair when it comes to certain issues surrounding gender and race. ... FAIR also suggests that some of the lessons on gender and pronouns may be unconstitutional. While children should have the right to declare a personal pronoun voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they must use alternative pronouncs and announce their own may also violate their religious rights.” FAIR also states that District 65’s lessons on alternative prounouns and “whiteness” are not age appropriate, as some coursework is for pre-kindergarten through third grade (ages 4-9). [3]
  • The Fairfax County School Board conducted their regular board meeting June 16 to vote on and deliberate amendments to the 2022-2023 Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook. On the minds of many attending the meeting were recently added protections for transgender students encountering misgendering in school. Upon the origin of this protection, concerns surrounding its conflict with the first amendment’s free speech protections for offending students became apparent. And on May 26, Attorney for the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) Leigh Ann O’Neill expressed this concern in a letter to the school board. While FAIR very much supports the additional protection for transgender students, they were pleased to see the document’s new language including the term “malicious” to help discern between events of malintent and free speech. “I think that was a positive adjustment that the school board made because it is taking into account the intention of the student who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from using another student’s chosen pronoun,” O’Neill shared. (emphasis added) [4]
  • While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates. [5]
  • One flier asked, “WHY IS AN ORGANIZATION ‘AGAINST INTOLERANCE’ PLATFORMING TRANSPHOBIA?” Another alleged that FAIR “supports intolerance against trans people accessing healthcare.” The third flier claimed that “LGBTQIA+ books are being banned, trans healthcare is being banned and the ‘Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism’ only cares about banning CRT — and they think states have a right to do so.” ... Alex Klein (24L), who declined to confirm if they put up the fliers, was among FAIR’s critics. They alleged that FAIR gives a platform to transphobia, noting the organization’s webinar “Understanding Gender Dysphoria and Its Impact on Clinical Care.” FAIR promoted the event in an Oct. 17 tweet, which was featured on an opposing flier. For reference, they also platformed Lisa Littman and her debunked theory of ROGD. [6]
Disputed sources (no consensus they are unreliable, especially for the CTR)
  • In reality, however, the organization spends its time effectively defending the “right” of students to misgender schoolmates, attempting to bar teaching materials that mention white privilege from being used in school in at least one case and supporting lawsuits over sex-ed curricula. ... In reality, however, the organization spends its time effectively defending the “right” of students to misgender schoolmates, attempting to bar teaching materials that mention white privilege from being used in school in at least one case and supporting lawsuits over sex-ed curricula. [7]
  • conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist group [8]
Now to briefly respond to the appeal to tokenism, I raise you one Stella O'Malley, conversion therapy advocate and Genspect founder, who is on the board. Also Abigail Shrier.
You say I need to provide sources that explicitly state it is opposing the rights of transgender people. There is ample evidence they oppose the right of trans children to be respected and their name/pronouns used in schools. Both the schools in question and federally speaking Title IX have recognized the established right of transgender students to respect. FAIR opposes these policies and believes that it should be OK to deadname and misgender people just because you feel like it. By way of analogy, if reliable sources have consistently commented on an organization opposing the right to same-sex marriage, it's splitting hairs and a poor argument to say "Organization opposing LGBT rights" does not apply since sources didn't explicitly use that exact terminology since same-sex marriage is a recognized right. To make it a more specific analogy, the defense that they aren't opposed to LGBT rights, just opposed to same-sex marriage due to concerns about "religious freedom" and "the state forcing a different definition of marriage down their throats", would be a poor defense nobody would take seriously and their self-described motives for opposing LGBT rights would not influence whether we can categorize them as such or not. What that translates to here is that since RS have consistently reported on FAIR opposing an established right of transgender students (due to "religious freedom"), the organization is indeed known for opposing transgender rights.
If you can find evidence that transgender students do not have the right to be respected and their proper names/pronouns used, bring it up. Until then, not getting deadnamed and misgendered is a recognized right in schools is a recognized right and their opposition to it is well-documented. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of text to say very little. Regardless of what weight we might apply to the green text passages most don't support the label even if we take them as both 100% true and of great weight. The sources that have been viewed as unreliable are the closest to actually supporting the label. Many of them seem to support the view that this is an issue filled with shades of gray and conflicts between things like freedom of speech and a desire to respect others. Since we are using examples, opposing school bussing is not the same as supporting school segregation. A group which opposed bussing shouldn't be labeled as supporting segregated education. Springee (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep this short for you then. Your analogy doesn't fit at all - the analogy that same-sex marriage is a recognized right is much better and actually directly related. Bussing and segregation is a completely different issue that doesn't transfer onto this at all. Unless FAIR also campaigns to allow professors to insult students and misgender and use a different name for their cisgender students, they obviously don't give a rat's ass about "freedom of speech" but merely "freedom to deadname and misgender trans students". It is a recognized right for trans students to have a safe and supportive school environment where they aren't misgendered or deadnamed. Your opinion that their right to that is debatable doesn't at all outweigh the fact that right is federally recognized.
Give evidence that trans students don't have that right, or accept the fact they do and that no matter what you think of FAIR's reasoning or motives they oppose it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please support your opinion with evidence that these are rights vs rules etc. Absent that, there isn't consensus for the tag. Springee (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is recognized as a right in the United States and by the United Nations for a start. I am stating a fact, it is a recognized right to not be misgendered/deadnamed as a student. You are the one who has contributed no evidence and only your opinion that it's not a right. evidence that these are rights vs rules etc sounds like gibberish stonewalling. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per ONUS you are the one who needs to submit evidence and so far you haven't. Show us the case where that has been challenged and upheld under title 9. Show us exactly what this group is arguing against so we can decide if it clearly violates or falls into the large gray area of how rules are implemented. Certainly saying the use of a deadname is a violation of a right is a claim that would need some strong evidence, evidence which you haven't provided. I don't think you should be accusing others of things like stonewalling. If you want to talk about editor behavior etc please do it at an appropriate noticeboard. Springee (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided evidence and this is classic stonewalling, but here we go again. The ACLU has cited Title IX in opposition to policies encouraging the deadnaming/misgendering of students of [9] The US Department of Education has confirmed and explicitly stated that Title IX protections extend to gender identity [10] The SPLC confirms trans kids have the right to be respected [11] Here's a version of Title IX from 2016, before Trump ripped out protections for trans students explicitly stating student's right to not be misgendered/deadnamed [12]
FAIR has argued time and time again that there should not be rules in place preventing students and faculty from misgendering/deadnaming students. That is to say, trans kids should just have to put up with bigots making them uncomfortable in school because of "free speech". From the horse's mouth FAIR says “Teaching students that they must use alternative pronouns and announce their own may also violate their religious rights.” [13], "...the student who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from using another student’s chosen pronoun," O’Neill shared.[14], In Kim’s letter, she contends that such compelled speech [asking students their pronouns] is prohibited under the First Amendment [15], In the instance where a student refuses to use a classmates preferred pronouns, Kim says it gets tricky. “We do encourage everybody to be respectful of everybody else but we also recognize that the use of pronouns is a little bit more complicated,” she said. “It’s not like giving a name or giving your address or giving something similar. It really carries with it a set of underlying beliefs that some students and some individuals may not accept or may not believe in.” [16]
In short, they obviously oppose the established right of transgender students to not be misgendered. That they claim it's in the name of "free speech" and "religious freedom" has nothing to do with the factual statement they do not believe that transgender students should not have the right to not be misgendered. Nor the factual statement being respected in school and not misgendered is a recognized right. Is that enough or do you want to shift the goalpost again? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And once again you claim this is an established right. Interpretations of title 9 have changed and been legally challenged over the years (right to face an accusor for example). You are providing opinions and generalities. You are providing this is a right. This is getting very repetitive. Springee (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, goalposts shifted again but lets make this simple, what is your idea of an acceptable source for defining what trans people's rights are? You seem to believe that if governments or human rights organizations say it's a right for transgender students to be respected, they're not to be believed, so please enlighten us all as to who gets to define rights. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pointless discussion. You don't understand the flaws in your claims so there isn't much to say beyond, you don't have consensus for the change you wish to make. Springee (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pointless discussion - the right to not face discrimination/harassment (misgendering/deadnaming) in schools on the basis of gender identity is well established by the US, the UN, and various human rights groups. Your repeated insistence you don't think it's a right is meaningless and has no bearing on the discussion. Your refusal to give an example of an acceptable source for determining whether it's a right proves you don't give a shit about the facts of the matter and just want to shove your opinion down everyone's throat. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are certain you are right then you should be able to get consensus to include the tag. Springee (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. combat what they see as an overly cynical emphasis on race, gender and sexual orientation, rather than “common humanity.”: this statement does not support the assertion of opposing rights (of anyone). It says they combat an overly cynical emphasis, and the word "rights" does not appear anywhere in the source (aside from one instance of "right-wing").
  2. Alleging that compelling children to circle their preferred pronouns may violate First Amendment may come close to what you say is opposing transgender rights, but the source does not say this. It takes WP:OR an WP:SYNTH to compare the statement to various laws or declarations and conclude it is opposing a right. Even if it is true, it is not what the source says. The word right does not appear in the source.
  3. While children should have the right to declare a personal pronoun voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they must use alternative pronouns and announce their own may also violate their religious rights. - this is a gray area. FAIR supports children having the right to a personal pronoun. Whether the second part is in opposition to transgender rights is a subjective issue, and one that is not raised in the source.
  4. I'm not sure this says what you think it says. FAIR very much supports the additional protection for transgender students: doesn't sound like opposing transgender rights to me. “I think that was a positive adjustment that the school board made because it is taking into account the intention of the student who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from using another student’s chosen pronoun,” - this is where I think reasonable people can disagree about whether this is opposing transgender rights. But nowhere in the source does it explicitly say FAIR is opposing any rights, even though WP:OR may come to that decision.
  5. This source appears to include FAIR along with several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. It might charitably be a voice justifying the disputed category. But the brunt of the source appears to be on more explicitly anti-LGBT Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke, who may have ties to FAIR. And note "anti-Woke" does not equal "anti-trans" or "anti trans rights". It links to Passage article which is misleading in many ways (more below).
  6. College students alleging transphobia by posting flyers is not a reliable source for categorizing. Hosting a controversial speakers, who may say harmful things, is not in opposition to rights.
  7. Passage article: this is of unestablished reliability, and I think it gets several things wrong: it misstates this case as "lawsuit over sex-ed curricula". It correctly states the Blueprint For Canada cites the FAIR Statement of Principles, but appears to conflate those with "dog whistles" like "schools should educate … not indoctrinate,” and “changing the narrative around ‘colonialism.’” which appear to be Blueprint for Canada principles, not FAIR principles. And it alleges that FAIR defends the 'rights' of students to misgender schoolmates, linking to FAIR's issue page that does not clearly state that.
  8. The Colorado Parent Advocacy Network (CPAN) is the latest addition to a group of conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist groups in Colorado that include the Independence Institute, FAIR.... Even taking this as reliable and at face value (and inferring anti LGBT means opposing transgender rights), this, and the other sources, do not seem to make the case that "opposing transgender rights" is a trait that is commonly and consistently used by reliable sources per WP:DEFINING and contra WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. If it takes the judgement of readers to decide that action "X" is in opposition to trans rights, whether comparing it to a local district ordinance or Federal law or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it is not stressed or made clear in published reliable sources, then Wikipedia should not construe it as such in prose or categories: that is WP:SYNTH. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    2. This only makes sense if you take the absurd position that asking someone how they want to be referred to is "compelled speech". For example: A different incident report attached a “get to know you” form distributed by an unnamed French teacher that allegedly asked middle school students as young as 12 years old to [write their name] ... In Kim’s letter, she contends that such compelled speech is prohibited under the First Amendment.
    3. Imagine if they'd said that about gay kids: While children should have the right to declare [they are gay] voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they must [respect them] may also violate their religious rights"
    4. Once again, if they'd made the same comment: The Fairfax County School Board conducted their regular board meeting June 16 to vote on and deliberate amendments to the 2022-2023 Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook. On the minds of many attending the meeting were recently added protections for [gay] students encountering [harassment] in school. Upon the origin of this protection, concerns surrounding its conflict with the first amendment’s free speech protections for offending students became apparent. And on May 26, Attorney for the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) Leigh Ann O’Neill expressed this concern in a letter to the school board. While FAIR very much supports the additional protection for [gay] students, they were pleased to see the document’s new language including the term “malicious” to help discern between events of malintent and free speech. “I think that was a positive adjustment that the school board made because it is taking into account the intention of the student who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from [respecting another student]
    5. How does anti-trans actually manifest in the world if not campaigning against trans rights?
    7. Thank you for linking FAIR's website! Let's see what they say:
    • We support the rights of individuals to use for themselves whatever pronouns they wish and, in the case of minor children, we support pronoun usage that is consistent with the fundamental due process rights of their parents or legal guardians. We do not, however, support institutional or ideological pressure on individuals to conform to, accept, or adopt ideas, behaviors, and opinions that do not align with their own beliefs, values, and temperaments, which would result in compelled speech. IE - kids should be misgendered and deadnamed if that's what their parents want and schools should not have rules preventing deadnaming/misgendering.
    • That page also links to their letter here: While we understand the importance of creating environments of tolerance, requiring students to use the preferred pronouns of others, under threat of harassment charges, violates their First Amendment rights ... Requiring students to use others’ preferred pronouns (and punishing them if they do not) necessarily compels them to affirm faith in a gender ideology they may not accept. The whole letter is about how schools should out students to parents without their consent and why because of "free speech" and "religious freedom" you can't tell students to respect other's pronouns. Medical consensus is that misgendering causes psychological harm, which FAIR also denies in this letter. Trans kids are not an ideology, and you don't need to have any beliefs to accept them and treat them with respect, FAIR in this letter continuously argues that merely accepting that transgender people exist is an "ideology".
    8. Also mentions their homophobic/transphobic board members. Homophobic links to the GLAAD entry for someone who has been both protested against gay and trans rights.
    Per my earlier analogy, if multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to say they oppose LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we may be blind people trying to describe an elephant here. We should be basing our article on what reliable sources explicitly say, not what they infer. But let's see what others have to say. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of category. There is a clear difference between what this group advocates and opposing transgender rights. I will note that transgender rights is a nebulous term since there isn't a clear definition of what is a right vs something transgender advocates are advocating for. As an analogy, a group opposed to school bussing might oppose it based on racist grounds or they may oppose it for other reasons. It would be inappropriate to label an anti-school bussing organization "racist" because some opponents to their activities have used the label. That appears to be the case here. Springee (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the category should obviously be included. It seems the problem people have with inclusion is they aren't convinced that "transgender rights" includes the right to transition in school without harassment (by malicious, intentional, repeated misgendering). The National Center for Transgender Equality calls this a trans rights issue[17]. Obviously a single group saying something doesn't make it so. But anyone familiar with the issue knows that the views expressed by that are representative for most LGBT organizations. It's also representative of the language many educational organizations use. [18] [19]
Here's the ACLU calling these issues transgender rights [20]
IMO the balance of sources is pretty overwhelming that this is a trans rights issue. Even the sources that oppose these policies will acknowledge that this is usually framed as a trans rights issue. The same sources even refer to "trans rights activists". The number of people who don't see this as a trans rights issue is vanishingly small. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the issue is where are the lines. Let's go to the horse's mouth [21]. The group clearly states they think preferred names and pronouns should be respected but they also say that compelling students (not faculty and staff) to respect those runs in opposition to established rights like freedom of speech. This is one of those your freedom to swing your hands ends at the tip of my nose sort of things. It's not at all clear that it's a right to compel others to respect pronouns etc. This is like pro-gun people claiming conceled carry laws violate their rights. It may in some way restrict their rights but it's not clear that that restriction is unacceptable. As a society we are rather early in the process of understanding how to balanced the rights and freedoms of those who are trans vs those who aren't. Applying this label given the appearance of an an effort simply to tar the organization and push a POV (a concern already raised on the page). This is clearly not a BLUESKY case nor do we have strong sourcing supporting the label.Springee (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their rationale is irrelevant. Opposition to civil rights is very rarely stated as such. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IE, the group clearly states that transgender students should not have the right to not be misgendered. It's like saying, we don't support discrimination against X group, we just don't believe discrimination should be banned... Your freedom to say whatever you want ends in a school system where students have a basic right to respect. For example, teachers can't say, despite religious freedom and freedom of speech, "if you're gay you're going to hell" (which has happened to me and friends before).
But for a cherry on top, here is an official statement from the USDOE Office of Civil Rights: OCR has received inquiries regarding whether OCR's regulations are intended to restrict speech activities that are protected under the First Amendment. I want to assure you in the clearest possible terms that OCR's regulations are not intended to restrict the exercise of any expressive activities protected under the U.S. Constitution. OCR has consistently maintained that the statutes that it enforces are intended to protect students from invidious discrimination, not to regulate the content of speech. Harassment of students, which can include verbal or physical conduct, can be a form of discrimination prohibited by the statutes enforced by OCR. ... In summary, OCR interprets its regulations consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment, and all actions taken by OCR must comport with First Amendment principles. No OCR regulation should be interpreted to impinge upon rights protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or to require recipients to enact or enforce codes that punish the exercise of such rights. There is no conflict between the civil rights laws that this Office enforces and the civil liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More circling. The problem now is we are getting into FORUM territory. Saying that a school can't missgender a child is different than saying a school can't tell a student they can't missgender. That is where rights are colliding and seems to be the crux of what FAIR is concerned about. Also, please don't confuse Title 9, a law that applies to schools that accept public funding, with a right. If it were a right it would apply to all schools. Should it be a right? That is a question that can and should be debated. However, that doesn't mean those who oppose are acting in bad faith any more than someone who is against race based admissions quotas in schools or against school bussing is doing so for bad faith reasons. Being opposed to a portion of one aspects of the rights trans-activists are fighting for doesn't mean someone/a group is opposed to "trans-rights" blanket statement. Anyway, since this is still going nowhere let's drop off and let others voice their views. Springee (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem now is we are getting into FORUM territory. Correct. That's why it's best to stick to what relevant sources say. Many sources have been provided showing that LGBT groups regard this as a trans rights issue. I think the point of the USDOE link wasn't to say that the USDOE is the arbiter of what is and isn't a right. Instead, it's just another source talking about these issues in the context of civil rights. Hence the category. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And we don't have sourcing sufficient to apply the tag. Springee (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do, your opinion on whether transgender rights includes the right to be respected in schools is completely irrelevant. Should it be a right? That is a question that can and should be debated. - Yes it should since trans kids shouldn't be discrimated against or harassed in school due to their gender, that right is already is recognized as such, and such "debate" (ie, saying they should just have to put up with such harassment) is just bigotry plain and simple. The idea that it's acceptable for students and faculty to misgender students and make them uncomfortable is wholly WP:FRINGE, not supported by any evidence, and just your opinion. WP:DROPTHESTICK. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, dropping the stick is a good idea. Springee (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Sativa here. It seems abundantly clear that the category should be included. This IS a trans rights issue and the page should state it as such, and it should be stated that the organization opposes trans rights. This seems pretty simple and I'm not sure why the handful of editors on here doesn't recognize this. Historyday01 (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude. WP:RS do not explicitly say the organization opposes transgender rights. This is WP:SYNTH WP:ADVOCACY. Loksmythe (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If an organization is widely known and reported to oppose same-sex marriage, but sources do not explicitly state "they oppose LGBT rights", just "they oppose the right to same-sex marriage", is it WP:SYNTH and WP:ADVOCACY to say they oppose LGBT rights? If not, why is the situation any different here? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the sources do show this from what I've read from this discussion. Organizations will not always directly say they oppose trans rights, but likely try and disguise it behind nice language. Historyday01 (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like with Loksmythe, I think most of the discussion above is irrelevant. We should not be deciding X position is in opposition to transgender rights and therefore the organisation needs to be categorised as such. What we need are sources which say they do so. IMO we can accept reasonable synonyms e.g. anti-trans, transphobic. But once it starts getting into complicated discussions about whether something should or should not be classified as opposition to transgender rights, that's when we've crossed over into WP:OR territory. That's even before we include government regulations, UN decisions etc. So yes, if the only thing you can find about an organisation is that they oppose same-sex marriage, it's best not to categorise them as an organisation that opposes LGBT rights. Remember that categories are supposed to be defining and clear to the reader. It seems likely that such organisations are so, but if you cannot find a source which mentions this, then apparently it isn't actually such a defining characteristic of that organisation since no one else thought to mention it. You can still mention these details in the article but leave out the categories until and unless you can find sources which explicitly support them. (A common reason this might be the case may be because while it's true, it's such a small aspect that no one bother to mention it. While I understand why this is distressing to those affected anyway, it's an understandable reality that if an organisation is primarily notable for certain stuff, more minor stuff they do may fall by the wayside.) Note that while editors are right that it doesn't matter what an organisation says about itself and its policies, it does matter what reliable secondary sources say. We rely on them to look at the organisation and it's policies and decide if they're in opposition to trans rights, not our own research and analysis. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne, I just want to note that the Colorado Times Recorder, which seems by consensus WP:GREL and a source that provided WP:SIRS coverage of FAIR, listed them as an "anti-LGBT" organization. They note their advisors have been accused of "homophobia" and "transphobia". Passage, who seem WP:MREL-WP:GREL and are a WP:SIRS source stated Meanwhile, the organizations behind these efforts were funding and promoting school board candidates who promised to ‘do something’ about these supposed problems. The resulting campaigns often easily overwhelmed formerly low-turnout, low-stakes school board elections, resulting in a rash of “anti-woke” figures gaining power across the U.S. Now fulfilling their campaign promises, these figures are using their power to strip protections from marginalized students, enact anti-trans and homophobic policies, and prevent teachers from speaking about race.(emphases added) The article details FAIR's role in promoting such candidates. The text also states One of the organization’s stated goals is to advance “civil rights and liberties for all Americans.” In reality, however, the organization spends its time effectively defending the “right” of students to misgender schoolmates. Explicitly rebutting their claim to advancing civil rights with their support of the "right" to misgender schoolmates is them criticizing their framing of such as a right. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

For a general policy-based consensus on this going forward: can we categorize an organization as an "organization opposed to LGBT/transgender rights" in an instance where the organization is known for opposing a particular LGBT right, but the sources mentioning that don't say it's a right? For the simplest example: if an organization is known for campaigning against same-sex marriage, are our criteria for categorizing them as "an organization that opposes LGBT rights" based on 1) whether the WP:RS commenting on their opposition to same-sex marriage explicitly call same-sex marriage an LGBT right or 2) whether WP:RS generally consider same-sex marriage an LGBT right? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can, but usually you shouldn't in the case where it's only one specific right they oppose. In that case it's usually clearer and more accurate to be specific. I'd only really recommend this language in a case where reliable sources say separately that they oppose several separate LGBT rights. Then I think it's covered by WP:BLUESKY. Loki (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, yes but in the case where only one specific right is named, finding a way to be more specific can be more helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of language, including an organization in a category of organizations that oppose transgender rights can apply even if they only oppose one such right, just like a list of "People famous for covering Beatles songs" can include people who only covered one Beatles song. There may be a better category to sort such cases into, but it's not linguistically wrong.
    That said, this does seem like an awfully broad question, and withdrawing the RfC to run a narrower one would, I think, be more likely to have a productive outcome. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say no (in general), and in reply to your numbered examples, #1 (again, with exceptions). If it takes a reader's analysis to look at a subject's action (per a source), compare it to other sources (cited or not) that indicate that action violates/opposes rights, then it is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH at worst, and subtle POV-pushing at best, if sources don't frame the subject in the same way. For the same-sex marriage example, same-sex marriage is not legal or fully recognized in many places on earth, so calling it a right may presume that it is a universally held right. Another analogy: if source A says nothing more than a person was driving 120 MPH on a highway, and source B says the legal speed limit for the highway is 80 MPH, and source C says that is criminally reckless driving, but sources B and C don't mention the person, we cannot state (in text nor categories) that the person is a reckless driver, or guilty of law breaking. We just state their speed. To go beyond would put undue emphasis on a point that wasn't explicitly made in sources directly about the subject, and frames facts differently from how they are commonly described, even if correct. And for categorization, we need to not only consider whether something is technically true, but whether it is a defining characteristic, and categories must also follow NPOV. I think the scope of this RfC is too broad: it appears to be well beyond the specific question of "should Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism be placed in Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights?" For the question about placing any organization in this category, there may be too many specifics and conditional circumstances that complicate a simple blanket approach. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Your example, in every way that you've tried to validate it, is improper editorial synthesis. We cannot take one source that says one thing, and another source that says something else, and combine them to produce a conclusion that neither of the sources states explicitly. In your example, given the sources you suggest are available, we can say that the organization is known for campaigning against same-sex marriage, and that's it. The other problem here is you suggest you have a source saying that same-sex marriage is an LGBT right (emphasis added) and you want to use that to state that the organization opposes all LGBT rights, and no, you can't. The sources didn't say that, and neither can we. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. My high level answer is this is a contentious label/tag. To use it you need significant sourcing that directly supports it. Additionally, while I might that if A, B, C D and E are all X-rights then opposition to BCD&E (but not A) would be sufficient to support a claim "opposed to X-rights", in such a case I would have to assume we could find RSs that support that claim. Since that isn't the case here, we shouldn't use a broad category. Springee (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the same sex marriage example is a good analogy here but let's explore the idea that we editors can/should be able to establish the tag's validity even without RSs establishing it for us. It might be a better example if we use something like is a church that refuses to conduct a same sex marriage anti-LGBT rights. I think most western European and English speaking countries have legally codified the right to a same sex marriage. Laws/rules against dead naming etc are not as well established so the extent to which this is a right vs should be a right is not well established. Thus if we are going to editor define the tag we need to start with a clearly identified right. This point sidetracked the discussion above but even if we agree that something is vs should be that isn't enough. The example church clearly won't perform a marriage but if it still legally and functionally acknowledges the marriage is that anti-LGBT rights or even anti-same sex marriage? If we assume they refuse to even acknowledge the marriage then that part is a yes. However, same sex marriage is only a part of the larger scope of what are or should be LGBT rights. If they only oppose a subset of the larger set then the category fails to be defining since it doesn't define them accurately. Critically it can suggest positions they don't have and thus inaccurately defines them. That in tern degrades the value of the tag. Imagine tagging any movie from any time and saying if it has racially insensitive material it's a racist movie. Or take any movie that shows smoking in any sort of non-negative way and then saying it's a "product that promotes smoking". It would make the tag meaningless in the end. Springee (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed and more specific RFC created below, pinging @LokiTheLiar:, @XOR'easter:, @PEIsquirrel:, @Animalparty:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTranarchist (talk • contribs)

More specific RFC

Should we categorize the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism under:

  1. "organizations opposed to transgender rights"
  2. "organizations opposed to bans on misgendering" (or better-worded version), which would be a subcategory of "organizations opposed to transgender rights"
  3. neither

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]

Support 1: A WP:DEFINING characteristic of the organization is that it campaigns against protections for transgender students which prevent misgendering from other students, opposing their right to be respected in schools. The organization has been described as anti-LGBTQ in WP:GREL WP:SIRS coverage.[22] Another RS providing WP:SIRS states One of the organization’s stated goals is to advance “civil rights and liberties for all Americans.” In reality, however, the organization spends its time effectively defending the “right” of students to misgender schoolmates in FAIR's dedicated section in an overview of some of the “anti-woke” groups working to take control of school boards in the province and across the country. They also state organizations including FAIR are behind these efforts were funding and promoting school board candidates who are using their power to strip protections from marginalized students, enact anti-trans and homophobic policies, and prevent teachers from speaking about race.[23] That RS is also cited in this RS for the statement While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates[24] In another RS, it is noted that when protections for transgender students encountering misgendering in school to the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook, they opposed a full ban and campaigned for exemptions for students who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from using another student’s chosen pronoun (ie, it's ok to make trans kids feel uncomfortable and refuse to respect them if your interpretation of your religion tells you to - just like how a kid can repeatedly tell gay classmates they're going to hell and it's totally fine and there shouldn't be rules against it...)[25]. They reported as doing the same in yet another source, where FAIR opposes state it's unconstitutional to teach students that they must use alternative pronouns due to the first amendment and religious freedom [26]. There is the somewhat BLUESKY point that if transgender students are recognized to have the right to not be misgendered, and an organization opposes it for "free speech", that exemption means the right is not recognized since anyone could just say "free speech". You don't have the right to call other kids insults, slurs, or yell fire in a public building. In short, this organization opposes the right of transgender students to not be misgendered in schools, which multiple sources have stated, corroborated, mentioned in passing, and given serious coverage to.
2 is needlessly specific, as per XOR'easter's comment in the dicussion above that As a matter of language, including an organization in a category of organizations that oppose transgender rights can apply even if they only oppose one such right, just like a list of "People famous for covering Beatles songs" can include people who only covered one Beatles song. There may be a better category to sort such cases into, but it's not linguistically wrong. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you cite don't support "transgender rights":
  1. The first source, Colorado Times Recorder, is local news and shouldn't be afforded much WP:WEIGHT.
  2. The second source, Passage, is not an RS per the RSN thread you started because Passage only publishes opinion and analysis.
  3. The third source says While FAIR very much supports the additional protection for transgender students, they were pleased to see the document’s new language including the term “malicious” to help discern between events of malintent and free speech. That's hardly "opposed to transgender rights".
  4. The fourth source says (all emphasis mine) While children should have the right to declare a personal pronoun voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they must use alternative pronouncs and announce their own may also violate their religious rights.” That's not "opposed to transgender rights".
So that leaves us with just the one local news source, which isn't enough to meet WP:DEFINING, MOS:LABEL or even WP:DUE. Levivich (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first, is WP:SIRS coverage, and should WP:WEIGHT should be determined by the coverage present in the source, so unless there are more prominent sources that contradict their statements there, it's a high quality source for this purpose and their claims are un-contradicted in WP:RS. The source also notes the transphobia of Shrier, but even if you ignore that, they give evidence of another board member being homophobic/transphobic, which includes calling for a "national rebellion" against marriage equality and making homophobic/transphobic comments such as calling gay relationships "immoral" and the existence of trans people an "absurd" "superstitious belief".
The second was cited in another RS to support the claim that While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates in the third. In this context, that makes Passage more due, and its relevance not so easy to discount.
The fourth (not third), you are ignoring the WP:BLUESKY implication there, i.e., FAIR believes anyone can misgender a transgender student if they feel like it, rendering the protection moot. A rule that says "you can't misgender classmates" having a "free speech" rider means anyone can misgender the student, and therefore the rule is for all intents and purposes overturned. The source explicitly says protections for transgender students encountering misgendering in school are in the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook. "Of course we're glad about the new rule against homophobic slurs and insults, but we believe that other students have the right to use them because of religious freedom and free speech"...
The fifth (not fourth), let's look at FAIR's words directly shall we? Their letter is included in the source: Certainly, any student who wishes to declare their pronouns voluntarily should be permitted to do so. Additionally, it may be polite to use the preferred alternative pronouns of others. However, compelling students to do either is likely inconsistent with the First Amendment. - IE, once again WP:BLUESKY, "go ahead and misgender other students with impunity".
To those previous two sources, the analogy would be them saying "we believe gay people can love who they want, they just shouldn't be able to get married", then someone arguing they're not opposed to LGBT rights because of the first half of their statement...
So that gives us 1 piece of WP:SIRS coverage describing them as anti-LGBT and noting their homophobic/transphobic board members. 1 RS citing another source to state they have the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates, the source referenced explicitly contrasting their claims to advocating civil rights with their push to allow misgendering and further detailing their activities. Another RS that states the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook contains protections for transgender students encountering misgendering in school, which they note FAIR opposes (school recognized it as a right to not be misgendered, FAIR argued it shouldn't be recognized as a right and students only have the right to say what their pronouns are, not have them respected). And another RS that corroborates them doing the same again, arguing that schools should not be able to prevent students misgendering other students and that trans kids shouldn't have that right to respect. So that's 4-5(4.5?) RS supporting "opposed to transgender rights", and no RS proving otherwise.
Note, for example, if two RS say an organization opposes gay marriage, describing that as anti-LGBT and/or explicitly calling gay marriage an LGBT right, other sources corroborating that they oppose gay marriage without explicitly calling it a right still adds to the weight that they are "commonly and consistently" known for opposing an LGBT right. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RFC No reason to have this one when the same editor started one just a few hours earlier. I would suggest closing this as redundant. Springee (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 editors said the original was overly broad, and I concur, so unless you think the over-generalized one is better then the original should be closed as redundant TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3, because there isn't enough RS support for #1 or #2, and #2 doesn't exist as a category, and if it did, it would be a WP:SMALLCAT. Levivich (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Idavox, Passage (https://readpassage.com/), and the Colorado Times Record are not reliable sources for contentious material. Idavox is clearly an activist outlet. Passage and Colorado Times Record are a non-notable left-wing opinion/essay sites. None of them should be cited as they are in the article. The onus is on those citing sources like these to show they are reliable, not the other way around. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idavox is an independent anti-fascist website and the publication wing of the One People's Project, it is biased but that does not mean it can not be used. Also, open anti-fascism is just explicit human decency. Some quick searching finds:
From The Progressive: [Daryle Lamont Jenkins] runs both One People’s Project, which documents the activities of the far right while issuing calls to action, and Idavox, which publishes news articles expanding on that research. The article generally credits Jenkins, OPP, and Idavox with doing reliable in-depth research that mainstream outlets don't cover.
Jenkins and Idavox have been used as a source by the SPLC
As I don't currently have the time to do a full in depth review of Jenkins, the OPP, and IdaVox, suffice it to say any search will show that Jenkins has been recognized as a Subject Matter Expert in the field of right-wing organizing for decades and him and his organizations have been credited and used as a source by many reliable sources.
The Colorado Times Record meets all our benchmarks for being a reliable source. They are non-partisan though progressive, have a clear policy on factual errors and misinformation, in addition to retracting such information, and have been linked/named in stories across dozens of reliable sources. The team is made up of established journalists and has a named editor. They clearly delineate between opinion pieces and fact-based reporting. NBC news has praised it's reporting on what other local outlets won't.
Passage has editorial staff, a clear corrections and fact-checking policy, and issues corrections. They primarily work with freelance journalists, but that is neither here nor there. They are a non-profit and they clearly delineate between opinion and news. They are openly left, but biased does not mean can't be used.
In short, there is nothing glaringly suggesting these sources are unreliable, and a lot suggesting they are. They are biased, but that is not synonymous with "can not be used". I could not find any mention of any of them publishing incorrect information (barring disclosed corrections on their part). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the standard for a reliable source then? Any website like Passage that has an editorial masthead? Why would a third-party RS report about them publishing incorrect information? They're too low profile for most anyone to notice. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any source that declares itself to be an "independent anti-fascist" website should not be assumed to be reliable. I see no reason to think the "One People's Project" would be treated differently than other special interest/advocacy groups. Springee (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Idavox, Passage, and the Colorado Times Record are all marginal activist sources that do not qualify as reliable sources for contentious material. Loksmythe (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also per the mention of Idavox's connection to the SPLC, it's worth noting that just a few years ago the SPLC had to retract defamatory content about Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz in concordance with a $3+ million settlement. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Colorado Times Record meets every standard for a WP:RS and Passage seems to meet most, the only thing to check for them is how established WP:RS have covered them and described their work. Neither are "marginal activist" sources as people keep saying.
Idavox is indeed biased, but that doesn't mean can't be used. "Anti-fascism", for that matter, is the least biased position towards fascism, since "pro-fascist" websites are hardly going to be reliable for reporting on fascism. Being opposed to fascism is just basic human decency. Additionally, the OPP, Idavox, and Daryle Lamont Jenkins are widely known and respected for reporting on the niche topic of right-wing organizing. Reliable sources tend to use their research, one of the signs they themselves are a reliable source, and none have spoken to any factual innacuracies from them, another sign. With attribution, any lingering doubts about their use as a source disappear. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "pro-facists" website? I think Mussolini died in the 1940s. Sure Franco lived on for quiet a while but who are these "facists" that need to be resisted? What groups call themselves pro-fascist? Do you have examples of RSs using their research? We rarely accept citations to the Cato institute yet they are well known and long established. I see no reason why this group should be given so much weight without a third party RS citing them first. Springee (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solely off the top of my head: the Proud Boys, Aryan Freedom Network, Goyim Defense League, the National Reformation Party (originally called the "American Blackshirts Party" in the early 2000's), the American Nationalist Initiative, and the National Socialist Movement (United States). Many of these explicitly describe themselves as fascist and have had their own websites and publications where they brag about it and publish articles. If you want even more examples of fascists (no need for scare quotes around the word) that need to be resisted see here or here for a start. Generally speaking, it's hard to miss the worldwide resurgence of the fascist movement unless you have your eyes superglued shut or solely rely on publications which glue their own eyes shut for you. The Cato Institute is a propaganda arm of the Koch brothers, hardly equivalent with an independent news organizations researching the far right. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have a lot more sympathy for you POV were it not for the fact that 1. CATO is well respected even if their POV is known. They even have a number of Nobel laureates in their ranks over the years. 2. If you treated other "news" sites equally. Here you have an activist news site that you claim is fine yet if the "activists" are Cristian that isn't OK [27]. I can see removing the Cristian site as an iffy source (even though the claims it was being used to support were hardly contentious) but you are defending a very questionable source and using it extensively. Anyway, it doesn't appear there is consensus for it's use. Springee (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are they known for serious investigative journalism or just reports? There's a difference between a news agency and a conservative think tank. One reports xyz verifiably happened, the other reports I think xyz should happen because abc, bringing it up is comparing apples to oranges. While these pieces are being discussed here and have not been previously, past discussion of the Daily Signal found it unreliable. Current discussion of the Catholic News Agency is inconclusive, and those who find it reliable seem to find so solely on facts regarding to Catholic affairs. I have in good faith defending the limited use of a source and defended it by citing relevant details and wikipolicy- you have not cited relevant wikipolicy once and seem to think by continuously saying you think it's an "activist" source and bringing up inapplicable comparisons the discussion is over. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about the Daily Signal and wasn't referencing it. Since it was in the edit I indicated I should have made that explicitly clear. Springee (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a general point of reference, I did a quick Google News search for this organization. The first two hits don't do anything to make people suspect this is such a controversial organization [28], [29]. Not an extensive search but hardly a case of asking an extremist group to lunch. Springee (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is basically an advertisement for an event they're hosting and an interview with the founder are not representative of the sources or even due for inclusion in the article. WP:SIRS tend to be a lot more critical. Sources that describe them according to their PR and just copy their mission statement tend to have only a passing mention, while significant coverage tends to point out their mission statement and explicitly contrast it with their conservative leanings and actions. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Idavox may be marginally reliable in certain cases, but there is no compelling reason to give them an entire paragraph block quote, nor "the final word", as this article does. They are not a mainstream source, regardless of reliability (and the anonymous Idavox piece cited is not a straight news piece). WP:NPOV means we summarize view in proportion to their prominence: we don't give undue weight to the views of small groups, even if we agree with them. What Idavox thinks of Quillette, for instance, has little relevance to this article. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of their commentary in Reception could indeed be shortened to just say they objected to them describing themselves as a "civil rights group" to their board members and their histories. The second could be shortened as well to contain less of their true but run-on descriptors and highlight their analysis the board skews right and far-right, with a large number of Quilette contributors, Koch employees, and transphobes.
How does this version work?
Idavox described FAIR as "Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing" and said "it's not a civil-rights organization". They stated that their analysis of FAIR's board of advisors revealed a large number of Koch employees, Quillete contributors, and transphobes. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we include Idavox's description at all? It seems like an activist site. If their opinion on this subject is due shouldn't we find it in third party RS? Springee (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an independent news website, see the section added below. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Idavox's commentary is due here. With al due respect, TheTranarchist, your tendency to seemingly squeeze everything ever published on a subject into a Wikipedia article, from student newspapers to anarchist newsletters, aught to be tempered. Your articles are often highly over-detailed, regardless of who gets cited. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually leave out 1-sentence passing mentions and for any article about 1/3 - 1/2 of sources. My rule of thumb is an source should have a who-what-when-where-why to merit inclusion in an article - discuss concrete things they've done that are considered noteworthy. Anarchist newsletters and student newspapers aren't in and of themselves inherently unreliable. For the former I've yet to hear anyone complain an article relies on neo-liberal and corporate sources, only anarchist/left-wing sources have their politics explicitly name-dropped as somehow damning while corporate media somehow exists in an apolitical ether. For the latter, those only tend to be relevant when it comes to things directly involving a school, in which case they're reporting is usually in-depth and very directly relevant. I'd prefer a thorough / over-detailed article to an under-detailed slipshod one any day of the week, it's easier to try and summarize and trim down an article that mentions everything than to try and squeeze more things in piecemeal.
In regards to Idavox specifically, see my section below. Additionally, Idavox's article was not some passing mention, but a WP:SIRS source that devoted an article to analyzing their actions, their board, and their funding. Their weight and how much we should use from them and how is debateable, but they should certainly be included. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jweiss11 There is no local consensus that the Colorado Times Recorder is not a reliable source. You said Colorado Times Record are a non-notable left-wing opinion/essay sites and @Loksmythe called it a marginal activist source, the only two to have objected. Neither of you have responded to my citations of the relevant wiki-policy or the fact that established RS laud them for their coverage and consider them to be reliable. Them being "marginal" and "non-notable" has been proven false. "Activist" is a meaningless buzzword reeking of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Their article is a WP:SIRS source and definitely merits inclusion. Per WP:CON, The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Please self-revert. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In everyone else's view here, everyone else's arguments are better. That's a consensus. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not on Wikipedia. Or anywhere for that matter. Relevant text in bold, the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. And here, everyone else is two people who have directly objected to the CTR with one sentence each, and not provided any detailed arguments as to why, or contradicted evidence given proving it is a reliable source and not as "marginal" and "non-notable" as suggested. Repeating you don't like it or you think it's "activist" carries no weight whatsoever. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons that I have stated on WP:RSN, I also object to the use of these three sources for citing contentious facts, as they have been cited here. If there are reliable secondary sources that give this information, providing them and citing them would be much more productive than back-and-forth reverts over the use of subpar sources.
I am also generally concerned about the lack of ideological attribution given to some of the partisan sources in the article; WP:BIASED offers as examples According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff... and The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that... but we're omitting a note regarding the political affiliations of several sources that get addressed with in-text attribution, such as the explicitly partisan Media Matters for America, and this is an issue in terms of how we're representing the sourcing in the article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on the RSP noticeboard about these sources, but I just want to add here as well that the Colorado Springs Reporter appears to be an excellent source, and nobody has provided a single valid argument for its exclusion. It has an editorial board with stellar credentials. Opinion is clearly separated from news. Furthermore, the specific article was republished by *another* Colorado Springs institution with editorial oversight, the Colorado Springs Independent [30]. I see absolutely no reason this source should be considered unreliable. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idavox

An even more robust case could be built by including "one people's project" and "daryle lamont jenkins" in the search, but for simplicity's sake these are the results of a google news search for "Idavox".

Links to their reporting (with attribution)
SPLC: Daryle Lamont Jenkins, who reported on the event for independent antifascist news website Idavox, confirmed that Stein attempted to “troll” the crowd.
The Daily Beast: The Clark brothers appear to have followed Spencer closely. They posed with him outside the White House at the April rally and the following month, they attended another Spencer rally outside the White House, Idavox previously reported
Links to their reporting (without attribution)
Texas Observer links to two separate Idavox articles to back up their statements. One had originally been linked in another article here
Virginia Mercury links to their reporting on how far-right activists who'd previously supported Charlottesville distanced themselves from it after
Refers to their youtube channel/videos/photos
Philly Magazine Uses Daryle's photos from a KKK rally
Philly Magazine also uses a video he'd taken of the rally
Patch Idavox caught Ramos pepper spraying people on video
Serious coverage of Idavox/Daryle/OPP themselves
The Progressive: One People’s Project was launched in 2000 as a platform to disseminate information about fascist and white supremacist figures and groups. ... “One People’s Project was formed because people weren’t talking about the things that we felt were important to talk about,” Jenkins says. “If you see a need that isn’t being tended to, there’s nothing stopping you from tending [to it] yourself.” ... He runs both One People’s Project, which documents the activities of the far right while issuing calls to action, and Idavox, which publishes news articles expanding on that research. The article goes very in depth into how Idavox has been doing reporting that mainstream sources hadn't been touching and praises their coverage in comparison.
NJ Monthly: The Black man was Daryle Lamont Jenkins, an Air Force veteran who has spent the past 20 years sniffing out and exposing white supremacists across the nation, but especially here in New Jersey. Jenkins, head of the New Brunswick based One People’s Project, posted the entire November 2021 Princeton confrontation on YouTube and his popular website, Idavox
Vice: Daryle Lamont Jenkins, an antifascist researcher who has tracked the far-right for decades and runs One People’s Project, which monitors hate groups.

In short, just a quick search of Idavox, not even Jenkins himself or the OPP, reveals that Idavox is considered by reliable sources to be an independent news website with a focus on reporting on fascism. They consider it reliable enough to just link directly to their research to back up claims. I have yet to ever see a reliable source mention Daryle, Idavox, or OPP and call their research/reporting into question. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on RSN, this source neither has an editorial board, any editorial oversight, a corrections policy, nor any other trappings of a reliable source. Merely being one guy's blog doesn't make it reliable, even if that person is a journalist (see: Max Blumenthal's blog, The Grayzone). NJ Monthly is an extremely weak source—it's literally an advertising magazine for restaurants and New Jersey's local businesses—not the sort of thing that offers credence to a source that it's citing. Likewise, WP:VICE is WP:MREL and The Progressive is a publication of opinion content—neither of these plausibly contribute to affirmative WP:UBO in a way that would be able to overcome the critical deficiencies in the site's editorial oversight. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV page by avowedly POV editor

Through the use of activist non-WP:RS, WP:UNDUE WP:Cherrypicking, and more this page fundamentally violates the core Wikipedia policy of WP:NPOV: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Furthermore, the creator of the page, TheTranarchist, has publicly stated they are here to create a certain biased version of the page to advance their own POV https://kolektiva.social/@TheTranarchist/109785532925140650 (the link to their social media account is publicly shared on their userpage):

Just published a #wikipedia article on the #FoundationAgainstIntoleranceAndRacism, AKA #FAIR. An organization with a name that screams double-speak and a tale of #racism, #transphobia, and #rightwing astro-turfing and culture warring...

So who are these guys? Simply put, a crew of #racist and #transphobic / #antitrans conservative intellectuals (think #quilette and the #kochbrothers) who helped push the #CRT panic into the American mainstream by aiding legal battles and infiltrating school boards across the country...

They're also incredibly transphobic, which is how I found out about them originally...

I wanted to clear up for the record that FAIR have been transphobic and racist from the start...

So this page violates core WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and WP:Tendentious editing.

TheTranarchist is arguably WP:NOTHERE to build an NPOV encyclopedia. Therefore, I would argue that this page either needs a fundamental re-write or should even be deleted and recreated in a more neutral fashion. Loksmythe (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is spurious on multiple accounts.
I have provided the evidence that Idavox, Passage, and the Colorado Times Recorder and their usage in the article are in line with our reliable sources guidelines. It's interesting and hard to assume good faith that instead of responding to those points raised, you unilaterally cast it as not a RS and call for the page's deletion here. Even if consensus was not obtained here, the appropriate place is the RS noticeboard, not to call for the pages deletion. The 3 sources that some have raised issues with are not magically outweighing the other ~40 sources cited and are by no means the backbone of the article. "Activist" is a meaningless word in this case, for Idavox, which no reliable sources have described in such terms, but especially for the other two.
That I am here to create a certain biased version of the page to advance [my] own POV is bullshit and putting words in my mouth. I don't have to like a group to objectively list what they've done, what they're known for, and their history. I created a page after I learned about them, a general per-requisite to writing about any topic. Then I collected all the RS, and wrote the article based on those, and nothing I said in that summary listed there (published after the article) is false. They are incredibly transphobic and they have pushed against measures that address systemic racism, that's not a POV that's just a statement of fact. It's not my fault the RS are overwhelmingly critical, and I welcome you to find the mythical WP:SIRS sources I did not include that will make this page suddenly WP:NPOV.
In terms of WP:NPOV, I followed the sources, and have even worked to make the article more neutral with others suggestions. I included everything they did and supported, whether I agreed with it or not, broken clock is right twice a day and all that. I have added no WP:ADVOCACY, as I've only listed what the group is known for and does. I did not say anything they do or say is incorrect, unless reliable sources said so. It's not my fault they've barely done anything good. In terms of WP:Tendentious editing, I created the page, and every single comment raised I have addressed and endeavored to fix. When there has been disagreement, I have given all my sources and reasoning and explanation of the relevant wikipolicy.
This is a sickeningly cheap attempt to trash the article by citing a discussion about the reliability of 3/41 sources as evidence the whole article should go, without actually contributing to the discussion or trying to achieve consensus. This article represents fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Prove me wrong by showing the sources that disagree. I'll wait TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TheTranarchist, on Loksmythe's claim of "Tendentious editing", I agree that you have been civil and very responsive when challenged on content. But Wikipedia:Tendentious editing also includes elements of POV and intention/purpose. It's pretty obvious that this article was created its initial form in order to make FAIR look as bad as possible, as a part of what appears to be a larger effort of very left-wing political advocacy. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was not created to make FAIR look as bad as possible, it was to fairly represent what the reliable sources have to say about them. As I have challenged above, if anyone can find WP:SIRS that do not generally have the same format (FAIR claims to be non-partisan, here is a review of their activities and people involved, we conclude they are a conservative organization/ one primarily stacked with conservatives who oppose what they call CRT, which often isn't and is a catch-all buzzword), they are free to do so. However I am extremely confident in my statement none exist, as I methodologically compiled every reliable source on them I could find by year and month.
In terms of a larger effort of very left-wing political advocacy, I must note that only one of my articles, Boots theory has been informed by me being a leftist, and is hardly non neutral, merely a straightforward description of an economic theory and it's reception. Even then, one could argue that is more informed by me being a Terry Pratchett fan. The rest are informed by the fact I am a trans person, and there are numerous people and organizations who's sole purpose is the restriction of trans peoples' rights, who I find it prudent to objectively document, as the facts speak for themselves. If I was a right-wing trans person, I could still write the same articles, as my interest in doing so is the fact I am trans, not a leftist. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the legitimate concerns here. That same sort of bias is clear in other pages recently created by TheTransarchist. While they might try to argue their intent was to create an IMPARTIAL article, their social media page (is it safe to assume that is their page?) would suggest otherwise. Springee (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't see any "legitimate concerns" and you know it, otherwise you'd legitimately point them out. I responded to what you filed at the BLPN, and it's touching how glaringly obvious it is you decided to complain without bothering to read the history or talk page, where I explicitly object to the content you are trying to lay the blame on me for... Are you ready to respond with wikipolicy (instead of your opinion) to the question of whether the sources count as reliable? Or are you going to continue tangents and thinly veiled personal attacks on my editing? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see RS and CON. Those are the relevant pages. The BLPN discussion is not related to this source or this article. Springee (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich. I have brought up WP:RS repeatedly, discussing the requirements to consider a source reliable while providing evidence my sources meet those. You have only gone off on tangents and expressed your own opinion and not once mentioned actual policy. Per WP:CON: In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. Considering the quality of your arguments, they seem to be entirely predicated on "I don't like it" rather than any serious discussion of policy.
You are the one who called my editing impartial, then said my other articles were biased and brought that up to attack me as an editor here (of course, as I repeat, not actually bothering to respond to any of my arguments), then started a BLPN discussion to try and prove it - but suddenly pointing out the claim is false and those allegations of bias are spurious is not related? Something tells me your next reply will once again fail to respond to any of my points raised or cite any relevant policy and just attack me or go off on a tangent again... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, each of the three sources that got brought to RSN have truly significant issues with their suitability for citing contentious facts. WP:NPOV asks us to fairly and proportionately represent the views published by reliable sources, so including unreliable sources here and giving them undue weight would cause the article's content to have a fairly substantial WP:NPOV issue. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely inappropriate, and nothing more than a personal attack on @TheTranarchist. Even if there was something wrong with her edits, this is not the way to discuss it. This whole section should get deleted as off-topic. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Loksmythe's assessment above that this article needs a fundamental re-write or deletion/recreation. Drmies has just added more tags to this article, which reflect the pervasive problems with it. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur as well.
Just to note some more. In here:
Critics have likened their approach to an All Lives Matter mentality, which was a response to the Black Lives Matter movement that sought to delegitimize the notion that Black people have been systematically discriminated against in the United States.[1]
"sought to delegitimize the notion that Black people have been systematically discriminated against in the United States" is actually a direct quote from the Chalkbeat, and yet it is put in Wikipedia's own voice. This either needs to be attributed as a quote, or lost. I recommend losing it.
In:
According to experts and educators interviewed by Lancaster Online, what FAIR calls CRT is not CRT, but a catch-all term for anything race-related. CRT is a legal study of the ways in which race has been created, defined, and embedded into law throughout American history that is not taught outside of graduate and law school.[1][2]
This is actually a hotly-debated issue, and the above gives undue weight to Lancaster Online. See here for several RS sources that dispute this claim as currently stated:
https://reason.com/2022/01/31/critical-race-theory-taught-in-classroom-california/
https://www.uclalawreview.org/yes-critical-race-theory-should-be-taught-in-your-school-undoing-racism-in-k-12-schooling-and-classrooms-through-crt/
Either the Lancaster Online claim should be recommended, or it should be kept but the counter-argument as presented in the Reason source should also be given.
The page continues to have many other major issues. I am in favor of a full re-write, or perhaps we can slowly get consensus on (I hope, pretty clear-cut) things like the above piece by piece. BonaparteIII (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC) BonaparteIII (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think a new article Critical Race Theory (Conspiracy theory) would solve that. There's certainly enough academic and even popular media pointing out the differences between the legal theory and the conspiracy theory. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very much agreed, some starting material is in Critical Race Theory#Criticism and 2020s controversies around critical race theory. Relatedly, it's interesting how Rufo's outsized involvement in pushing the CRT panic, which has been commented on by numerous reliable sources in regards to FAIR, has been removed from the article... TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Friends, it is not a conspiracy theory, please see the two RS's I cited above. BonaparteIII (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removing criticism of them is blatant whitewashing, but I can support putting that in a quote.
The Lancaster Online interviewed uninvolved experts for their opinion - you feeling the need to counter it with articles that never mentioned FAIR is blatant WP:OR.
Additionally, since this user has made only 16 edits, most of which are small grammar fixes but two of which, their only talk page comments, are disproportionately lengthy comments here (the first of which was left on the same day as the account was created after making only two mainspace grammar fixes), they should probably be tagged as an SPA. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an "SPA". This page had more issues than the others that I was reading after I decided to make an account, sorry. BonaparteIII (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: sought to delegitimize the notion that Black people have been systematically discriminated against in the United States - I get that we have to paraphrase to avoid COPYVIO, but I am not aware of any RS that characterize the objectives of "All lives matter" that conflict with this. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. BonaparteIII (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The talk of "conspiracy theory" here is absurd. There's a difference between a conspiracy theory and some people potentially misusing a nebulous, abstract term like critical race theory when perhaps a similar, related term might be more apt. It's a veritable fact that under the banner of anti-racism, race essentialism, racial segregation, and notions like the idea that valuing precision, objective truth, and the scientific method are racist tools of "whiteness" have popped up all over the academic landscape in the US and other western nations, particularly in the last decades with acceleration after the summer of 2020. Left-wing advocacy and far-left advocacy exists, just as right-wing and far-right advocacy exists. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to acknowledge their existence. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to lend undue weight to what the Lancaster Online in particular says about CRT. While it may well be true that CRT "is not taught in any Lancaster County public school, nor is it mentioned in the Pennsylvania school curriculum", I think it's pretty established that "Critical Race Theory" both is a loose catchall that conservatives conflate with various anti-racism and social justice initiatives (largely due to Christopher Rufo)[3][4] and is also being taught in some primary schools, or at least influencing school curricula as a framework, regardless of whether it's specifically called CRT.[5][6][7] Whatever we do, we should not imply that critics of "CRT" are totally off-base even if they use the term imprecisely. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ a b Salhotra, Pooja (2021-07-13). "Critical race theory debate hits New York City public schools". Chalkbeat. Retrieved 2023-01-31.
  2. ^ Geli, Alex (October 3, 2021). "Are Lancaster County schools 'indoctrinating' children with critical race theory? Educators, experts say no". Lancaster Online. Retrieved 2023-01-31.
  3. ^ Waxman, Olivia B. (July 5, 2021). "'Critical Race Theory Is Simply the Latest Bogeyman.' Inside the Fight Over What Kids Learn About America's History". Time. It [the debate over how to teach the history of race in America] has also galvanized those who worry applying that lens will teach children to hate America or divide the nation by emphasizing our differences. This viewpoint has come to the fore amid a surge of controversy over critical race theory (CRT), a decades-old academic framework that scholars use to interrogate how legal systems—as well as other elements of society—perpetuate racism and exclusion. Opponents of CRT now invoke it as a catchall term for any discussion of systemic racism.
  4. ^ McCausland, Phil (July 1, 2021). "The teaching of critical race theory isn't happening in classrooms, teachers say". NBC News. Critical race theory is an academic study at the undergraduate and graduate level that aims to examine the role of racism in the modern era and the ways it has become woven into the social fabric. Academics in the field argue the U.S. has institutionalized a racial caste system. Increasingly it has also become an amorphous, catch-all term used by the conservative movement as fodder for political debate.
  5. ^ Kaplan, Leslie S.; Owings, William A. (September 2021). "Countering the Furor Around Critical Race Theory". NASSP Bulletin. 105 (3): 200–218. doi:10.1177/01926365211045457. So, while it is accurate to say that American high schools do not teach CRT, the initiative to include diverse voices and stories in retelling American history in a more complete, accurate, and balanced way reflects the many of the same societal influences.
  6. ^ Severns, Maggie (July 26, 2021). "'People are scared': Democrats lose ground on school equity plans". Politico. And she's alarmed over her state's new model ethnic studies curriculum, which cites critical race theory as a "key theoretical framework and pedagogy."
  7. ^ Anderson, Bryan (2 November 2021). "Critical race theory is a flashpoint for conservatives, but what does it mean?". PBS NewsHour. There is little to no evidence that critical race theory itself is being taught to K-12 public school students, though some ideas central to it, such as lingering consequences of slavery, have been. In Greenwich, Connecticut, some middle school students were given a "white bias" survey that parents viewed as being part of the theory.

Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Colorado Times Recorder, Passage, and Idavox as sources in the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism article. Thank you.

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist[reply]

New lead proposal

WP:NOTADVERT. The lead just containing their mission statement serves to make this page seem like a blatant advert on so many levels. The lead should follow the body, and summarize how reliable sources describe them and their activities. Additionally, "Founding and advisors" has been advertified as well, with scare quotes around various words, a puffy description that fails to mention how numerous reliable sources have commented on the large conservative bent of their board, a weird and irrelevant tidbit about how Pinker voted Democrat, and no mention of Rufo's outsized role in pushing the CRT panic. Not to mention the removal of WP:RS. Links occasionally included as well.

Since I'm still here despite the best efforts of some, here's a list of how every source describes them and their activities. Bolding and italics added.

List of FAIR's reception in reliable sources
  • The New York-based Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism has targeted critical race theory, elevating California’s ethnic studies to a national debate over what it calls a new form of intolerance.[31]
  • Meanwhile, groups like Educators for Excellence in Ethnic Studies, and, on a national level, the New York-based Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, are monitoring districts’ deliberations and fighting what they consider harmful applications of critical race theory in the classroom.[32]
  • The push for educators to address structural racism has prompted its own outcry, turning critical race theory and new histories such as The New York Times’ “1619 Project” into fodder for the nation’s ongoing culture wars. At Smith College, for example, a former staff member has attracted a passionate YouTube following for criticizing the school’s insistence that employees undergo anti-bias training that centers on white privilege. Several academics recently formed the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism to combat what they see as an overly cynical emphasis on race, gender and sexual orientation, rather than “common humanity.”[33]
  • A host of new organizations has also sprung up to spread the fear of critical race theory far and wide. The Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (Fair) launched recently with an advisory board composed of anti-“woke” media figures and academics. ... Those who take the Fair “pledge” can also join a message board where members discuss their activism against critical race theory in schools and access resources such as the guide, How to Talk to a Critical Theorist, which begins, “In many ways, Critical Theorists (or specifically Critical Race Theorists) are just like anyone.”[34]
  • Fishbein connected the mother with Schoolhouse Rights’ Jonathan O’Brien, an attorney who also saw her appearance on Carlson’s show. Schoolhouse Rights is a project of extreme anti-LGBTQ group International Organization for the Family and says that it coordinated work on the case with extreme anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom and the deceptively named Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR). FAIR boasts advisers such as anti-trans writer Abigail Shrier and Christopher Rufo, an anti-civil rights activist who directs the Manhattan Institute's initiative on critical race theory.[35]
  • The dispute between Dwight-Englewood and Stangel-Plowe was picked up by FAIR, which says it is a nonpartisan organization that launched in March and is working toward obtaining 501c3 status. A spokesperson for FAIR said the organization's mission is to promote a "pro-human" message. Of the cases profiled on FAIR's website, almost all involved battling Critical Race Theory (CRT), an academic movement coined by lawyer and civil rights activist Kimberlé Crenshaw. Its core tenet is that racism is a systemic social construct, according to the American Bar Association. The FAIR spokesperson denied that their organization was founded to combat CRT, saying it seeks to advocate for "one human race."[36]
  • The resignation letter was published by the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, an organization founded by private school parent Bion Bartning earlier this year, whose mission is to oppose critical race theory teachings in schools and promote what it calls a "pro-human" agenda.[37]
  • In March, New York private school parent Bion Bartning launched a national nonprofit organization, Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism, or FAIR, after he learned that Riverdale Country School, where his children attended, had developed antiracist initiatives. Upset by the school’s new “orthodoxy” about race, Bartning pulled his children out of the school. FAIR has since lobbed criticism against CRT and broadly advocates for a “human first” mindset — something critics liken to an “All Lives Matter” mentality. (All Lives Matter was a response to the Black Lives Matter movement. It sought to delegitimize the notion that Black people have been systematically discriminated against in the U.S.)[38] (Note, the article says in it's own voice that CRT is not taught in NYC schools)
  • The pushback against antiracism education has taken on aspects of an ideological uprising. In Boston, a new group, Parents United, has entered the fight with New England’s private schools. Mr. Bartning, the former Riverdale parent, established the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism, with a large board that includes the academic and writer Steven Pinker; the human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali; the former Fox newscaster Megyn Kelly; and Mr. Loury, the economist at Brown. Mr. Rossi works with this foundation.[39]
  • But what they claim is CRT is not actually CRT, according to educators and experts interviewed by LNP[40] (This article also notes the experts saying what FAIR calls CRT is not actually CRT)
  • At present UATX certainly looks as legit as PragerU or Trump University. Indeed, the faculty showcases many familiar faces from the Intellectual Dark Web and the horribly misnamed Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.[41]
  • Local papers across Vermont, for example, have published commentaries from parents that copy, word-for-word, a form letter distributed by the innocuously named Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism. The group bills itself as a “nonpartisan” organization dedicated to “promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding and humanity,” but its backers are all conservative commentators and intellectuals, and much of its content is dedicated to fighting critical race theory.[42] (This source also disputes the categorization of school programs as CRT)
  • The word “equity” has often been associated with critical race theory, which has been a source of controversy and impassioned debate in school boards across the country despite the fact that it is rarely taught below the graduate-school level. Several people have spoken vehemently against the term in recent board meetings. ... At the Dec. 8 meeting, a statement from the El Paso/Teller County chapter of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism got an enthusiastic response from many in attendance. “We urge the board to thoroughly review and revise the Equity Policy adopted on May 27, 2020 to eliminate race-essentialist assumptions about systemic racism and group outcomes,” foundation member Judith Sears said. “Revise the equity policy to reflect the need for fair and equal treatment of all individuals, regardless of group identities.”[43]
  • Morley, Dion and Parent are all listed as local administrators of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), a national organization that seeks to combat what it sees as divisive lessons on racial justice across the country.[44]
  • What's FAIR? FAIR — the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism — is one of a handful of national organizations that's popped up recently to fight school equity initiatives. On its website, which displays quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. and Frederick Douglass, FAIR bills itself as "a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans." That description only tells part of the story. The organization was founded less than a year ago by New York parent Bion Bartning, who pulled his children from the upscale Riverdale Country School in the Bronx because he objected to the school's anti-racism curriculum. FAIR has been promoted by staunch conservatives such as Glenn Beck and counts former Fox News host Megyn Kelly and conservative columnist Bari Weiss as advisory board members. Visitors to FAIR's website can report schools and organizations for teaching about diversity, equity and inclusion in divisive ways. A recent review of Cabot-based Building Fearless Futures, a racial and social justice nonprofit that works with Vermont schools, asserts that its consultants "are hired by school districts in Northern VT ... to indoctrinate and corrupt the minds of our children." Shelburne Farms is also called out — anonymously — on the site for its "anti-racist, equity driven curricula."[45]
  • The case is the latest in a series of lawsuits that allege that policies intended to even the playing field for patients of color amount to discrimination against white patients. Two advocacy groups backing the lawsuit, the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR)... and America First Legal, have supported similar cases locally and nationally.... The group FAIR frequently uses Martin Luther King’s quotes about “colorblindedness”: Its website banner image features the civil rights leader, and its diverse board of advisors includes Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a Somali-born feminist author), Megyn Kelly (the former Fox News host), Steven Pinker (a widely published Harvard cognitive psychologist), and John McWhorter (a Columbia University linguistics professor and New York Times columnist).[46]
  • CRT is not taught in D11, but the district’s equity policy had drawn a lot of opposition from local members of FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism), a nationwide organization The Guardian describes as having “sprung up to spread the fear of critical race theory far and wide.”[47]
  • the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, an advocacy group formed last year to oppose “woke ideology.”[48]
  • The lawsuit is being backed by an organization called the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, which says it is concerned about a “cynical and intolerant orthodoxy” that “pits us against one another, and diminishes what it means to be human.” The organization, founded by Bion Bartning, has filed other lawsuits challenging what it says are forms of discriminatory overreach by organizations trying to implement diversity programs[49]
  • A civil rights group is pushing back against a Florida sheriff who arrested a 10-year-old boy for allegedly threatening to shoot up an elementary school just days after the deadly mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas. ... The boy's family may pursue legal action against Marceno for what they say was heavy-handed treatment for political gain, with help from the group Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR).[50]
  • Among the attendees at these sessions were members of a local chapter of a conservative group called Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism. They were there not to address the findings but to criticize the equity push as another form of racism. The entire enterprise, members argued, was a damaging form of “race essentialism,” defining students by their skin color.[51]
  • The organization, founded in early 2021 by Bion Bartning, claims on its website to be nonpartisan and a nonprofit. ... The group’s funding sources are not clear. It utilizes United Charitable, an organization that works with wealth advisors and donors to minimize tax liability on charitable endeavors. The organization strongly pushes back against those who would call it partisan. [followed by a long quote from Bartning][52]
  • The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, a free-speech advocacy organization focused on the culture war over what some refer to as "wokeness"[53]
  • The Foundation Against Intolerance And Racism (FAIR) was founded in the U.S. by a group of high-profile authors, journalists and media figures, including Steven Pinker, Bari Weiss, John McWhorter, Abigail Shrier, and Christopher Rufo, the man who has been credited with single-handedly inventing the CRT panic. One of the organization’s stated goals is to advance “civil rights and liberties for all Americans.” In reality, however, the organization spends its time effectively defending the “right” of students to misgender schoolmates, attempting to bar teaching materials that mention white privilege from being used in school in at least one case and supporting lawsuits over sex-ed curricula. [54]
  • While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates. Both Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been forced to take down their lists of recommended anti-LGBTQ2S+ candidates over potential violations of provincial election regulation.[55]
  • Anderson recently participated in a debate entitled “A Pro-Human Approach to Adolescent Gender Dysphoria” for FAIR, the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism. FAIR’s Board of Advisors includes blackface defender Megyn Kelly, opponent of “cancel culture” and intersectionality and fan of the so-called Intellectual Dark Web Bari Weiss, anti-woke psychologist Steven Pinker, Abigail Shrier herself, opponent of Critical Race Theory Christopher Rufo, and anti-“woke” conservative Andrew Sullivan.[56]
  • a group of conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist groups in Colorado that include the Independence Institute, FAIR [Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism], and FEC United. ... FAIR’s Board of Advisors consists of a host of disgraced academics and journalists, many of whom have been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, and homophobia transphobia. ... During a Nov. 15 Douglas County Board of Education meeting, Windju warned that GSA [Gay Straight Alliance or Gender Sexuality Alliance] clubs in schools were being used as a front for “racial” activism. “Parents in the community should be made aware of the way some GSA clubs are being used by adult activists, using the goodwill surrounding the LGBTQ social movement, using the language of LGBTQ inclusion as cover to bring social and racial activism into school districts in Colorado to indoctrinate youth into social and racial activism,” she said. “The national network organization behind GSA clubs is the GSA network, which operates with a multi-million dollar budget. It isn’t subtle about its political motives or its racial activism.” Windju’s public comment was lifted almost verbatim from an op-ed by Chris Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, the conservative think tank founded by Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director, William Casey, and a former member of FAIR’s Board of Advisors. Rufo was one of leading voices behind the manufactured outrage over critical race theory, which led to conservative victories in school board elections last year. “We have successfully frozen their brand — ‘critical race theory’ — into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions,” tweeted Rufo last year. “We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’”[57]
  • The event also featured a panel with Deborah Flora, Erec Smith with the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, and Cain Young, founder of Task Force Freedom. The panelists lambasted critical race theory, teachers' unions and diversity, equity and inclusion programs, while encouraging parents to get involved. ... Young and Flora later railed against schools for supporting trans students and suggested schools were encouraging students to transition.[58]
  • The elected officials were enjoying free lodging and meals at the resort while attending a private symposium, titled “Rights and Responsibilities: A Symposium for School Board Members,” hosted by UW-Madison’s Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy (CSLD) and the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR). ... While framed as a simple civic engagement opportunity and chance for school board members to learn how to approach their position, the event showcased representatives of a growing movement to push boards in a conservative direction by advocating for “parental rights.” ... Since its founding, FAIR has filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court lawsuit concerning affirmative action — urging the Court to side with the Students for Fair Admissions and writing that consideration of skin color can result in stigma, division, and dehumanization of applicants. Local chapters have challenged curriculum on race and gender in public schools.[59]
  • Bartning now runs the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, or FAIR, which aims to provide alternative education about race and corporate DEI trainings that do not utilize ideas like anti-racism that have become popular in recent years.[60]
  • Now, competing versions are emerging, like FAIRstory, by the New York-based Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, whose advisers include authors John McWhorter and Andrew Sullivan, psychologist Steven Pinker and journalist Megyn Kelley. It promotes its “balanced” curriculum that teaches historic and contemporary racism while “presenting an honest and accurate view of our nation’s history while emphasizing constructive principles that inspire optimism for the American future.”[61]
  • Like many others worried about critical race theory, Rockwood parents reached out to two of the main organizations trying to mobilize families nationwide to speak out about diversity initiatives in school: the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents Defending Education, both of which formed in January and launched publicly in March.[62]
  • Bartning has withdrawn his children from Riverdale and started an organisation called the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism to counter what he sees as a kind of religion taking hold in American education that forces people into categories according to their race.[63]
  • After surveying the curriculum landscape, Bartning said he felt he had no choice but to start a new organization that would take a different approach to the issue. He recruited thinkers and journalists like Bari Weiss, John McWhorter, Glenn Loury and, most recently, Jonathan Haidt, to sit on FAIR’s board of advisors.[64]

So for a proposed lead in accordance with WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:PROFRINGE, how's this?

The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is a New-York based conservative advocacy group that campaigns against what it calls "woke ideology". FAIR has campaigned against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and anti-racist initiatives, which they falsely characterize as "Critical Race Theory" (CRT), an academic movement whose core tenet is that racism is a systemic social construct that is not taught below the graduate level. The organization also campaigns against policies which would prohibit the deadnaming or misgendering of transgender students by their peers or faculty. The organization was founded in 2021 by Brion Bartning, after learning that his son's private school had developed anti-racist initiatives.

Christopher Rufo, one of the largest figures in the CRT controversy and director of the Manhattan Institute's initiative on CRT, was formerly on the advisory board. Other notable members include former Fox News host Megyn Kelly, conservative columnist Barry Weiss, fellow of the American Enterprise Institute Ian Rowe, venture capitalist Alexander Lloyd, author Abigail Shrier, psychologist Steven Pinker, linguist John McWhorter, economist Glenn Loury, and activists Daryl Davis and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the lead in current state less than ideal, I certainly object to this proposal. FAIR is not a conservative group. It's an alliance of conservatives, centrists, and liberals. And the part about CRT is loaded POV pushing that advances a word game to whitewash far-left ideological excesses in education and academia and attempt to delegitimize anyone who complains about it. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any specific parts you object to? The individual self-described positions of a few members does not outweigh how this source is described in reliable sources, conservative and filled with outspoken conservatives. The part about CRT is due to WP:PROFRINGE. Multiple reliable sources confirmed that CRT was not being taught and they were using it as a thought-terminating cliche. One of their members, Rufo, has openly spoken about his attempts to manufacture the panic. whitewash far-left ideological excesses in education and academia and attempt to delegitimize anyone who complains about it is a ridiculous rant, particularly the idea that education is far-left in the slightest at any level... Please do not confuse your opinion with productive discussion or evidence. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My "rant" is backed up by sources cited in the article like https://archive.is/QLsde and https://archive.is/Ec0jA. Yes, no one steps in front a third-grade classroom and tells the kids to put away their spelling lessons now that it's time to read some Richard Delgado or Kimberlé Crenshaw. But what is happening is that kids are being racially segregated and asked by consultants if they are having "white feelings". Students are told they are "members of a privileged class" and "should advance the interests of an oppressed group and amplify those voices in place of their own" and "check each other's words and actions". Students are "exhausted with being reduced to...race". The insights and assumptions from critical race theory and related postmodern streams of thought can influence the pedagogy, culture, and disciplinary apparatus of a school even if the children aren't explicitly instructed in critical race theory. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That comment may or may be accurate, but it doesn't provide any evidence behind your actual accusation, which was loaded POV pushing that advances a word game to whitewash far-left ideological excesses in education and academia and attempt to delegitimize anyone who complains about it. If you want other editors to read that as something other than a "rant", you really ought to point to sources that suggest such a thing, which your links in the immediately preceding comment do not. Newimpartial (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for compiling this list. I agree the lead needs work, and it's helpful to have the diversity of statements on hand to accurately characterize the organization. I've added a few additional sources to the bottom of your list. I will add comments on the proposed lead in a bit.--Animalparty! (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is a New-York based conservative advocacy group that campaigns against what it calls "woke ideology". - I share Jweiss11's disagreement about labeling this as conservative right off the bat, as I've already argued above. Most sources state it self-identifies as non-partisan, has conservatives on the board, is involved in conservative issues and/or has been lauded by conservative pundits. Only a minority of sources flatly call it conservative. An organization that has conservative members or is popular among conservatives =/= a conservative organization. And I think "woke ideology" is a bit vague, although this may be fine for now.
FAIR has campaigned against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and anti-racist initiatives, which they falsely characterize as "Critical Race Theory" (CRT), an academic movement whose core tenet is that racism is a systemic social construct that is not taught below the graduate level. "Falsely" is stronger language than is found in any of the sources. And simply saying "CRT is not taught below the graduate level" is another thought-terminating cliche that ignores the nuance, e.g. "Critical race theory... is not taught in K-12 classrooms, though the underlying ideas are part of lessons and policies in many places. Reliable sources themselves don't always define what they mean by using "Critical Race Theory". Counter proposal: FAIR has campaigned against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives which they characterize as "Critical Race Theory" (CRT), an academic movement whose core tenet is that racism is a systemic social construct.
The organization also campaigns against policies which would prohibit the deadnaming or misgendering of transgender students: the language of this seems out of line with how most sources describe FAIR's actions regarding gender, even if that's a result some policies may have. For instance, a person widely described a civil-rights activist should not be described as "opposes policies that would prohibit name-calling". I believe the Passage article (unestablished reliability, little weight) is the only one that explicitly mention deadnaming, although deadnaming might be inferred. Beware of guilt by association: note that in this case neither Young or Flora are named as being part of FAIR. We should not use language that is absent from most sources, especially not in the lead. Gender related activities should be in mentioned in the lead, and I'm not yet sure how, but this is not neutrally worded.
The organization was founded in 2021 by Brion Bartning, after learning that his son's private school had developed anti-racist initiatives. Son should be children, and it should be clear that he opposed the type of anti-racist initiatives the school provided, not simply the presence of them.("his children’s school started an anti-racist curriculum that he believed caused more harm than good.", "pulled his children out of Riverdale and created a foundation to argue against this sort of antiracist education", "Bartning started the organization ... after he disagreed with the curriculum on race being introduced into his children’s private school and found school leaders unreceptive to his criticisms." "because he objected to the school's anti-racism curriculum". Counter proposal: The organization was founded in 2021 by Brion Bartning, after opposing the anti-racism curriculum of his children's private school. I'm also not convinced this much detail needs to be in the lead at all, for the sake of conciseness it might be better to just have The organization was founded in 2021 by Bion Bartning: his children's school isn't central to what FAIR does or is known for, but it's an important bit of backstory that should be in the body.
Christopher Rufo, one of the largest figures in the CRT controversy and director of the Manhattan Institute's initiative on CRT, was formerly on the advisory board. I think this gives disproportionate emphasis to Rufo and the Manhattan Institute, and I don't think Rufo is as crucial to FAIR as this implies. This is an article first and foremost about FAIR, not a who's who of everyone involved nor an explainer on CRT and the broader broader culture wars. While he was pivotal in larger conservative efforts to vilify "CRT", relatively few sources comment on his involvement with FAIR in particular, and many articles on FAIR do not mention Rufo at all. By my count only 6 sources of the list above mention Rufo at all, and the sources that connect Rufo to FAIR include the most opinionated/agenda-based sources of the bunch, and so due weight needs to be considered. The Guardian discusses Rufo, but does not note his involvement with FAIR (merely suggesting FAIR spreads the fear of CRT that Rufo generated). Time, Lancaster Online and Colorado Times Recorder correctly note Rufo was a leading voices behind the manufactured outrage over critical race theory, and also note he is a (former) advisor. Passage is of unestablished reliability, but even if it's 100% reliable, it's a partisan source. MMfA is considered marginally reliable and a partisan advocacy group. AJ Eckert at SBM is an opinionated source that doesn't mention the Manhattan Institute, and simply calls Rufo an opponent of CRT, which is unsurprising given an FAIR is considered an anti-"CRT" organization. I think it is fair to mention Rufo's connection to Manhattan Institute and larger "CRT" panic in the body, but in the totality of sources, this doesn't stick out as lead-worthy. I have no qualms about naming Rufo in the lead, nor describing him as a conservative activist. Also, Ian Rowe does not yet appear Wikinotable, so probably doesn't warrant mention in the lead as a "notable member", but he should be named and identified with the AEI in the body. But as there are some 50 advisors (and they may change over time), we need not reach to include any but the ones most frequently discussed.
With regards to a weird and irrelevant tidbit about how Pinker voted Democrat: Politico made this explicit connection, and even suggested more Democrats are on the board: "Bartning avoids discussion of politics, and FAIR's board of advisers purposefully includes Democrats such as Harvard University professor Steven Pinker, a donor to Biden's presidential campaign." And since Time makes an explicit mention of Alexander Lloyd being a Republican donor, I figured both seemed worthy of mention. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to address the passage, The organization also campaigns against policies which would prohibit the deadnaming or misgendering of transgender students. To the best of my knowledge, this actually is how most HQRS denote the policies in question, which FAIR opposes. What other sources and other characterizations would you propose? In characterizing these policies, by the way, NPOV language needs to be based on what high quality sources say about the policies, and not only on what sources that mention FAIR happen to say about them. Otherwise enwiki can get into very strange situations... Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be careful even in cases where RS are summarizing their position in a way that is inconsistent with the groups public statements and published letters. If the group's letters say they support X and RSs say they actually support XY&Z then we need those sources to show the receipts for Y&Z. If they don't have evidence then we shouldn't assume they are accurate for that claim. In cases where the article subject has limited public statements I can see just assuming the RSs are accurate. However, in this case we are dealing with shades of gray and this group has quite a few published statements that clearly delineate between the obligations of the school's employees who can be compelled to say/do things as part of their job and those of the students who, even in school have their own first amendment rights. Springee (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, I think your edit to the lead is mixed. It's good to include the summary of what they do however, I don't think the summary quite passes IMPARTIAL. In particular I think this may over emphasize the trans aspects (it appears they are more focused on the CRT type content and DEI). We shouldn't put a negative spin on their gendering/deadnaming stance vs they argue its a first amendment violation of other students (do they include faculty?). So I agree that content should be in there but it needs to be IMPARTIAL in it's presentation. Springee (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that FAIR takes the position that students (among others?) have a first-amendment right to deadname and misgender other students (and others?), though it isn't clear to me that they apply the same first-amendent principle to the use of racial epithets or other forms of taunting. But in any case, what matters most is what is stated in the best available sources - if FAIR opposed these policies about pronouns and names, and if RS typically characterize those policies as being about deadnames and misgendering, then those sources must be followed here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Animalparty Thank you for the in-depth reply! Responding to your points:
  1. Most sources state it self-identifies as non-partisan. Stating how they describe itself has no weight, we are supposed to turn to sources that independently label them in their own voice. is involved in conservative issues also speaks to it being conservative, as how reliable sources describe their activities is representative of themselves as a group, I don't believe I've many sources describe them/their activities as "non-partisan". "Woke ideology" is indeed incredibly vague lol, but as it's attributed to them and many have commented on their "anti-woke" positions and board it seems relevant. That being said, I'm not 100% in support keeping it as generally I prefer factual statements about an organizations activities to quotes from them
  2. Falsely is a bit strong, and the graduate level caveat misplaced, I have to agree with you there. However, I think it's important to note multiple WP:RS and experts have said in their own words that CRT is not actually taught/implemented in places they said it is. How that should be worked into the lead though? I'm not sure.
  3. I'm fine with removing "deadnaming", as misgendering already covers it. I also have to double check whether the faculty are explicitly included in their advocacy. However, The organization also campaigns against policies which would prohibit the misgendering of transgender students is neutral whether you agree with those positions or not. Even they say they in their letter referenced earlier requiring students to use the preferred pronouns of others, under threat of harassment charges, violates their First Amendment rights. However, I would support adding ..., which they characterize as infringing on the rights to religious freedom and free speech.
  4. Your counter-proposal, The organization was founded in 2021 by Brion Bartning, after opposing the anti-racism curriculum of his children's private school looks good. I would say since Bartning has apparently no notability outside of FAIR, The organization was founded in 2021 by Bion Bartning would probably be undue without that exposition in your longer version.
  5. In regards to Rufo, his outsized role in the CRT controversy has been noted by many RS, in such a way that other members haven't been, so it seems due in the lead. But I agree that more exposition than that is best left for the body. I also agree lead-worthy mentions of notable members should be predicated on the coverage they've received with regards to FAIR (and I was originally going to compile them and list them in this discussion but thought one thing at a time was best)
  6. With regards to the Pinker being a democratic donor mention, that is probably due, my bigger issue is that we fail to mention of how he has been criticized for his positions on race and gender, which has been noted in sources. While the overton window in this country is incredibly shifted compared to the rest of the world, I want to note that being a democrat does not preclude one from being conservative. The Time mention has more exposition on FAIR, saying Both FAIR and Parents Defending Education are structuring themselves as a type of nonprofit that is not required to publicly disclose its donors. Because they were formed only recently, there are no tax returns available. But an analysis of public documents does provide some insight into the power behind the scenes. Former Fox News host Megyn Kelly, who has blasted her kids’ elite Manhattan schools as “far left,” and Alexander Lloyd, a venture capitalist and Republican donor, sit with Rufo on FAIR’s board of advisers.
TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that several sources emphasize the self-declared non-partisanship gives this claim weight: it's not just a primary sourced claim we're taking from the FAIR website, and so can't be dismissed. If an accused arsonist is consistently quoted as denying the accusation, we don't label them an arsonist in the first sentence. If sources consistently/predominantly said "the conservative organization FAIR...", that would be different, but this is far from the case: every source that mentions the organization in any light, even if they add no adjectives at all, gives weight to that light. I agree that several sources comment on the presence of conservatives on the board, and we should note that. I agree that several articles mention FAIR working with (or being endorsed by) conservative groups and people, and we should note that (though maybe not in the lead). I disagree that such sources are explicitly claiming the organization as a whole is conservative (though some may subtly suggest this), and certaily not enough to make it a declarative first sentence statement. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is largely liberal in membership, and Hollywood has no shortage of prominent liberal activists, but that doesn't make it first and foremost a liberal organization. An extreme minority of sources go as far as flatly calling FAIR a conservative organization, thus Wikipedia should reflect such nuance, not frame the issue according to a minority. And we can't interpret every instance of anti-"woke" or anti-CRT or anti-pronoun-asking activity as inherently conservative unless other sources do: there are certainly anti-woke liberals and centrists. I appreciate you compiling the many sources on this org, but my reading and summation of them simply doesn't coincide with yours (you see a rabbit, I see a duck). I feel my reading invokes less external factors or implicit subtext. This doesn't mean I'm more correct or you're more correct, it just means we need to get more opinions on what they sources really say to achieve a consensus. I'm not going to go into a back and forth right now or comment on the other comments. I'll wait for more input. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal

I just boldly edited the opening of the lead to read:

The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is an American nonprofit civil rights organization. It was founded in 2021 by Bion Bartning in response to an acceleration of antiracist programming in American schools. FAIR has advocated and filed lawsuits on issues of racial disclination and free speech rights in education, medicine, and the arts. FAIR had often opposed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures.

This was quickly reverted by Newimpartial. I believe this is far more neutral than Newimpartial's version and gets us away from the word games about what is and isn't CRT. Newimpartial's version uses the phrase "that it calls" with respect to CRT which unduly implies in wikivoice that FAIR doesn't know what CRT is. This rests on the canard that CRT isn't in the schools because elementary school kids aren't assigned to read Delgado and Crenshaw. Of course we have teacher, adminss, and outside consultants who were trained in CRT in grad school infusing the culture and pedagogy of schools with notions from CRT. As the WaPo reports: "Critical race theory... is not taught in K-12 classrooms, though the underlying ideas are part of lessons and policies in many places." London Times and NYT: Students are told they are "members of a privileged class" and "should advance the interests of an oppressed group and amplify those voices in place of their own" and "check each other's words and actions". Students are "exhausted with being reduced to...race". Jweiss11 (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss, why do you expect editors to he convinced by your unsupported rants that say CRT isn't in the schools is a canard? Do you have sources for "canard", or is that original to you?
Your BOLD proposal puts in Wikivoice the supposition that antiracist programming in schools is accelerating to which FAIR offers a civil rights response. Really? Do you have any independent sources to ground that alternative reality? It certainly isn't the situation depicted in the sources in the body of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I expect the editors here that actually honor the notion of neutral POV to be convinced of my arguments, as they follow directly from the quotes I pulled from cited sources. The body of the article, dominated by the "Activism and positions" section, is still a trainwreck badly in need of a rewrite. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed lead seems to depend on your original interptetation of a few pull-quotes from sources you can't be bothered to link. I would encourage you to find reliable sources that actually support your interpretation of social reality. Newimpartial (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jweiss11's version is good in that it avoids discussing views in a way that casts doubt right up front. It's possible their views should have doubt cast on them and that could still be part of the lead. Still, per IMPARTIAL we shouldn't use phrasing that casts things in a negative light first. That said, NewImpartial, on a different page you did a good job of pulling myself and another editor out of a locked horns situation by proposing a good, alternative suggestion. Can you think of changes to Jweiss11's suggestion that would satisfy your concerns? Springee (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the lead still has the organization's explanation of its own avowed goals in the second paragraph, which is the correct location since the independent RS support the characterization in the first paragraph more than they do the group's own declarations. But it might be possible to trim both paragraphs and integrate them into one, which might help with the perception that the lead is more skeptical than the sources as a whole. Newimpartial (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JFC this is the most blatantly advertified and nonsense lead I've ever seen.
  • civil-rights organization is, as far as I can tell, only supported by 1 source, which contains no exposition on FAIR's general activities and is not WP:SIRS coverage
  • an acceleration of antiracist programming in American schools is not supported by any sources, at all
  • FAIR has advocated and filed lawsuits on issues of racial disclination and free speech rights in education, medicine, and the arts. For a start, I'm assuming disclination is supposed to be discrimination. This is wholly unsupported by sources, which do not in their own voice suggest that racial discrimination is what they oppose. Notably, you cut out all mention of their policies on trans kids, which are commented on by multiple sources, to include their not that noteworthy and usually just 1-case advocacy in medicine and arts. Disgusting WP:SYNTH
  • FAIR had often opposed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures. - FAIR is, if anything, primarily known for that.
TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "disclination" should be "discrimination". Jweiss11 (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"acceleration of antiracist programming" is a reasonable conclusion to draw from Michael Powell's cited NYT piece. 06:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Jweiss11 (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Giving our own interpretation to primary sources isn't our job, Jweiss. We aren't here as sociologists. Newimpartial (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What we started off with her was a very biased interpretation of primary sources, both reliable and suspect, by TheTranarchist. As editors, our job is to take sources and weave articles that we think represent the topic well. This process inherently requires the sort of interpretation I suggested above about Powell's piece. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have an interesting knack for attributing biases to others while ignoring your own. At least other participants in this discussion are making contributions based on sources, and not on our own glosses about sources (which is still OR, but that may be WP:CIR for you). Newimpartial (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While you have an impressive knack for scolding other editors for alleged misdeeds and then committing your own two minutes later. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jweiss11 thisversion just takes the organizations claims about itself at face value. that's not npov. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In addition, the acceleration language is the kind of inference that we cannot include in wiki-voice; the Powell piece only draws a direct connection between Bartning and the actions of one particular school, not a whole climate or accelerating trend. Saying that there is an accelerating social trend, rather than people just noticing something for the first time, requires better support than a single news story that could at most look at a thin slice of the topic. The proposed revision also shifts away from secondary sources and serves as a worse summary of the article text, putting it at odds with the Manual of Style. XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter, I think you're correct that none of the sources already introduced into the article here support "acceleration". But it supported in this piece from the Washington Post: https://archive.is/ZWWKq. The WaPo doesn't discuss FAIR, so we can agree to leave "acceleration" out of the article until this point is made in a source that does discuss FAIR. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foundation_Against_Intolerance_and_Racism&diff=prev&oldid=1141081315

Leave a Reply