Jump to content

Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Name of the organisation

Newimpartial: How is it Wikipedia policy to refer to the organisation by the wrong name? And what do you mean by saying that the [correct] name has been ‘forced’ into the article? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand the claim that "the LGB Alliance" is incorrect. Unless this is an Engvar issue, it is standard English to use the uncapitalized defined article to refer to organizations generally, and not "wrong" to do so. This is what this article's sources almost invariably do, and I can't find any actual RS that don't do so, setting quotations aside. Wikipedia policy calls for us to name topics the way sources name them, and that is "the LGB Alliance" - not "The LGB Alliance", and not "LGB Alliance". Newimpartial (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
So we actually have guidance on the use of definite articles like "The" in article titles. While this isn't an article title issue, because the article title doesn't contain a definite article, some of the guidance reasoning seems applicable here. I find the argument presented under Names of groups, sports, teams and companies convincing here. Gramatically to me it makes more sense to write a sentence as One month after the publication of the open letter, it was announced that a new group called the LGB Alliance had been launched. than One month after the publication of the open letter, it was announced that a new group called LGB Alliance had been launched. as the use of a definitive "The" before the title makes the sentence flow more naturally to me in British English than the avoidance of it.
A interesting comparison is with The Who or The Coca-Cola Company. While officially the band is called Who, and the company is Coca-Cola Company, sources overwhelmingly use The Who or The Coca-Cola Company. When looking at the the first use of the name in this article, we say "The LGB Alliance" and not "The LGB Alliance". We have a similar situation here where most sources that I'm aware of would phrase a sentence like in a press release the LGB Alliance said "..." and not in a press release LGB Alliance said "...". Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
LGB Alliance is the name of the company registered at Companies House and with the Charity Commission. I just did a search on the Guardian’s website, and all the results refer to it without the ‘the’. e.g. [1] Looking at the references listed in the article, they all seem to name it without ‘the’. What Wikipedia policy is breached by giving it the correct name, as used in RSs? And I have not had an answer to my query about what Newimpartial means by ‘forced’ into the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The Guardian article that you refer to contains the text Most of the letter was devoted to Owatemi’s criticism of the LGB Alliance, which is entirely typical of the sources and is the kind of formulation I'm supporting in our article text. I am only seeing "LGB Alliance" (without "the") in headlines, which is clearly an artifact of headline writing (and which appears in the titles, but not the text, of other sources). Have you mistaken this headline convention as being relevant to our article text? Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Are you sure on all articles from The Guardian? Because I've found the following quotations from several non-opinion articles over the last two years:
  • 12 February 2020 Transgender activists have also criticised the LGB Alliance as transphobic.
  • 3 October 2021 Several Conservative figures have called on the party to reverse its decision to offer a place at conference to the LGB Alliance and Some members said they felt concerned about the impact of the LGB Alliance’s presence on trans people attending conference.
  • 13 October 2021 Most of the letter was devoted to Owatemi’s criticism of the LGB Alliance, saying that the group
  • 3 November 2021 Stock has been criticised for being a trustee of the LGB Alliance
  • 12 November 2021 Citing the 2010 Equality Act, the staff called on Davie to stop offering a platform to the LGB Alliance organisation
  • 19 June 2022 In the one corner is Bailey, a lesbian and founder of the LGB Alliance and It reflects the fact that for the LGB Alliance and its allies
  • 20 June 2022 In 2019 Bailey co-founded the LGB Alliance group
  • 9 September 2022 Mermaids, which supports transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse children and their families, launched an appeal last year against the Charity Commission’s grant of charitable status to the LGB Alliance. and The legal discussion will set the LGB Alliance’s position that there are only two sexes and that gender is a social construct against Mermaids’ position that transgender people’s gender identity should be affirmed.
  • 22 September 2022 Football has also been urged to do more by the LGB Alliance’s Kate Barker
Do we really want to do a full survey, of every reliable source that has ever published an article on the organisation? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
This is misleading - the most substantive one from the last 6 months - the Amelia Gentleman piece - flatly contradicts your claim. In 20 mentions in that article, only 2 are prefixed "the". The balance in recent, reliable sources goes against use of "the", and we should favour recent sources when it comes to developing terminology. Void if removed (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The World Health Organization article may be a relevant example. I also note that a google search for '"the lgb alliance" site:https://lgballiance.org.uk/' finds examples of them using that about themselves. I also searched the guardian '"the lgb alliance" site:https://www.theguardian.com' and found loads of examples of them using "the", so I don't know why you claim they never do. Nobody is saying that when writing "the World Health Organisation ..." we are claiming that their name is "The World Health Organisation" like is is for "The Beatles".
I note that on matters like this, our sources and the organisations own writings can be a guide, but they do not compel us to write the same way. We have our own house style on many things, see WP:OUROWNWORDS. If we aren't sure what to write, then asking at MOS might help. -- Colin°Talk 20:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
to Newimpartial:The Guardian article has LGB Alliance activists and supporters… and LGB Alliance was formed two years ago… And this more recent article [2]refers to it as ‘LGB Alliance’ throughout. I’d like to know why you think it is so important to refer to the organisation by the wrong name.
I wasn’t intending to waste people’s time in having a long discussion about this fairly minor point. But I’m still wondering what policy you were referring to, and why you spoke of the change as being ‘forced’ into the article.
Sweet6970 (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
In the article you initially linked, why do you suppose that LGB Alliance was formed two years ago is correct and Owatemi’s criticism of the LGB Alliance, incorrect? (LGB Alliance activists and supporters says nothing either way, since the group's name is used adjectivally.) Why do you prefer the usage in that one September 2022 article to that of other articles the Guardian published the same month that refer to "the LGB Alliance"? And why do you think that name is wrong - a question you still haven't answered. That's like saying "the WHO" is wrong and we should always simply use "WHO" on enwiki. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, why do you claim we "refer to the organisation by the wrong name" when we do exactly the same at World Health Organisation. -- Colin°Talk 21:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Because, as I have said, the registered name is ‘LGB Alliance’. Policy? ‘Forced’? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
'Forced' was my reference to edit-warring without explicit consensus or policy support. The policy basis for how Wikipedia treats the proper names of organisations has already been provided to you, with examples. Why should we treat the Alliance any differently? Newimpartial (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the registered name for "World Health Organisation" doesn't have "the" in front of it, yet our article consistently puts it there. I seen now Void has reverted though not said why or contributed to this discussion, which doesn't seem helpful. Sweet6970, you said that The Guardian always avoids "the" but that has been shown to be false. This is the point where you admit you were wrong.
This isn't the sort of thing we shouldn't be edit warring over or saying untrue things over. It is a minor detail and I'm not at all sure what the objection is. It isn't like sticking "the" in front of an organisation makes it a hate group, WHO being an example. -- Colin°Talk 22:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
That isn't the actual name of the org and while secondary sources are mixed, many more recent ones are favouring without the "the", eg. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/07/lgb-alliance-provides-public-benefit-court-hears-in-case-brought-by-trans-group
Do we really have to count the usages of "the" in secondary sources going back 3 years? Void if removed (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
You have not addressed the policy basis provided. We do not need the official name to include "the" to use the definite article in our text - this is a matter of enwiki style. That a minority of RS have occasionally omitted the article is not really supportive of your crusade. Also, I wonder whether your assertion that the Alliance prefers not to include the article is an original supposition, or have you heard it from the principals? Newimpartial (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I have never said anything about what LGB Alliance prefers. I have said repeatedly that their registered name is ‘LGB Alliance’. This is the registered name at Companies House – this means that it is the legal name of the company. And, as I have said before, it is also the name under which the organisation is registered with the Charity Commission. I have heard nothing from the principals on this or any other matter. It sounds like you are accusing me of COI. I think you need to re-read WP:NPA. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually, my comment was addressed to VIR. Please check the threading. Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
In terms of style, there isn't a consistent one. There's no basis for explicitly adding the definite article when it is unneeded, and plenty of precedent for either approach.
For example the page for Open Society Foundations is inconsistent, as are sources. Some of the text uses OSF, in other parts the OSF. It is clear the org themselves favour without the "the", and I would say that having the "the" is no big deal, but taking it out is preferable.
Going through and explicitly adding it back in though doesn't make sense to me. Void if removed (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, most editors appear to disagree with you. In absence of consensus in favor of your preferred style (of which it is clear to you that the org themselves favour - I know not how), I suggest that you not resume your "corrections". Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
It is quite easy to know how. The primary source of their website is consistent on this point, despite the representations made in this thread. Eg. https://lgballiance.org.uk/about/ has 11 non-titular mentions, all of which omit "the". I don't think it takes more evidence than that to establish the org's preference. That eg. one outlier exists on a random news story from months previously is hardly a weighty counter-example. For another primary source, in the original Charity Commission decision, of 54 mentions of "LGB Alliance", only two are prefixed "the".
Then taking into account the secondary sources I have already provided two quite recent ones that follow this convention, one from the past week. Amelia Gentleman's coverage of the Tribunal in the Guardian in September and November favoured this form, eg here (20 mentions, only two prefixed "the"), here (16 mentions, none prefixed "the") and here (10 mentions, none prefixed "the").
So it is clear they prefer it, and it is clear at least some secondary sources respect that, especially more recent ones delivering more serious coverage.
What you are arguing for is not that the actual weight of sources agree with you, but that your preference should win out, and cherry-picking only the sources that agree with you in support.
There is no policy for explicitly disregarding an org's preferred naming convention. Void if removed (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any policy support for Wikipedia following an org's preferred naming convention concerning the use of the definite article? Your argument that we should do does indeed ignore the actual weight of the sources while relying on cherry-picking only the sources that agree with you in support (notably recent WP:SPS, to which you apply an original interpretation rather than allowing RS to make these determinations for us.
The fact that you have identified one Guardian reporter who is now not using "the" is still cherry-picking on your part, unless you are arguing (1) that this reporter has correctly identified the Alliance's preference and (2) that we should follow the Alliance's style preference against enwiki style norms, for some reason. I would like to see evidence not originating in your own opinion foe both of those claims. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no policy for explicitly disregarding an org's preferred naming convention Actually there is; WP:COMMONNAME and the previously linked WP:NCTHE. If the balance of reliable sources use a specific formulation, even if the article subject does not, then we generally follow what the sources use. This is why, for example, our article about the Coca-Cola Company is titled The Coca-Cola Company, despite the organisation's official name being Coca-Cola Company, as the most commonly used name for that company is The Coca-Cola Company.
I would also point out that for articles like the Ramones, the World Health Organization, the National Health Service (England), and countless others, we use a definitive the in general prose because it makes grammatical sense. When reliable sources write about these subjects they will almost always write sentences like "making the Ramones one of the greatest bands of all time", "today the World Health Organization released a statement", or "the NHS is under tremendous pressure due to".
There are a few exceptions and oddities like FIFA, where if a source uses FIFA they will not use a definitive article, but if they are using the formal name of Fédération internationale de football association they generally will. Or in the case of the Northern Ireland Assembly, they will use a definitive the when using the formal name, but not when using the more colloquial Stormont (unless they're using Stormont Assembly or Stormont Government). Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Note: WP:COMMONNAME is about titles of articles, and not about how the subject is referred to in the text of the article. So it does not apply in this instance. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
That is an overly simplistic reading of COMMONNAME, as it applies in principle to both the article title and its prose. Outside of redirects where an article has been moved/renamed, the first few words of an article's lead will generally restate the article title, and that name will also appear many times within the body of the article. The arguments behind COMMONNAME will apply to those uses. This also applies to the arguments behind NCTHE.
And to expand upon the examples given in my last reply; for the Ramones, outside of the references and notes the text the Ramones appears in the article 78 times, for the World Health Organization the text the World Health Organization and its acronym the WHO appears in the article 120 times, and for the National Health Service (England) the text the National Health Service and its acronym the NHS appears in the article 107 times. This is despite all of those examples not containing the definitive article in their official name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles. That is simple. Not ‘simplistic’. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so if COMMONNAME only ever applies to article titles, and nothing more than article titles, then which policy, guideline, or information page details how we refer to article subject in article lead and body text? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
There probably isn't one. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
So then in absence of specific guidance, would it be fair to say then that this is up to editorial discretion and handled at a local consensus level? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, but I'd still argue to simply follow the clear preference of the org itself in its own published materials when that is backed up by the recent evidence of reliable sources following that style. I don't see what harm it does. For another example, the similarly named LGBT Foundation. The wiki article has mixed usage, but overwhelmingly omits the "the". Void if removed (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I can’t find a policy referred to in this discussion which says anything about how we should refer to a limited company. (I don’t know what the registered name is for the company which produces Coca Cola, and the section which mentions this is obscure.)
Colin – what statement is it that I have made which you wish me to admit was wrong?
Newimpartial has reverted 2 editors (me + another) on this change. They should not be suggesting that other editors are edit-warring.
Sweet6970 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)  
You mean because you dont think tag-teaming is edit warring? I'd like to hear the policy basis for that.
So far, I'm seeing rough consensus on Talk in favor of the version before the edit-warring started. Newimpartial (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
If you are saying that if 2 editors agree on a point, and you disagree, that the 2 who agree are tag-teaming, then this is a misinterpretation of how Wikipedia works. I am not on a crusade, and you should not be covertly accusing me of edit warring. See WP:TAGTEAM and, of course WP:NPA .Sweet6970 (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I am saying that two editors who alternate reverts on one side of a dispute about the text, in the absence of consensus for their BOLD changes on Talk, can be tag-teaming. You were participating in a revert war whether you saw it that way, or not. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Excerpts from WP:TAGTEAM :It is always better to comment on content rather than on contributors, so calling someone a member of a "tag team" should be avoided as it is uncivil.; It is often difficult to tell the difference between tag teaming and consensus-based editing. Consequently, some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team". ; Tag teaming that clearly falls under the narrow definition in this essay generally violates other guidelines and policies such as disruption or canvassing (which are guidelines). A group of editors acting in unison does NOT in itself constitute tag teaming. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Just to chip in on one side, it seems very obvious to me that "the LGB Alliance" is normal style as per Newimpartial's and Colin's evidence and reasoning. While it's not a universal rule (we don't say "the UNESCO" or "the FIFA"), it's a very common pattern, and one which you can find used on none other than the LGB Alliance's own website in addition to lots of RS. Adding "the" carries no connotation whatsoever, so no bias issues.OsFish (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Claiming that this is how they refer to themselves on their own site is highly misleading.
The site search alluded to by Colin, above, returns multiple hits, but almost all are adjectival uses like "the LGB Alliance management team" or "the LGB Alliance Conference". Some are quotes from third parties, eg the hostile witness statement of John Nicolson. I may be missing something but from a quick look at the top results I only saw one actual genuine usage like this, in a news article about James Esses, and it was immediately contradicted by three further uses without the "the" in the same paragraph. This is in contrast to dozens of contrary examples.
This is not compelling evidence.
And usage in sources is mixed, eg. here from this week without the "the" : https://archive.is/f0bNb
From a quick scan, it seems like recent news sources which feature a quote from a representative usually to drop the "the", while opinion pieces and critical sources which don't feature comment from the organisation have a greater tendency to use the "the" (eg. https://www.mcgilltribune.com/opinion/platforming-hate-is-not-a-debate-01162023/). Void if removed (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
You haven't produced even a modicum of policy support for your personal preference (or possibly the preference of the Alliance's principals) on this matter. I suggest you give it a rest. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why people get so heated about the presence or absence of "The", but Ohio State University, er, The Ohio State University, makes a big deal of it, leading to lots of talk page debate there. Although old habits are hard to break, it seems the world has managed to get the "The" taken off Ukraine in common speech. The band The The (not to be confused with the band The Band... Who? No, The Who was on first) can't lose that word without becoming a null string. But has LGB Alliance actually expressed a preference one way or the other on this? *Dan T.* (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I cleaned this up about 10 days ago, here. There was mixed usage, and even some references to "the Alliance" as shorthand, which is confusing and not at all justified. This latest reversion is by the user who originally (briefly) reverted that claiming that this was "Undue deference" and that RS do not support this. That is simply untrue. Primary sources are near-unanimous, and most recent HQ secondary sources favour this style, and we should favour recent sources. Also "undue deference" implies recognition that this is, indeed, their preferred term of address. Void if removed (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
You didn't "clean this up" - you have edit-warred to impose a preference that you imply (or assert) is that of the organisation, based on primary sources and apparently the usage of one, single reporter. You haven't offered a policy-compliant reason to ignore the BALANCE of RS coverage and the norms of the English language and enwiki style. Newimpartial (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I also linked a Telegraph article from 8 days ago. Void if removed (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, your position is that the norms of the English language and the balance of external source usage outweigh the self-identification of the entity being discussed. I'll make note of this for future disputes. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
You are aware that, in spite of the fictions enacted in certain jurisdictions, Wikipedia treats individual human "entities" and organizational "entities" according to different policies and principed, yes? I do the same, and hope not to see you construct arguments in the future based on a false equivalency between these two kinds of "entities". Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

So. We're on the talk page of an article about a rather controversial organization; just LGBT issues are somewhat controversial in themselves, transgender issues are probably even more controversial, and this organization was specifically founded to differ from the "more mainstream" LGBT organization, on transgender issues. So one might think it only reasonable that there would be a long and heated discussion on the article talk page. Even one that's tens of paragraphs long, and comparable in length to the whole article itself, would not be out of the question. But that the discussion would be focusing entirely on whether or not to capitalize or include the word "The" in front of their name? Wow. Of all the things that could be found to argue about about this organization, this is really the most important one? Folks, I've got to say, this is in danger of being added to WP:LAME. --GRuban (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@GRuban: Welcome to GENSEX, where a difference of opinion is often characterised as misconduct. There’s a more substantive dispute in the section above, on Same sex marriage. You may think that commenting on that matter would be more constructive than what’s going on in this section. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
For me, it is an example of how even trivial improvements to this article are near impossible. The "views" section is mostly trumped up social media drama, but attempts to remove the worst parts have been repeatedly overruled. If you want a real rabbithole, read the discussion on "founders" above. Void if removed (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Excising the word the before LGB Alliance is not an improvement to the article. Leaving aside the arguments on whether or not the organisation prefers use without the word the, which we clearly cannot reach an agreement on, this is one of the organisations where omitting the word the does not make grammatical sense in British English.
Additionally we are not saying that the name of the organisation is The LGB Alliance. The only instances for where the word the is capitalised is where it appears at the start of a sentence, again because that follows the syntax rules surrounding use of capitalisation in the English language. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
See my comment below, despite the representations made in this thread, by my count recent sources (last 6 months) favour omitting the "the" by a factor of 4:1. So we should do what those sources do. Void if removed (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The count offered below includes adjectical constructions as though they supported your view, when actually they simply reflect a feature of English syntax. Your calculations are therefore unusable in their present form. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, GRuban, this isn't actually a discussion of the name of the organisation (in spite of the framing Void and Sweet have attempted). The dispute concerns whether standard syntax of English language - concerning use of definite article - applies to the organisation or not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
No, it is whether we should follow balance of recent sources (both primary and secondary) in referring to them with or without the definite article, or whether we should go with your personal preference to not do so.
Here's a selection of references to LGB Alliance in the last 6 months. It is not comprehensive, but it is representative, spanning supportive, critical and neutral coverage.
From these, I count (though I may have missed some, so feel free to check) 139 non-headline references to LGB Alliance, and of those there are 30 that use the "the", with many of those being direct quotes from third parties. Some sources do both, but in most cases even when they did mix and match, the "the" was in the minority.
That means that in the last 6 months there is almost 80% in favour of omitting the "the". If you throw in headlines and exclude direct quotes, that percentage becomes higher in favour of omitting the "the". There may be some variance with a different sample there but in recent months it isn't even close to 50/50, let alone a majority in favour of "the".
And for this sort of thing we absolutely should favour recent sources per WP:RSAGE since more recent coverage is more likely to reflect current terminology, while older ones are more likely to be inaccurate.
The sources along with my eyeballed count of non-quote body mentions with / without the.
https://www.fundraisingregulator.org.uk/more-from-us/resources/lgb-alliance-september-2022 0/1
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/15/lgb-alliance-co-founder-breaks-down-in-court-when-asked-to-define-lesbian 0/12
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/tribunal-hears-charity-appeal-to-remove-lgb-alliance-from-register.html 1/21
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/lgb-alliance-removed-as-approved-charity-on-twitch-after-complaint.html 0/8
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/mermaids-appeals-charity-commission-lgb-alliance-status/ 4/2
https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charities-await-landmark-ruling-lgb-alliance-tribunal-ends/governance/article/1804546 1/0
https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/09/14/lgb-alliance-transphobia-charity-history/ 4/17
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/14/lie-of-gender-identity-spurred-founding-of-lgb-alliance-court-told 0/9
https://www.vwv.co.uk/news-and-events/blog/charity-law-brief/lgb-alliance-charity-registration-challenge 1/9
https://www.thenational.scot/news/21164776.watchdog-rules-lgb-alliance-promoted-misleading-information/ 4/6
https://archive.is/Ui7WE 1/11
https://diva-magazine.com/2022/09/15/mermaids-lgb-alliance-legal-battle/ 2/1
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/jk-rowling-was-right-lgb-28006236 0/3
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11406993/Mermaids-bid-strip-gay-rights-group-charitable-status-homophobic-tribunal-hears.html 6/6
https://www.gscene.com/news/mermaids-appeals-against-lgb-alliances-charity-status/ 2/1
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/surrey-pcc-denies-shes-transphobic-25578910 3/1
https://archive.is/f0bNb 0/1
https://archive.is/Vx1iF 1/1 Void if removed (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, if we're really doing this, over the next few hours I will prepare a table for containing links to every article published between 1 January 2022 and today, covering the main reliable sources from the UK; The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, iNews, BBC News, Pink News, OpenDemocracy, Civil Society and any others I can think of. The table will have counts of how many times each article uses the LGB Alliance, or LGB Alliance, links to each article so that other people can verify the counts, publication dates for each article, and notes where a source uses the name in a way that is unclear (eg as part of a list of several other organisations). I will limit this to factual reporting only, excluding opinion articles and letters to the editor. I will only count usage of the two terms in the article text and image captions, and not in headlines, titles, or embedded social media links (ie Twitter quotations).
This seems like an absolute waste of time over something that is a standard grammatical rule in British English, but there seems no other way to handle this impasse. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Which I just did a fair sampling of, for the last 6 months, but of course your 1st of January cutoff will have the effect of omitting extensive coverage of the tribunal in September and November, which was the last time LGB Alliance were in the news in any serious way, and the event that generated the most coverage across a variety of HQ sources.
Will we then have to redo this when the judgment comes in? Void if removed (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
1 January 2022, not 1 January 2023. The coverage of the tribunal was in September/November 2022, so it will be included in this collection. This will contain every article published in the last 12 months and 3 weeks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh sorry! I forgot what year it was, my mistake...
I genuinely think a random sampling is enough (actually I think all of this is total overkill but hey), and that going through every possible source going back a year is needless. I also think that if it turns up a substantially different result than a 6 month window (ie, it reverses from 80/20 in favour to 80/20 against in 6 months), then that will be reflective of a direction of change, and when the tribunal result comes in (which will no doubt generate similar levels of mainstream coverage to last September and November) we'll be here again. Void if removed (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Are you going to address your inclusion of irrelevant adjectival constructions in your counts, or just ignore the issue? It seems fairly fundamental IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I've done simple word counts The Telegraph, Times, Guardian, Independent, BBC News, and PinkNews. So far the only pattern is that it seems to be authorial choice, with a minority of authors like Amelia Gentleman preferring LGB Alliance, and most others preferring the LGB Alliance.
If you really want the table, you'll have to wait for a while as there's 149 separate articles across those publications in it. That number will increase if/when I add iNews, OpenDemocracy, Civil Society, and anyone else that springs to mind. Given the sheer number of articles, I'm really not going to do a full analysis of adjective uses versus noun uses for filtering at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
The thing is, Sideswipe9th, there is no point in doing any counts unless you can exclude the adjectival uses, since they will generally produce misleading outcomes ("LGB Alliance representatives" is a construction that won't reflect the same editorial decision as "the LGB Alliance"/"LGB Alliance"). Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I did say "at this time". That filtering would be required before a definitive answer could be determined, but if we're actually going to do it (and that's a big if), given the sheer number of articles involved I would post the list first, so that everyone here could share that cognitive load. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
FYI when I omitted the adjectival uses, there were so few (4 I think in my sample) it was the difference between 78% and 78%, so not a margin of error worth losing sleep over for a rough count like this. Void if removed (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I challenge the accuracy of this statement - I found more than four adjectival uses in the single source that I checked. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Void, you appear to be counting adjectival uses of the org's name (e.g., LGB Alliance members) as though they were in support of your preferred construction, rather than simply following the conventions of English syntax. I assume that you are doing this out of laziness, rather than duplicity, but it does invalidate your "counts". Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop everyone. Just stop. Sideswipe9th, go find something better to do with your weekend. Void, stop this right now. -- Colin°Talk 19:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is any call for calling me lazy or duplicitous, or following me to other articles and reverting my edits there. This is a contentious article, can editors please remain civil. Void if removed (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have an explanation for why you included adjectival uses of the org's name, besides not being bothered to fix the known issue, I would be happy to hear it. And if this discussion is going to inspire you to visit other articles and make similarly dubious syntactical edits, you can't reasonably expect other ediors not to notice or react... Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

to Newimpartial: per WP:NPA Comment on content not on the contributor. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

As I requested above, we should close this section, especially now it has descended into insults. The origin of this dispute is an edit and post (above) that has misunderstood having a lowercase "the" before the name as "Wikipedia getting the organisation's name wrong". That misunderstanding seems to have become compounded in another mistaken belief that the basic grammar of sentences (the, and, a, of, in, that, etc) is somehow dictated by our sources and compels us to write likewise. Hence the descent into google searches and lists of newspaper and other potential sources.

Firstly, it is easy to discover, if one goes to examine even a handful of other organisation articles, that sticking "the" in front of an organisation's name in body text is very common and does not imply "The" is part of their name or formal title. Examples include World Health Organisation, BBC and Eiffel Tower. Indeed a lower case "the" very much implies that it is not part of their formal name. Quite why we do this for what I'll call "descriptive titles" (the previous examples), and not for what I'll call "identity titles" ("Stonewall, Mermaids) isn't entirely clear, but does seem to be a grammatical convention. But the one thing about English grammar is that it doesn't stand up to rational analysis; it can only be observed. We have the Labour Party but not the Plaid Cymru. Nobody sticks "the" in front of that, even though the Welsh literally translates as Party of Wales, and we'd write "the Party of Wales" if it had an English name, just as we write the Scottish National Party. For us English speakers, I guess Plaid Cymru looks as opaque as a given name. That some writers don't (or sometimes don't) stick "the" in front of LGB Alliance is not clear, but could be either to do with pronunciation (that initial 'ell') or the opacity of "LGB".

But secondly, what matters, after we realise that nobody is claiming "the" is part of their name, is that such concerns about sentence components are entirely up to us, just as it is up to me whether to write a really long sentence like this one. Or to write short stubby sentences. Like that one. And that one. By all means look at how other people are writing it, as that is how we all learned how to write, and that can be very influential. But we don't need this kind of mistaken bickering, where instead of admitting that these choices are stylistic preference or an obscure grammatical convention, folk have claimed that there is a policy/guideline algorithm that absolutely compels us to write a certain way. That kind of fighting, over imaginary invented rules, is very unhelpful. And we'll end up with posts like GRuban's where people wonder if we've all lost our minds and are incapable of concentrating on important things. -- Colin°Talk 10:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru...literally translates as Party of Wales - no, the literal translation is the Party of Wales, because Wales is definite. 😁👍  The Tewdar  10:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Tewdar interesting. Other party examples are Sinn Féin and Reform UK, neither of which tend to get a "the" prefixed. The latter came from "Brexit Party" which we do tend to write as "the Brexit Party", and from "UK Independence Party (aka UKIP)" which we write as "the UK Independence Party" but don't ever write "the UKIP", because we say "UKIP" like it's a word. The latter example is probably a good one to demonstrate that this is a stylistic convention with multiple influences such as whether it is (or appears to be) descriptive and whether it is (or appears to be) an opaque name. If one thought there was an algorithm, we'd have to write "the UKIP" but it just sounds all wrong (and "the BBC" sounds absolutely fine). -- Colin°Talk 11:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Celtic grammar, such as genitive constructions, are a bit strange if you're used to English...I've heard older folks say "the Plaid Cymru" actually.  Tewdar  11:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, people say "PIN number", so ... Colin°Talk 11:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
"PCA analysis"...  Tewdar  11:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
RAS syndrome. Ha! -- Colin°Talk 11:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Just so we're clear on the sequence of events, I tidied up (IMO) references which used the "the" on January 12th because they were an inconsistent minority and because recent coverage was increasingly using the style of dropping the "the".
This was immediately reverted with a claim that it was unduly deferential. That revert was immediately undone and stayed like that for a week.
It was then reverted again on January 20th and not only re-added the "the" but introduced more than a dozen new instances in the process, claiming this was better reflective of the balance of reliable sources. I believe I have shown this to be at the very least debatable, and it was this reversion and the reasons for it which triggered this discussion.
I agree this isn't about getting the org's name wrong per se - but your counterexamples are not persuasive, since there is actually no hard and fast rule for this. There are many adjective+noun type of organisations where naming points in the other direction (I've listed Open Society Foundations and LGBT Foundation in this thread). Obviously since there are examples of both, providing more and more of any of them doesn't help with the question of whether it is right to address this organisation in that way. Is "the WHO" or "LGBT Foundation" a better guide? You cannot say.
So ultimately whether we should favour/avoid "the" when addressing this specific organisation comes down to how they refer to themselves (ie, they actually have a favoured style at all), and whether RS generally support that.
But if the majority aren't going to be persuaded by either of those things, there's not much point arguing about it. Void if removed (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
In almost any other topic area, such "problems" would be almost self-resolving. This section is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.  Tewdar  15:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree. This somehow manages to be simultaneously utterly trivial and yet deeply important, but that's Bikeshedding for you. Void if removed (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Those two examples are unconvincing. There are plenty examples of people and Wikipedia sticking "the" in front of their name -- LGBT Foundation's alt-text for their logo says "logo of the LGBT Foundation", which is literally the first thing on the page. And joking aside Tewdar may be onto something when it comes to self-referral. Maybe some organisations and their web sites make an effort to drop the "the" as a way of emphasising their name and avoiding people thinking "The" (note the case) is part of their name. -- Colin°Talk 16:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd much rather see people here arguing about the proper use of the word "the" than the more usual battles that happen on this page; the former is a good old-fashioned nerd argument, harkening back to the old-time academic Internet, while the latter is a Culture War Clash carrying overtones of it being Literally Genocide if people get it wrong. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Somehow, though, even this dorky discussion is rather unpleasant...  Tewdar  15:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Mmmmm. Begun the Grammar War has. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Yoda word-order is rather like Kernowek, actually, but a bit more consistent...  Tewdar  15:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

How about this: team Newimpartial is heads (use 'the'), team Sweet6970 is tails (don't use 'the'), I'll go to https://flipsimu.com/ and flip a virtual coin, and everyone abides by what I tell you the result is. Deal?  Tewdar  16:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar, please don't encourage any more. Grammar is somewhat important ... you wouldn't go the the UKIP article and expect editors there to be happy with a 50/50 chance that Wikipedia is going to call them "the UKIP" from now on. But the way it has been approached here is all wrong. Better to have started with questions. Should we refer to LGB Alliance this way or that way? And for editors to admit their opinions about what sounds best are just their opinions, and not some kind of authority or algorithmic decision tree that the other side is too stupid or too obstinate to accept. It really is time to just put this one to bed. -- Colin°Talk 16:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I quite fancy an RfC, myself. 😐  Tewdar  19:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Tewdar, there are people here you don't realise you are joking. -- Colin°Talk 22:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hearing transcripts available for Mermaids v Charity Commission and LGB Alliance

Hi all

There is a full list of hearing transcripts for the case listed on the Mermaids website here

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

While I'm certain it will make for interesting reading, I'm not sure there's a lot we can do with the transcripts for now. They are inherently primary sources, and identifying relevant quotations is I think very much into the realm of original research. And while they might be useful for verifying quotations in secondary sourcing, taking quotations from individual tribunal days and made by the parties involved was already discussed back at the start of December.
As I said in the December discussion, we're best off waiting for the tribunal judgement to be released, and including commentary at that time from legal scholars and pundits as to the impact of the ruling, and any advance notification of intent to appeal if that is an option. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Could we use the raw transcripts to perform a frequency analysis of 'LGB Alliance' vs 'the LGB Alliance', perhaps?  Tewdar  18:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Sideswipe9th maybe we could start a 'further reading' section and have them in there? John Cummings (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
It's also in the LGB Alliance site. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure not the transcripts are suitable external links. They are a bit too much at the "raw data" level, with all sorts of tedious chat about microphones and not having heard what someone just said. Let's leave that for the journalists and writers to digest and focus on what they will say when the judgement comes. There's bound to be some analysis on what this means for other charities and religious groups as well as for the future of this group. -- Colin°Talk 15:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
So one example of this is the OpenDemocracy reporting, which doesn't seem to tally with the transcripts. They are the source of the following quote from Paul Roberts in the "Media and criticism" section: "they exist to oppose free, safe and empowered trans lives", which I cannot find in the transcripts. In fact, unless I'm missing something, I can't find any of the quotes attributed to him in that article in the September 12th transcript. Void if removed (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The "they exist" and "sows distrust" quotations appear in this press release from when the appeal against the charity's status was announced. As we only have access to the transcripts, and not the evidence bundles the tribunal has which are referred to in the transcripts, I think it's a reasonable assumption that pre-tribunal press releases from both parties would have been entered as evidence. The "denigrating the rights of transgender people" quotation is from paragraph 47 of Robert's witness statement. The "It has done nothing" quotation is on paragraph 46 of the witness statement. The "rooted in misinformation", "dangerous and predatory" and "some of the most marginalised" quotations are on paragraph 16. The "our rights are intrinsically linked" quotation may be a misquotation of paragraph 47, which instead uses "inextricably linked". Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Sideswipe. We need to remember that only the Court Service can record the proceedings, and any journalist is going to be relying on shorthand and scribbled notes, and no doubt lean heavily on handouts and printed material. And the transcript makes it clear that not everything gets heard (or indeed perhaps was meant to be heard). -- Colin°Talk 10:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
So what that means is that while Eileen Gallagher, Kate Harris, Bev Jackson and John Nicolson are all quoted from the tribunal - and I can find all of their quotes or similar in the transcripts - all of Paul Roberts' quotes (which are presented in a similar way alongside them) aren't actually from the hearings, but are a mix of pre-prepared witness statements and a press release from before the tribunal. That really isn't the impression given in the article at all. Void if removed (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I read the first two transcripts yesterday. I get the impression that the bulk of the material that the judges will have to examine was already delivered in printed form at the start. The court sessions only examine "a percentage" of the issues, and which issues they present does not in any way diminish the importance or mark as "settled" those that weren't examined in court. So it is entirely possible the case may turn on something that was not talked about in court.
I found the first examination excruciating. What a strange way of trying to discover "the truth". One person has complete control of the "conversation": they get to ask all the questions and the other person is totally unable to ask questions or steer things in another direction. There's no opportunity to go "Hold on a sec. I see where you are going with this. There's a huge gaping hole in your line of argument and further more, would you stop being so offensively stereotypic." I guess that is a matter for the judges to spot. And then there's the embarrassment of of a non-medical person questioning another non-medical person about medical matters. Anyway, I just thought it in total contrast the the very open approach we have on Wikipedia where, for good and for a lot of bad, anyone with an opinion and a thought can chip in and make a point or ask a question. -- Colin°Talk 09:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_16&oldid=1142588368"