Talk:Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill

Request for Comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There seems to be a rough agreement that no meaningful consensus could be achieved from this RfC. As closer I would suggest that the a review of the guidance at WP:RFCBEFORE, WP:RFCBRIEF, WP:WRFC, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting for suggestions and advice on crafting a clear, concise, and neutral RfC question. And as always, editors are gently reminded to continue discussing ongoing issues on the article talk page, and to take full avail of all dispute resolution options when consensus cannot be achieved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Dispute over the inclusion of information to the article regarding those in support and opposition to the legislation and the scope of the article in general. There are multiple discussions above that show the depth of difficulty in finding agreement on this article. Sparkle1 (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that as long as something can be kept in due weight and follows our other policies (RS’s, neutrality, etc). However, when it comes to parties, keep it minimal and only significantly elaborate on the most vocal supporters and the leading major parties in support, and opposed for that measure. If there is a way to mention smaller parties while following WP:DUE, sure, but Wikipedia isn’t a database of every person and their mother who has a position. Do however, restrict it to parties which have an MP only or are large enough in their substance, notability, and influence to exert such without any MP, if such parties exist.

On the subject of opinion polls, only do the most reliable ones, that is, ones provided by reliable sources. However, summarize the polls relative to time period; if most polls show one result throughout, say that the polls mostly showed one result; however, if the polls are mixed, summarize them. We shouldn’t go into detail on EVERY single poll. But in general, polls, despite being disputed in their reliability, are widely spoken about. We shouldn’t be editing, or more accurately using Wikipedia, to make a point that polls are bad.

Supporters that aren’t parties like unions, activism organizations, celebrities, etc can all be put into one sentence each, except if one organization’s activism was crucial. In other words, if an activist was like Nelson Mandela relative to a cause, by due weight they should have more written about them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Note in particular that these 2 edits: [1]21:13 14 December 2022 and [2] 20:44 29 December 2022 gained support on this Talk page but were reverted. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

These POV-pushing edits inserting comments from everyone and their mother were removed, because they are unencyclopedic POV-pushing inclusion of everyone and their mother, and the comments by InvadingInvader support their removal. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

InvadingInvader has so far made no comments on the specific edits, or the actual wording of this article.. However, they have said Do however, restrict it to parties which have an MP only or are large enough in their substance, notability, and influence to exert such without any MP, if such parties exist. Reference to the views of Alister Jack, Kemi Badenoch, Rishi Sunak, Shona Robison, and Joanna Cherry has been deleted from the article. Regarding opinion polls, they say … summarize the polls… rather than exclude them altogether. Regarding other supporters, they say: Supporters that aren’t parties like unions, activism organizations, celebrities, etc can all be put into one sentence each, except if one organization’s activism was crucial. In other words, if an activist was like Nelson Mandela relative to a cause, by due weight they should have more written about them. This would appear to support the inclusion of a sentence about J K Rowling. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that Rowling should be listed as part of a sentence with common supporters. An example would be "Some of the bill's most notable supporters outside of politics are Fooberton Foo, the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia, and the Reichstag-climbing Spider-man. Same thing for for the Opposition. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

For clarity: J K Rowling opposes the bill. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly one name in a list. Nothing about [redacted] Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull or t-shirts, or Sturgeon’s comments, one name in a list of others. Also only MSPs and parties represented in the Scottish Parliament, so auf wiedersehen Alba, Cherry, Black and co. Sparkle1 (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What is an uninvolved party supposed to do with Dispute over the inclusion of information to the article regarding those in support and opposition to the legislation and the scope of the article in general? What question is being asked that you want additional input on? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't seem to grasp the comment above as InvadingInvader has given an in-depth response. Any other description given by me would be simply challenged by individuals who are determined to insert their preferred revision into the article. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Could I suggest a collapsible table which outlines the MPs who support and oppose the bill? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That's covered in the voting tables on the bill stages. MSPs are all covered. Westminster MPs are just agitators in my opinion making press coverage. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We could list some of the most notable Westminster MPs InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Potentially but then you get into why is this person and not this person?, what is ‘most notable’? and so on. The determination of those will be just more POV including or excluding. The bright line is best stuck at MSPs and not MPs MEPs AM, etc. Going down that road is potentially limitless in scope and what is added to the article? Sparkle1 (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The significance of the views of the Westminster MPs, including in particular the Prime Minister, is that there is a possibility that Westminster will not allow this bill to come into force. (If so, there may be a legal challenge.) Excluding this information makes this article misleading. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think the WP:Ten year test applies here. In current events there can be a tendency to include bits of predictably-fleeting significance. The positions of the political parties voting on the issue is historically significant context, the polling of public sentiment is historically significant context, the summary of major groups on each side is significant context, a high-news resignation is probably notable but not worthy of a section, but individual opinions of assorted other individuals will in most cases not have lasting significance and should generally not be included.

  P.S. I agree with Rhododendrites's concerns, the question here is poorly presented. If this RFC gets scrapped and restarted, I would advise more clearly specifying the content or categories of content that are disputed. Alsee (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This RfC is so vague as to be pointless. There have been several discussions on specific points e.g. the latest discussion above, stated by Sparkel1 and entitled by them This is not a place for tabloiding or the opinions of every Tom, Dick and Sally. The consensus was strongly against Sparkel1. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Agree that the RfC is poorly phrased, and thus unlikely to produce any concrete agreement, but broadly speaking I am sympathetic to including a broader range of opinions from individuals and groups and the exclusion criteria of Sparkle1 appear to be unworkable and limiting. We may individually despise positions taken by politicians without voting rights in Scotland, and/or UK news organisations reporting those views, but the extent of coverage in WP:RS is the only measure available to us as to the character and extent of debate among the public - unless we believe that media wholly control public debate, rather than also reflect it. A reliable source is one with a reputation for fact-checking and accurate reporting, it is not confined to sources whose biases we agree with. People like Cherry and possibly Rowling have received acres of media coverage, both critising and endorsing.Pincrete (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original research on statement of reasons

Just wanted to note that I've removed a paragraph added by Snokalok, that presented a specific quotation from the policy statement about the invocation of section 35 of the Scotland Act as original research as it was cited only to the text of the policy statement. If there are reliable secondary sources that could support this, it could potentially be restored.

However, given that this statement sets out the legal position of the Westminster government in blocking the legislation passed by Holyrood, I wonder if we might better be served in terms of content by waiting for legal scholars and commentators to make commentary on the statement? Given the significance of the invocation, I suspect there will be such commentary from all parts of the political spectrum over the coming days and weeks, as such analyses will feed into any challenge of the section 35 order by the Scottish government.

Also yes, this is the same message I left at Talk:Transgender rights in the United Kingdom#Original research on statement of reasons, but it was the same content on both articles, and the same question on legal analysis seems relevant here as well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Are you saying that using primary sources is WP:OR now? Or something else?  Tewdar  22:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing something :)

Taking a specific quotation, out of a 13 page, 57 numbered paragraph document (based on the PDF version) is WP:OR, as it is using part of that source out of context. Why chose that one quotation? What makes it more meaningful or impactful than any of the others in the document? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to quoting your reply in the future to support my own opposition to similar use of primary sources in other articles. 😁  Tewdar  23:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

And depending on the context of those discussions I may or may not agree with you. There are circumstances where quoting from a primary source is fine, but this to me is not one of them. In this context, the Westminster government has stated many reasons why they blocked this legislation, so why is this one reason more important than all of tr

And depending on the context of those discussions I may or may not agree with you. There are circumstances where quoting from a primary source is fine, but this to me is not one of them. In this context, the Westminster government has stated many reasons why they blocked this legislation, so why is this one reason more important than any or all of the others? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

How about this [3] for a secondary source, which says Jack and Badenoch have both argued it waters down protections for single-sex spaces and contravenes UK-wide equality legislation by imposing a different regime for just one devolved country. and The statement of reasons, when finally published by Badenoch’s equalities office, sets out three reasons why the Scottish bill has UK-wide implications. The first warns of the supposed impact on single-sex clubs and others, and on equal pay, of having two “parallel and very different regimes” in the UK for deciding gender. The second argues that the Scottish system will bring “significantly increased potential for fraudulent applications” to change gender, while the third says it will affect the working of the UK-wide Equality Act. Sweet6970 (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think that source could work for an initial brief sentence or two, not sure of the exact phrasing at the moment though.

There seems to be precious little coverage at the moment on the reasons in the policy statement for why Westminster blocked the legislation. The only other two sources of interest I can find right now are The Independent, which points out an interesting question for why a Section 33 order was not used instead, The National which quotes extensively but uncritically from the policy statement, and a BBC News piece titled "The legal arguments over Holyrood's gender reforms" but is surprisingly uncritical of Westminster's reasoning. I wonder if perhaps we'll see more coverage in tomorrow's broadsheets? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Very rough draft idea:

"On 17 January 2023, the [Secretary of State Alister Jack/Equality hub/Minister for Women and Equalities Kemi Badenoch/Westminster government?] released the [Westminster government's/their?] policy statement on their decision to invoke Section 35. In the statement they set out three primary reasons for why [they believed/the Westminster government believed?] the Scottish bill impinged upon reserved matters; the first [warning/claiming/] of a [possible/potential] impact on provision of single-sex services [authorised/protected] under the Equality Act 2010 as a result of creating "two parallel and very different regimes" for issuing gender recognition certificates, the second [warning/claiming] of a [possible/potential] increased risk of fraudulent applications, and the third [warning/claiming?] of potential impacts on the operation of the Equality Act 2010."

Citation wise this would use the Guardian source linked by Sweet6970, the BBC News source I linked previously, and the PDF text of the policy statement from gov.uk. The three reasons are in the same order as they appear in the policy statement. The words in green brackets are for word choices I'm not entirely sure about. In the case of the first two, it's unclear to me, based on the reporting and the text of the document, who actually published the policy statement today. We might be able to get away with a generic "Westminster government", in which case the word their seems the correct choice for the second optional.

As for the rest, the policy document itself states that it is the Westminster government's belief that the act may have these impacts, and in a lot of places it uses hypothetical language clauses, for example It may also be that providers find it more difficult to justify excluding increased numbers of people with GRCs or worry about an increased risk of operational and/or legal challenges. This could lead to an increase in the number of transgender people accessing single-sex services, spaces and roles (emphasis mine, source sentences paragraph 49 pages 11-12) Given this ambiguity in the document, and the intention for this to be brought before the Court of Session for a judicial review, I think we need these qualifiers or something similar to them in our prose to make it clear that the UK government's position is not a settled matter of law.

However, I also think that if we keep this to a minimum now we will certainly have better sources in the coming weeks. I know of at least one legal scholar who I follow on social media, Dr Sandra Duffy, who has stated that she has articles in the works in relation to this, and given the magnitude of the decision, I'm certain there will be others. From my own reading of the policy statement, this strikes me as the kind of document that will be heavily analysed and discussed by legal scholars prior to any court appearances. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The proposed wording basically looks good to me. I suggest the following, based on your draft: On 17 January 2023, the Westminster government released a policy statement on their decision to invoke Section 35. In the statement they set out three primary reasons why they believed the Scottish bill impinged upon reserved matters: firstly, a potential impact on provision of single-sex services authorised under the Equality Act 2010 as a result of creating "two parallel and very different regimes" for issuing gender recognition certificates; secondly, a potential increased risk of fraudulent applications; thirdly, potential impacts on the operation of the Equality Act 2010. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah that version of it works for me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Change made. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Legal comment - Lord Hope and Lord Falconer

This report by the BBC today [4] says that Lord Hope says that the Scottish government’s chances of success in a legal challenge to the section 35 order are minimal, whereas Lord Falconer has tweeted that the UK govt’s reasons are not justified. i.e. they have opposite views.

Is this worth a sentence?

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)  

Looks like Atchom has just included the commentary by Lord Hope, as well as some from a law lecturer at University of Glasgow, and the CEO of Stonewall and director of Stonewall Scotland. I think including the counter commentary from Lord Falconer is important to show that there is both agreement and disagreement within the House of Lords on this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Change made. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Also looks good, though I added the word "However" to the sentence about Lord Falconer, just to make it clearer in the prose that Falconer is diverging in opinion from the other two. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm always wary of using the word 'however', because it can be editorialising, but in this case I have no objection. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it's a tough one. Unfortunately I couldn't think of any other way to succinctly make the divergence clear without breaching neutrality. "However" had the benefit of only being a single word, and the other neutral options would have added several. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

SNP 'Revolt' pushing

There is a clear POV push to include the use of the phrase revolt and make out 9 SNP MSPs votes against this bill are far bigger than they actually are. I am not buying that 9 of 63 members votingg a certain way warrants such hysterical inclusion in this article. This is not a complete and utter hack-a-thon for talking heads and political campaigns. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The SNP MSPs who voted against the legislation defied their party whip in doing so, and typically in UK politics doing is generally referred to as a rebellion. I see no reason to disbelieve that this was the largest rebellion by SNP members in the last fifteen years, so this content does seem fair and worthy of inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's actually rather unusual for SNP MSPs to defy the party whip.  Tewdar  19:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is all well and good as a form of lovely personal opinion and original research. 9 out of 63 is not the hyperbolic nonsense it is being described as it is also lovely attacking the SNP and it is sheer POV pushing. The inclusion is also duplicative as the votes can be seen in full above. The inclusion is nothing but POV-pushing and duplication. Newspapers have to sell copy and have to make up as much controversy as they can to flog papers and sell ad space. Wikipedia is not in that business and cannot be fostered on this or any article. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

How is it "personal opinion" and "original research"? Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources report. Many news outlets reported it and noted that it was the biggest SNP rebellion since they gained power 15 years ago. That makes it noteworthy enough to mention briefly in this article. – Asarrlaí ^(talk) 19:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Quite easy as it is selecting hysterical language from one or a few sources and replicating it verbatim, to try and push a selective view of the votes by 9 out of 63 people in one party. Why is it being described with such emotive language why is no other party being described in a similar fashion why is the fact the opposite side of this is not being described in such fruity language? This is the personal opinion pushing taking place. it is taking sources agreed with and then inserting it verbatim. Need to not have these kinds of opinions and hysterical editorialising creep in. It was removed and remained removed for a while so the consensus until it was put in by the time of stability of the article, is for it not to be included, so the current changes are trying to insert against that stability of not including. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Multiple secondary sources single out the rebellion as noteworthy and there is nothing like a consensus to remove this section, so please don't try to manufacture consensus where there isn't one. Atchom (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which part of this is original research? That nine SNP MSPs defied their party whip? Well that's verifiable via multiple reliable sources so it's not OR. That this was the largest rebellion by SNP MSPs in the last fifteen years? Well that's a quotation from a reliable source Euronews, so again not OR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The use of the term revolt the inclusion of this in the fashion it is being included. Calling it anything other than simply 9 MSPs from the SNP voted against the bill is OR as there is no way of revolt being anything else as a description. " That this was the largest rebellion by SNP MSPs in the last fifteen years?" How lovely that this may or may not be true but its inclusion is POV pushing to try and go look at the SNP in disarray. Get out of here trying to push this anti-SNP rhetoric into this article. The other parties had people vote against the whip, where is the hysterical editorialising language to describe those parties? Sparkle1 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

taking sources agreed with and then inserting it verbatim - what, like "Now, I understand that independence is the only way to achieve [progressive] goals in the face of a highly conservative UK government. 😂  Tewdar  20:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If we were solely relying on the voting records from Holyrood to include this content, you would be correct. However a quotation from a secondary reliable source is not original research. A quotation from a secondary RS cannot be OR, because by the very first sentence of WP:OR, OR is material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

Furthermore we do not call it a revolt in wikivoice. The only content in wikivoice is that nine SNP members voted against the legislation. The text about it being the "biggest rebellion against the government" is a quotation from the Euronews source. Including this quotation is not a NPOV violation, because a great many sources have described it in that or similar ways. In addition to The Times and Euronews there is also The Daily Record, The Telegraph, The Herald, BBC News, The Courier, and The Guardian. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

And when looking at the array of sources side by side, I actually think we possibly could call this a rebellion by SNP wikivoice and not fall afoul of WP:NPOV. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't you usually be going to AN/I to report Sparkle1 for edit warring at this point?  Tewdar  20:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That's my secret Tewdar, because of the clearcut 3RR violation I already have. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Please, accept my humble retraction of my sarcastic comment. 😂🙏  Tewdar  20:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I see you engineered this and are now in full gloat and would appreciate you striking those gloating attacks from this page. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

2021 poll conducted by Survation

As stated in an edit summary by an IP user, Beyond Holyrood Magazine, their polling does not appear to have been covered, published or reported by other sources, and they do not appear to exist beyond this wikipedia page, Holyrood Magazine and pages that quote either. Furthermore, the holyrood article doesn't have a byline, and how are you supposed to interpret 53% when 20% responded "don't know". A whole fifth of respondents were "IDK". If this poll is to be included in the article, then someone needs to make a case for it. Why is this one-off 2021 poll commisioned Blackburn et al considered notable/verifiable for a contentious topic? Another user pointed out Holyrood magazine doesn't even get the name of the three supposed analysts right. In my edit summary, I said maybe adding more context could make it right, but the more I look, the worse the source is. Maybe Holyrood magazine is OK when the author is willing to put their name to the piece, and doesn't mess up the name of the analysts they're reporting on. But this is not that article.Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not just a random poll on the general subject of the contentious topic, it comes as the Scottish Government prepares to bring forward reforms to the laws around gender recognition, which is why it's relevant context for this article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I meant this article is about a contentious topic, so we're supposed to be extra careful about adhering to Wikipedia's policies, like verifiability. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The existence, relevance, methodology and result of this poll all seem verifiable? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Verifiability is best determined by reliable secondary sources. Here, our secondary source doesn't even get the name of the analysts right. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

That amounts to some kind of typo. There is no doubt about what they are referring to. It would be disproportionate to attempt to disqualify a source because of such a minor issue. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

From what I can tell, part of the difficulty here with finding other sources discussing this poll, is that Holyrood Magazine really screwed up the name of the policy analysis group that commissioned it. The correct name seems to be MurrayBlackburnMackenzie. When searching for RS with the correct name, I've found a factual article in The Times about it, and an opinion article in New Statesman.

So this to me comes down to a question of weight. Is the coverage in Holyrood Magazine and The Times enough? I'm not sure. The Savanta Comres poll a month later seems to have a lot more secondary coverage, with mentions in The Guardian, Holyrood Magazine, The Independent, and The Times. It looks like its too early to tell how impactful the YouGov poll from earlier this month is in secondary sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Two sources that both link it to the subject of this article seems to make it entirely suitable for inclusion, and I don’t think we run into any weight issues with having it mentioned in a single sentence. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Coverage in the Times and a mention in the New Statesman are enough to make it worthy of inclusion. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

My concern about this proposed inclusion is that it rips the polling result out of the context in which it was produced, and within which it is presented by both Holyrood Magazine and The Times (and for that matter in the op-ed) - namely as evidence casting doubt on the appropriateness of poposed GenderID legislation. It was commissioned by policy consultants with the intention of separating "anti-trans" sentiment from hostility to gender self-ID, and (unsurprisingly) it reaches precisely the intended conclusion. The available RS are clear about this context, but I haven't seen text proposed for this article that would be comparably clear.

Also, since the result is comparable to that found by YouGov, I don't see a good reason why the Survation poll isn't simply redundant. Newimpartial (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If you haven't seen text proposed for this article that would be comparably clear how about proposing a wording? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC).

Previous versions of the article, up over Christmas when Sparkle1 was taking charge of the page, did acknowledge that the polling had been commissioned by anti-trans campaigners, but text acknowledging that fact (and the fact that other campaign groups, like LGB alliance, are anti-trans groups) have been quietly removed. I would echo some of Sativa Inflorescence's points about how polling can be manipulated, and add that the existing rights of the trans community are largely unknown to the public, but my own philosophical view that polling like this conducted on human rights issues is odious. 90.242.208.68 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t get it. The context is that it was commissioned to gauge public opinion on the specific question of self-identification which is central to the then-proposed legislation? Or maybe are you saying there are sources which cast doubt on the methodology or results of the survey? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Seeing how the Times reported on both polls just illustrates how "reliable sources" have no idea how to deal with polls. It's not like polling for a campaign where the methodologies/questions are pretty standard. I don't think any of the polls should be in this article, because it's all low quality evidence either way. You ask the questions in a way that appeal to humanity, you can get 50+% support. If you ask questions in a way to emphasize fear and uncertainty, you get 50+% oppose. this is like the central tenet of political polling.

In scientific corners of wikipedia, single studies aren't seen as reliable. even if they get coverage in the media. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Have you looked at any of our fine archaeogenetics articles recently? 😂  Tewdar  13:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Archaeology is a lot slower than public polling. Archaeology has some of the longest PhD programs, don't they? It's slow, careful work. Each paper takes year of research and writing, followed by extensive peer review.

Public polling changes week to week depending on the questions asked., and peer review doesn't go too far past "will it get clicks." You're right though, I forget that some sciences take a slower approach to "publish or perish" than others. The polls both for and againt are still low quality evidence. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Not archaeology. Archaeogenetics. Here's a couple to start you off... I agree with you about polling. 😁  Tewdar  14:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Names

I was wondering wether it's really necessary to list the full names of all voters in the different stages of the legal process. I don't see the encyclopedic value of this, surely the totals per party are sufficient. Moreover, giving the sensitive nature of the subject, I think is also at odds with Wikipedia policy, i.e. WP:BLP. Tvx1 22:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It is essential to avoid any bias and to ensure that there is a neutral point of view. This is also standard for bills such as this. See Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and other legislation of a similar kind. Not including the vote breakdown tables leads to the OTT POV nonsense of the pushing of ridiculous and inflammatory narratives in wikvoice of the internal politics of individual groups in the parliament and other ludicrous POV's.

It in no way has anything to do with BLP or coming anywhere near this side of the galaxy of violating BLP. Such a fallacy is a whole cloth creation out of thin air. If including factually accurate and neutrally presented information is in any way a BLP violation then give up on Wikipedia entirely, as nothing could be included in the encyclopedia. There is ZERO, absolutely ZERO issues with BLP. To make such a claim and if it were true is a total inversion of BLP. Sparkle1 (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you please show a little bit of respect to other users in your posts please? Your reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. Even without the individual names, just listing the totals per party gives plenty of breakdown for encyclopedic purpose. The individual names have no additional encyclopedic value. I never suggested deleting the entire tables. And the other article(s) you mention should probably not include them either. Many wrongs don't make a right. Tvx1 15:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a plainly silly proposal and a truly wild misinterpretation of BLP. Sparkle1's response was appropriately dismissive. --Pokelova (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

What’s so silly about it then? Can someone please give a genuine argument as to what the encyclopedic of each individual’s name is instead of just mocking the proposal.?! Tvx1 18:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Please do not WP:Bludgeon on this topic. please cite where specifically in BLP your position is supported. Your current position is an inside-out, upside-down nonsensical version of BLP which would mean every article on a human being that is alive would have to be deleted as nothing at all could be included on them as it would be a violation of your absurd BLP version. Prove us all wrong with the parts of BLP you think to support your weird and ludicrous position. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a bizarrely hostile conversation.

I don’t happen to agree with the original suggestion for the following reasons: I don’t see any connection to BLP, and while I think the encyclopaedic value of naming every voter is low, it’s pretty harmless both in terms of content (being an easily verifiable uncontroversial public fact) and presentation (being hidden by default in a collapsible list).

However, I think it’s quite possible to have this disagreement without the emotive language on display here. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If the encyclopaedic value is low, then why list them. Just listing the totals per party is more than sufficient. Tvx1 21:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)