Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

*'''Option 3''' Positioning 'the acknowledgement that transgender people exist' as not just a matter of opinion, but as the wrong opinion, repeatedly, is not just bias – it is disregarding fairly simple facts. That the Telegraph then editorialises information or promotes one side unfairly (at best - at worst it could be described as outright lying), is further deliberate distortion of facts aboout transgender people and experiences. I would reject any !vote that dismisses the Telegraph's handling of transgender topics as mere bias - the existence of transgender people isn't something you can take a side on, it's a simple truth, and denying that truth makes you unreliable on the subject matter. Further, giving more weight to anti-trans 'opinions', even if acknowledging the bias, is purposefully publishing unreliable information about transgender people. Because - and I put it simply because it really is this simple - anyone who is anti-trans can not know or understand a transgender experience, how policies affect transgender people, or anything else they are talking about. I'm sure the Telegraph could be used as PRIMARY for documenting how it (and other British media) have treated transgender people, or for the self-described views of the non-experts it platforms, but for reliable coverage of transgender issues? Well, since it wants to deny they even exist, how could it be reliable. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 22:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

*:{{tq|Anyone who is anti-trans can not know or understand a transgender experience, how policies affect transgender people, or anything else they are talking about.}} Could you elaborate on whether this applies to other editors or just sources? <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 02:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 

=== Discussion (Telegraph on trans issues) ===