Talk:Tonia Antoniazzi

Mention in UnHerd

Debbie Hayton, writing for UnHerd, has written an article about the editing of this page.[[1]]

I am neither endorsing nor denouncing her comments, but I think other editors should be aware of them. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought "This is just one example of what goes on behind closed doors at Wikipedia." was a funny choice of words, it's not a very closed door, is it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Closed doors? The article isn't even locked. This seems more like demonization of transgender activists and blowing one issue on one article out of proportion to suggest that this is indicative of Wikipedia as a whole. The author of the UnHerd article could've just edited the page to fix the problem, which would have avoided all the drama. X-Editor (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• The article's talk of "closed doors" is overdone, but the currents of WP editing bias can be quite opaque. I don't think this is a very good article - I'd say it lacks a balanced perspective - but if it is picking on just one problem, that problem, introducing bias into an article by selective deletion of sources, is a very serious one, and I'm entirely for attention being drawn to the fact that this is done, how easy it can often be to do, and the seriousness. Consciousness-raising about the problems of POV-pushing in Wikipedia as worthwhile a goal as the quiet fixing of problems that we do. Despite the failure to present a balanced perspective, I'd say the article overall does more good than harm.

Furthermore, X-Editor's claim that this article demonises trans activists is entirely unfair: if I thought there was any merit to that accusation, I would not say the article does more good than harm. Perhaps it would be good to reread the article more dispassionately? — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the article demonizes trans activists, i was saying that about the author of the UnHerd article. You have also failed to explain why the article is biased. X-Editor (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• To be clear, X-Editor, the article I referred to was the UnHerd article. For all I know, the author may elsewhere have engaged in demonisation of trans activists but I think that did not happen in the UnHerd article. I'd say if you can't find a link to something that justifies your claim of demonisation, you should reconsider your accusation. Bias in UnHerd pieces does not make them unusable by us, but it does mean we have to carefully separate assertions of fact from assertions of opinion. I did not actually say the UnHerd piece is biased (it clearly has a strongly gender-critical POV), I said it was unbalanced. My basis for saying this is that it suggests that Wikipedia's coverage is biased, suggesting a bias overall, but the basis for that assertion is essentially a single edit. It is possible to argue a POV without being imbalanced in this way, and this imbalance suggests we should treat the article's factual claims with care. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I never said that UnHerd should not be used as a source. Maybe they are not demonizing trans activists, but the title of "On Wikipedia, trans activists are always editing" is definitely suggesting that there is a group of people doing malicious things. This is despite the fact that the bias came from only one edit from one editor and not from a group of people. X-Editor (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for causing this problem and article. Obviously Hayton has her own agenda and I don't necessarily agree that the current wording is NPOV (the summary of the PACE activity omits the main concerns raised by activists, de-conflate implies they were wrong to condemn the UK along with Hungary et al) and would prefer wording that neutrally describes the full extent of Antoniazzi's actions, but I'm happy to go with the current wording if that's consensus.Hotpantsraindance (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• It's not OK to silently delete balancing sources, although we are all human and I've had my own baptism of fire. Kudos for coming here and apologising: that takes guts. If you think one source is better than another, the right thing to do is provide some context for the sources: here saying Hayton is a GCF campaigner would be appropriate. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've partly restored (4 edits) some of Hotpantsraindance's language that was deleted and added a brief summary of Hayton's view. I'd be grateful for comments on my text; I'm not super up-to-date on the issue. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  Many thanks, I think this wording does now fairly describe why she was criticised and defended. Hotpantsraindance (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)