Jump to content

Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Frankensource or synthesis inline tagging

@Tewdar: at the risk of opening Pandora's box again over the designation of co-founders which has been discussed nearly endlessly here and in the archives, could you elaborate briefly on what your synthesis inline tagging is referring to please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would we prefer a hodge-podge Frankensource cobbled together from an unholy Octernity of passing mentions from PinkNews, The Times, CNN, Feminist Current, and Twitter that even contradict each other? And why don't we mention that the organisation itself and The Guardian disagree with our Frankenfounder text? And yes I have read the interminable discussion above and in the archives.  Tewdar  19:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Having done this to death I have no wish to be the one to reopen it, but I completely agree that the current list is a result of synthesis, and it would be far simpler to just believe what's on the website. One of the knock-on issues with having disregarded the charity's website as a source of information on these things is that everything from the founders to the date the organisation was founded are potentially inaccurate. The "history" section starts with a letter to The Times in September 2019, and thus the "about" box puts the formation date as September 2019. However, the timeline on their website puts the inception several months prior with the meeting of Kate Harris and Bev Jackson, and then the actual founding at the meeting at Conway Hall on October 22nd 2019. I understand that these were the best sources available at the time, but I think it is impossible to incorporate any of this more comprehensive narrative without acknowledging that they are the two founders. I think that the disagreement sources on this is best chalked up to the fog of confusion in reporting on a tiny new organisation. Void if removed (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Inception of an idea to make a group does not then make the actual founding members of said group not count as founders. If someone has an idea for a group and then gets someone else to help them create it, both count as founders, not only the ones with the initial starting idea. And in terms of an actual recognized organization that is registered, the founders are the original members listed during that official creation. SilverserenC 19:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Could we not solve this problem by moving of wikivoice, with a construction like "the group credits its founding to ..." ?Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
This strikes me more as a summary of the many reliable sources on the co-founder question, than a Frankenstein's monster synth of the reliable sources.
I'd also point out at the risk of agitating the Pandora's box, that while the organisation does disagree, The Guardian as recently as July 2022 stated Allison Bailey is a co-founder. There's a list of sources for each co-founder in my reply at 21:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC).
Given that we on this talk page seem fundamentally unable to agree on this despite the strong sourcing for each member, I would be happy to see this raised at WP:NORN, as synthesis is covered under the NOR policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The Guardian disagrees with itself, then. NORN sounds good, you gonna do it? I'm a bit busy right now...  Tewdar  19:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I can, I just need to think of a way to summarise this problem such that it either keeps everyone happy because it's as neutral a way to phrase it as possible, or gets everyone angry because it's as neutral a way to phrase it as possible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Just say something like the current text has a list of founders that is derived from a range of sources that don't mention them all at once, and that this is contradicted by the organisation itself and other sources... Tewdar  19:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
And make sure to link to a long, messy Talk discussion in which I participated little, if at all. Perhaps to all such discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm thinking something like this:
At Talk:LGB Alliance (this will be wikilinked at NORN) there has been a long standing, and deeply discussed dispute (November 2022, November 2022, November 2021, August 2021, September 2021, September 2021, April 2021) over how many co-founders the organisation has.
According to recent statements by the organisation, there are two co-founders; Bev Jackson and Kate Harris. According to multiple, independent reliable sources, there are six co-founders; Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott, however there is no single reliable source that states all of the co-founders as a set.
With the sourcing that is available, is it synthesis to state The group was co-founded by Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott, with each co-founder being sourced to one of the independent and secondary reliable sources about the organisation?
Thoughts? Is this an accurate and neutral summary of the underlying dispute? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I do not like According to multiple, independent reliable sources, there are six co-founders... There is no single source that says this.  Tewdar  20:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Read the end of that same sentence my friend. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I did! 😁 I still don't like it though.  Tewdar  20:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
How would you rephrase that sentence? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, no single reliable source that states all of the co-founders as a set suggests that they all really are co-founders. Which is the whole dispute... Tewdar  20:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Also, it's five, not six?  Tewdar  20:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The more I think about this - which I have never really wanted to do - the more I think the policy-compliant answer is to talk about the sourcing, not the facts: "The LGB Alliance describes A and B as its co-founders (SPS citation), while independ independent sources also present C (RS citations), D (RS citations), E (RS citations) and F (RS citations) as founders" (or even to specify some of the alphabet as "founding members", if that's what those sources actually say). It isn't pretty, but it is well-grounded in the sourcing, and it fits my preference for epistemological modesty. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC) fixed by Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I may be agreeable on this approach later, but let's see what NORN has to say first...  Tewdar  20:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Surely that would be original research? While we have sources independent of the organisation stating who the co-founders are, I'm not aware of any source, bar this talk page, that describes a dispute between the organisation and sources independent of it as to who the founders are. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think while creates the appearance of OR the way "however" would, but substitute "and" if you prefer. I don't see SYNTH there, or any implication of a dispute - just a difference among what each source says. Newimpartial (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The OR is that we would be saying there is or alluding to a dispute between who the organisation lists as their co-founders, and who reliable sources independent of the organisation list as their co-founders.
If there was a reliable source that said something like there is a dispute over how many co-founders the LGB Alliance has, then I wouldn't think this was original research. But to my knowledge we do not have such a source stating that there is a dispute between how the organisation describes its founders, and how sources independent of the organisation describe its founders, beyond this talk page. This isn't something that could be addressed by word substitution or rephrasing, because we are creating unsourced content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Colour me as simple, but I don't see how "The CIA credits A and B as its co-founders, and scholars cite C, D and E as founders as well" creates any unsourced content, nor how it could be read as implying a dispute. It simply lists reliably sourced statements without performing additional interpretation or evaluation. Newimpartial (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I can't count! Thanks! Assume that I will substitute five for six before posting to NORN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps "Various reliable, independent sources list six founders..."? Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Or perhaps "...list a total of six founders" is even more clear. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Something like However multiple, independent reliable sources list a total of six co-founders; Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott, but no single reliable source lists all of these co-founders together as a set.? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Change no single reliable source lists all of these co-founders together as a set. to "all of these as co-founders together as a set", maybe.  Tewdar  20:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Inserting the word as there seems OK to me. I'll put up another full draft below in a moment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
"...but not together in the same source, and some sources claim there are four, or two, or..."  Tewdar  20:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Having read all of the sources on the co-founders, or at least all the ones I can recall being linked, I'm not sure there are any independent sources that state something like "the <insert number here> co-founders of the LGB Alliance are <insert names here>". Is there one or more specifically that you're thinking of Tewdar that state there are four, or two, or etc? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/06/03/lgb-alliance-director-ann-sinnott-anti-trans-charity/ "who is one of the four founders of LGB Alliance", https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/14/lie-of-gender-identity-spurred-founding-of-lgb-alliance-court-told "the two co-founders of LGB Alliance"  Tewdar  20:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm worried that this might be question creep? For the purposes of summarising the past discussions, the exact number situation has either been "there are only two co-founders" or "there are more than two co-founders". Do we really need to get to that level of detail (ie 4 vs 2), when that largely hasn't been part of this dispute? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
We need to mention that one of the Guardian articles agrees with the organisation, I think... Tewdar  20:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
That hasn't been part of the core discussion over how many co-founders there are I think. But feel free to mention that some of the reliable sources disagree with themselves over how many co-founders, and how to describe them, over at NORN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe "independent, reliable sources list additional founders" and name them, rather than inserting a number. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good, if it's clear that these sources don't list these additional 'founders' together... Tewdar  20:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I can't say, but I would certainly use extensively rather than deeply in the opening phrase.
I would ideally want to add a second question, "Based on this sourcing, what should be said in wikivoice about the founders of the organization (if anything)?" I recognize, though, that sounds more like a question for NPOVN than for NORN. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that seems to be more of a NPOVN question than a NORN one. Let's solve the synth question first, then we can figure out if we need to go to NPOVN for the actual phrasing and framing of the content. Happy to swap in extensively though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, the Guardian has multiple reporters on this beat who communicate quite different through-lines about the Alliance. I think it's an interesting case study, of something. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Draft incorporating changes discussed above.
At Talk:LGB Alliance (this will be wikilinked at NORN) there has been a long standing, and extensively discussed dispute (November 2022, November 2022, November 2021, August 2021, September 2021, September 2021, April 2021) over how many co-founders the organisation has.
According to recent statements by the organisation, there are two co-founders; Bev Jackson and Kate Harris. However multiple, independent reliable sources list a total of five co-founders; Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott, but no single reliable source lists all of these people as co-founders together as a set
With the sourcing that is available, is it synthesis to state The group was co-founded by Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott, with each name being sourced to one of the independent and secondary reliable sources about the organisation?
Thoughts? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I still think "a total of five" could be replaced by "additional", with a net gain in clarity. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
How about However multiple, independent reliable sources additionally list: Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott as co-founders, but no single reliable source lists all of these people together as a set of co-founders.? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I love it.  Tewdar  20:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Also The Guardian says there's two founders in one of its articles, though.  Tewdar  20:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, but in that rephrase the colon is not needed. :p Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I have preformed a colectomy on the rephrased sentence. As we now seem to be in agreement about the core question, I shall be posting it to NORN momentarily. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, "co-founders" should be followed both times by a colon not a semicolon, I believe. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
You're right. Will change that prior to posting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to be picky, but I have not been impressed with the NORN crew so far... good job drafting this.  Tewdar  20:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all. Discussion is now live at NORN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Edits by TheTranarchist to Conversion Therapy section 3 February 2023

@TheTranarchist: Your edits are not supported by the sources. You should self-revert.Sweet6970 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Which part is false/unsupported exactly? You should probably read the sources again. Just be glad the sources say they oppose bans on trans conversion therapy instead of putting two and two together and saying they support trans conversion therapy. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
You should also revert that last change to "gender identity" because what was there was fine, what's there now mixes in history (distracting from the views), the irrelevant opinions of Mermaids, and an unsourced reference to "gender ideology". Void if removed (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
What was there before was an overly long winding quote from one person followed by another quote from her about how she thinks lesbians can't have penises. What is there currently are sourced statements expressing their views on gender identity directly. A clear improvement. The fact she used the thought-terminating cliche "gender ideology" is indeed sourced, you can check, that's what the references are for. Generally, people say things in places at times, not in a timeless locationless ether. Claiming that noting when the statement was made makes it history instead of a view is an argument I'm not going to even pretend to understand. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
"Gender ideology" does not appear in the source, Mermaids' opinion is irrelevant, and a selection of "quotes" with dates and places when they were said is not the clearest way of presenting an organisation's views. It doesn't come across as encyclopaedic. There are plenty of quotes peppered throughout this article, but I think that here should strive for a more general phrasing with sources to substantiate it. Something that tells you their actual view without getting bogged down too much in quotes. Void if removed (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The term in the sourced quote from Kate is "transgender ideology", so I have piped the link accordingly. I don't see any merit to your other preferences, which smell like some combination of SYNTH and WHITEWASHING. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The quote in context ("this peculiar transgender ideology") is not a synonym for what is discussed on the page "gender ideology" which you have inappropriately linked to. This is like linking an inline quote about being a "social democrat" to the page on the US Democratic Party. The whole section is lacking in encyclopaedic tone with an over-reliance on selected quotes. Having a neutral section straightforwardly explaining what the views of the org actually are without this dependence on selective quotation does not preclude having the extensive section of criticism chock full of quotes later in the article, as there is right now. Void if removed (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The reliable sources say that transgender ideology is used as a synonym for gender ideology. Why do you disagree?
And as I have pointed out previously, we are not supposed to privilege the organisation's rather topiary account of what its views are against what independent, reliable sources say its views are. And so far, your proposed "straightforward" paraphrases have had a selective emphasis that borders on WHITEWASHING. Newimpartial (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Please direct me to the part/s of the source/s which you are relying on, and explain how it supports your edits.
Also, you should explain why you have made other changes to the wording of this section.
And also explain why you did not come to this Talk page to justify your edits, instead of reverting.
And there is no ‘Canadian chapter’.
Sweet6970 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Sweet, Canada's national broadcaster - probably our most respected news organization - refers to a Canadian chapter. Where is your sourcing to suggest that their reporting is in error?
Also, your explain how it supports your edits...you should explain...And also explain reads to me as SEALION and/or STONEWALLING behaviour. Do you have any specific objections to this sourced content, apart from your skepticism with the CBC's reference to a Canadian chapter? I have quoted passages from two RS below, and genuinely cannot see anything in the new text that is not generously supported by the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
One reliable source has noted that:

LGB Alliance is widely regarded as an anti-trans hate group because it only recognizes sex as a binary, invalidating the identities of transgender and non-binary people. The LGB Alliance has also lobbied to exclude transgender people from legislation that would shield them from conversion therapy in the U.K.

Another RS pointed out, concerning Canada's law adding conversion therapy to the criminal code, that

A Canadian chapter of the LGB Alliance lobbied against Bill C-4, which put an end to conversion therapy, demanding it remove the term "gender identity" from the offence.

This seems fairly straightforward. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Since the source thinks there is a ‘Canadian chapter’, it is ignorant and therefore unreliable on this matter. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
You didn't provide a source suggesting the contrary. Also, would you dismiss a BBC report if it made a similar statment about a "UK chapter"? Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
But you know, you haven't even produced any evidence of an error, much less that the source is ignorant and therefore unreliable. And I doubt very much that you are better apprised of LGB Alliance activities in Canada than is the CBC, so I'm disinclined to accept an argument from your personal authority. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
And the first excerpt does not mention Canadian legislation. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
So what? The CBC is the source for the Alliance's opposition to C-4 in the article text. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Regardless this belongs - at best - under "international", if anywhere at all. Void if removed (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to combine references to all LGB Alliance opposition to bans on trans conversion therapy regardless of jurisdiction into one consolidated treatment? Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
No, the article is about the UK organisation. Tiny, barely notable international offshoots get their own section - we dealt with all this when the GPAHE report was discussed. I think the same applies to whatever's going on in Canada. Void if removed (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that the coverage of LGB Alliance activities outside the UK has expanded, and that the purposes and views of the Alliance appear the same in all jurisdictions, I don't agree with the treatment you propose. Perhaps it is time for an RfC on the structure of the article? I don't see consensus on it, even in prior discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
It is definitely due in the article, not sure why you'd think otherwise. You are welcome to your opinion that a section on their views on conversion therapy shouldn't mention one of their chapters opposing a ban on conversion therapy, but I don't think many will support that view since that's the most logical place to put it. It's also not like it's a marked departure from the main branch's views. If the main branch actually opposed trans conversion therapy there'd be a valid argument there, but that's not the case. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. The only substantial issue here is whether or not to use the term "chapter". I know the CBC uses it, but that word choice isn't a hill I would die on. The most accurate term would of course be "cell" or "groupuscule", but the sources don't use those either. "Chapter" implies, without formally asserting, a degree of formal organization that the Alliance in Canada probably lacks, but FOLLOWTHESOURCES and the best possible description may be at tension in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The problem here is that the source has unfortunately used the word "chapter" when we know that LGB Alliance in the UK is not some parent international organisation with regional chapters. This about page tells us they are "LGB groups" that are "separate organisations from us but with similar aims and beliefs". The fact that the source used an unhelpful and misleading term does not make it "ignorant" but nor does boasting about it being a national broadcaster magically change the reality that they are not a chapter of the UK group. If we describe them at all, we can do no more than say they are an organisation with similar aims and beliefs, that is based in Canada.
I don't think we should mix what these "separate organisations" get up to or are criticised for along with the main body of the article on the UK group. If their activity warrants coverage it should be in their own sub section in the international groups section. -- Colin°Talk 17:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
While I mostly agree with what you say in your first paragraph, Colin, I think you are conceding too much to the self-description offered by the LGB Alliance in the UK. The idea that LGB Alliance activists outside the UK typically represent an organisation with similar aims and beliefs but that they are otherwise independent - sharing only a name and IP in the form of slogans and online branding material - isn't sourced to anything but SPS, I don't think. This doesn't seem like a plausible description of "organisations" that are actually, by all accounts, somewhere between groupuscules and astroturf phenomena. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Concerning the second paragraph, I disagree - there is far more consonance to LGB Alliance activities in Canada or Australia to UK activities than dissonance, and I think readers will benefit from seeing LGB Alliance activites presented, well, globally, as the Alliance becomes more active outside the UK. Setting aside the GPHAE description of various national orgs as "hate groups", which only apply to those orgs, and the fact that AFAIK none of the Alliance groups outside the UK have sought charitable status, I am not aware of any reason to treat the "views" or "activities" of Alliance activists differently by country.
I do recognize that imposing any new structure on the article would be best achieved by RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
If our article is in any way to suggest some kind of formal association of "LGB Alliance" organisations, whether centrally commanded or independent peer groups, then let's see the evidence for that. That they explicitly deny a link is not irrelevant. It means if you want to say there is one, we need a source. Thinking that "LGB Alliance Canada" could be a "chapter" of an organisation called "LGB Alliance", based in the UK, is likely to be a common mistake, and one that Wikipedia should not follow.
I faced similar issues at ketogenic diet with editors thinking that it would help readers to discuss both the medical diet for treating severe childhood epilepsy in the same article as discussing weight loss / life-extension / body building diets. Those were called "ketogenic diets" too. Just as the Canadian group decided to call themselves LGB Alliance too. But none of our sources discuss the epilepsy diet as well as the weight loss diet, and in fact the diets are quite different other than one adjective. If you look at all the existing text and all the existing references, they are about the epilepsy diet. We may have sources saying the epilepsy diet has to be monitored to check the child is still growing properly, and those don't apply to some 50-year-old trying to lose a bit around their waistline.
In exactly the same way, all our existing text, from lead, to sections to subsections is about the UK group. If you start mixing in what any random LGB-anti-trans group has said or done, then it changes this article entirely to be one about, I don't know, "LGB anti-trans groups" and good luck getting consensus on a descriptive title for that one. And the focus then would be what do sources say about such groups in general. By all means try to create some kind of umbrella article if you think you can get consensus for a name for it and if you think such a concept would survive an AfD.
Before launching into an RFC, I suggest you gather some expert opinion on article topic guideline and policy. @WhatamIdoing: do you have anything to offer here or could point at relevant advice or some other experienced editor. You see, I suspect that once someone explains the consequence of what you propose, you'll agree it isn't going to work. -- Colin°Talk 17:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
But Colin, it has already been agreed previously that this article include information about non-UK groups and activites (and the scope of this article has extended beyond the UK essentially since its creation). The question is how, not whether, to include this reliably sourced material.
No I don't think that our article is in any way to suggest some kind of formal association of "LGB Alliance" organisations because I don't think that reflects reality, even though some of our sources would support that framing. But please don't construct a straw goat about mixing in what any random LGB-anti-trans group has said or done - this article is about the views and activities of groups and individuals labelled by reliable sources as LGB Alliance groups. Nobody is proposing that we shoehorn in non-LGB Alliance Twitter accounts organizations. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
It was previously agreed to include information on related organisations in the section on International Organisations. The claim "this article is about views and activities of groups and individuals labelled by reliable sources as LGB Alliance groups" is not true even if one section does that. The article lead sentence says The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in the UK in 2019, in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues. Its founders were .... and the percentage of that statement that applies to the other groups is zero. Indeed, there is nothing in the lead that applies to the other groups, and (recent edit aside) nothing in the rest of the article outside of the International section that applies to the other groups. So to claim it is about them doesn't hold up to examination and certainly isn't a goat, straw or otherwise.
An example may help (fingers crossed). The article BBC is about "the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom, based at Broadcasting House in London. It is the world's oldest national broadcaster, and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees..." In that article we have a section on Britbox which is a paid for streaming service setup in "partnership with fellow UK Broadcasters ITV and Channel 4". The article mentions Britbox, has a section on Britbox, but the article is not about Britbox. We have a section on international groups, which explains they have "similar objectives and branding" but that is the the degree of linkage we can make.
We need to be particularly aware that the word "alliance" means "a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations" so the risk of people thinking it is a parent group is very high.
If the other organisations were each significantly notable, then we'd like have several articles on them individually and some kind of category or see also linking them. Unless there are enough reliable sources talking about such groups together and making comments about them all together, then it is very likely that an umbrella article is a non-starter. It would fail OR quite badly without that. At the moment then, a section briefly describing the related groups is a reasonable compromise. -- Colin°Talk 18:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying, but my own reading of the article history is that the current lead sentence is a result primarily of POV-pushing by a minority of (activist?) editors to limit the scope of the article, rather than anything supported by most of those who have edited the article over time. I understand that, for some time now, the article lead section reads as though the article were about the UK group only, and the international section contains "Britbox"-like appendages, but I don't see either formal or informal consensus to back up that scope and/or structure. I certainly believe that a new structure could be decided through a fairly simple RfC.
I would also point out that many sources, like the CBC source cited above, discuss LGB Alliance activities in more than one country. They may not make comments about them all together, but when enough sources address UK+Canada, and UK+Ireland, and UK+Australia, that seems to me to be enough justification to treat common topics in common while treating distinct topics - like the Alliance's founding and the dispute over charity status - separately. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
For record:
The lead sentence has been singularly about the UK group since it survived AfD and was overhauled by many editors including yourself. The state of the article when it got sent to AfD is probably best forgotten and certainly not relevant.
I don't think it helps to blame "(activist? editors") for the lead sentence, the lead paragraphs, and all the rest of the body (excluding the international section) for being 100% not about the international groups. The title of this article is the name of the UK group, and the article is about that group. I think we should accept that and move on. -- Colin°Talk 18:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
But the name of the UK group is also used by other national groups, and they claim to be affiliated. For example, LGB Alliance Canada describes itself as a chapter of lgballiance.org.uk and LGB Alliance USA refers to itself and other international LGB Alliance groups as chapters. In fact, if anyone within the UK mother ship has denied these international affiliations, I certainly haven't seen them do so - this non-affiliation appears to be something editors have said simply to win arguments at this Talk page, without any relevant evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
By the way, I find your reading of the archived discussions to be highly implausible.
  • the first bulleted discussion did not discuss either the scope of the lead or the scope of the article.
  • how you can assert that the second bulleted discussion concluded no, I have no idea - it looks to me like a textbook instance of no consensus.
  • I don't see any consensus in the third bulleted discussion to restrict the article to the UK group.
  • You appear to have misread the fourth discussion, in which I asked whether the GPHAE evaluations should be mentioned in the article and the consensus was yes, but not in the lead.
On the last bullet, in particular, I am at a loss to explain why your paraphrase, that I asked if allegations about two of the international groups should appear in the lead, and the consensus was no, is so different from what actually happened according to a calm reading of the discussion. (Also, as far as I can tell, you were the only one in that discussion making the point that the article wasn't about the international affiliates, so I wouldn't consider that to be especially relevant to the state of article-level consensus.) Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Newimpartial, I'm not going to argue with you about what I said, or care if you find any of it implausible. Been there, done that, achieved nothing. So, if I ignore some of what you've written, that doesn't imply you've "addressed" anything or that I concede anything.
It is interesting that the front page of the document submitted to the Canadian gov called itself a "Canadian chapter of lgballiance.org.uk" but other than that, and the document filename, I can't find more. That could well be where the broadcaster got that term from. But just like you dismiss LGB Alliance's own denial of any formal link, I can't say I'm much impressed by a wannabe claiming to be their love child in the front page of a single PDF.
The tweet you link says "LGB Alliance USA does not have state chapters; our sole affiliation with organizations using the LGB Alliance name is with the founding organization in the UK, @ALLIANCELGB, and any chapters explicitly listed on our website." I don't know what that tweet was in response to, but perhaps the preceding tweet used the word "chapter". It doesn't explicitly say they call themselves a chapter of LGB Alliance UK. I searched for chapter and chapters at https://lgbausa.org/ and https://www.lgballiance.ca and found nothing with google.
To create an article on Wikipedia you need some agreement on what to call your topic and sources that call it that. Plus some idea of the scope of the topic. There are lots of anti-trans groups. Not all the groups linked to by lgballiance's About page call themselves an "LGB Alliance". So what is it? "Organisations inspired by LGB Alliance"? "LGB anti-trans groups?" something else? You can't call it "LGB Alliance" as that's the name of one UK organisation and our sources do not use that name (singular) to describe these groups. You say there are "many sources" but I think probably there are just sources that mention these other-country group individually alongside brief mention of the UK group. Are there many that mention the Canadian, the Irish, the Australian, the UK and other groups together. If not, you don't have an article.
I think you should try creating a draft in userspace. Look at what our sources are saying about these organisations as a group. Have they got a name for the group. Can you even define who is in the group and who isn't. Do you have enough to make an article. Until then, an RFC proposing we radically rewrite this article about one organisation into an article about lots of wannabe organisations, is premature. I mean, even the UK organisation's web site is only a dozen pages, which probably costs about as much to run as a takeaway meal. All of these groups are remarkably unremarkable, frankly, outside of the hate they generate, mostly on twitter. -- Colin°Talk 20:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, apart from the Norwegian account that uses "2019" in its name, all the other groups/accounts linked at lgballiance.co.uk are near-enough translations of "LGB Alliance" into target languages. So I don't see any problem with an umbrella article titled LGB Alliance, particularly since I have seen many recent RS referring to the original as LGB Alliance UK. I really don't see how the different name choice by the Norwegian affiliate casts any doubt on the scope of the topic.
Nor do I see any reason why we need to find sources discussing LGB Alliance Australia with LGB Alliance Ireland, or LGB Alliance ÙSA with LGB Alliance Canada, to have a common article topic. If we have many RS defining LGB Alliance Canada or LGB Alliance Australia as being related to the UK group, then I should think that would suffice. And that certainly accords better with this article's history than your periodic (and perhaps Quixotic) insistence that only the UK group is within the article's scope. Newimpartial (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Profound disagree. The charity is noteworthy in its own right not least because of being at the centre of a controversy over whether it can even exist as a charity, the judgment for which may appear at any time. That there are international semi-affiliates that may or may not be defunct or resurface at any time is barely worthy of a footnote. Has anyone heard anything from LGBA Ireland in years *other than* the GPAHE reports? No.
Today's edit war has made this article substantially worse and it should all be reverted. Void if removed (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Google translate tells me the Icelandic one is "LGB Team". The Polish one is "LGB Coalition". The Serbian one is "Lesbian and gay solidarity network". The Spanish one is "LGB Network". The Finnish one is "LHB Union".
That the UK group is the article topic is so patently apparent and longstanding that I'm finding claims to the contrary to be at an "alternative facts" level of disruption. Please stop. We get that you wish the article to include all such groups. Please argue on that basis and we could make progress towards agreement. You will find that WP:SYNTH is an insurmountable barrier that will prevent editors from including factoids concerning other international groups intermixed with text that is focused on the UK group.
The idea of calling them all "LGB Alliance" and forcing the UK group to rename itself, is, em, interesting. Perhaps you should email the UK group and see if they are up for it. Until they invent some parent organisation and spend some of their charity money on a rename/rebrand, it's a non-starter for Wikipedia. I think you've fallen into the trap of thinking "alliance" means an alliance of organisations, and that that would make it a great name for some yet-to-exist international organisation. It does make it a great name, but it isn't reality. -- Colin°Talk 10:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
. Perhaps you should email the UK group and see if they are up for itI'm not sure how familiar you are with the actual activity of translation, but translatng the English "alliance" with the Spanish "red", which carries connotations more like "phalanx", or the Polish that is more like "coalition", are not especially unusual moves in the act of translating brand material. But I would be happy to continue as this article has been, and only to discuss the international affifiates that are named "LGB Alliance" and where the RS describe them in relation to the UK group.
In spite of your claims, LGB Alliance activities have been included in this article most of the time it has existed, and were there even before the AfD. That is a fact, not an "alternative fact", and it cant be SYNTH to say what RS stay. To be clear, I am not proposing that Wikipedia attribute to the Alliance a SPECTRE-like hidden structure (that wouid he hilarious but against policy); I am suggesting that we discuss the international affiliate activities the way RS discuss them, and not to imply that they represent totally separate topics in a way RS don't. And I am not proposing to just do it, but to have an RfC on a new structure - your opposition to my trial balloon is noted, but given the rhetorical harpoons you are using to shoot it down (Perhaps you should email the UK group and see if they are up for it? Really?), it seems a bit overegged. Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I've moved the reference to LGB Alliance Canada to "international". This seems like a lot of fuss over a submission from 2020 suddenly becoming "notable" because it was mentioned in passing in coverage of the protest of Robert Wintemute in 2023, someone not actually connected to LGB Alliance Canada. Void if removed (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Please pardon my history from below, but the connection between the LGB Alliance UK speaker and the LGB Alliance Canada submission is made first by the activists on the street and then by the reliable sources. Your idea of what is actually connected is less important, IMO, than what relaible sources actually connect. Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
"LGB Alliance activities have been included in this article most of the time it has existed" Well there's a rare moment of truthfulness. I suspect you tripped up on your own imagined alternate reality where "LGB Alliance" was the name of some international group, or a name one could use to describe all the groups. You did it earlier one when you wrote "I think readers will benefit from seeing LGB Alliance activites presented, well, globally, as the Alliance becomes more active outside the UK" again assuming "the Alliance" is a name we could use for all these groups. Back on planet earth in Feb 2022, these are groups that are inspired by the UK one, and certainly often have chosen similar names, have similar aims and beliefs, but the same could be said for various political parties in the word. We have a very tiny quantity of sources that mention these other groups and yes when they do mention them they may also note they were somehow related to the original UK group, but that's the limit of it.
It is a messy and misleading route to go down to start combining the activities of the UK and other groups, like the Canadian one, it the same sentence. A line like "The LGB Alliance and its Canadian chapter..." is extremely misleading for our readers. None of the offered sources mention both groups wrt conversion therapy. Two of the sources only mention the groups together because a trustee of the UK group, Wintemute, was due to give a speech in Canada, and there was a protest where students dug up as much dirt as they could find on the internet. The two Canadian articles aren't even about conversion therapy, but about a protest against this professor. That the Canadian group opposed conversion therapy is very much a by-they-way comment, in one source it is entirely within a quote of our student. The link between the UK and Canadian group in these articles is therefore due entirely to a UK professor's travel and speaking arrangements and the fact that a student spoke to some journalists and mentioned the conversion therapy factoid wrt the Canadian group. -- Colin°Talk 18:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I meant "LGB Alliance activities outside the UK have been included in the article most of the time it has existed", and I believe you understood my meaning in spite of my brain toot. (The rare moment of truthfulness comment seems unduly hostile to me, but perhaps you are working your way yp towards a topic ban).
And in spite of what you say here, reliable sources on various national "LGB Alliance"es do refer to them simply as "LGB Alliance" at times, without the national moniker. I am not proposong that there is one, right way to write about Alliance activities, but we do need to follow the sources rather than leading them. And there is no rule requiring Wikipedia to base the scope of an article on the boundaries of a jurisdiction or a legal organization: we topically follow the sources in defining the scope of articles, and we also aggregate up to clearly notable topics from borderline notable ones about which verifiable information acumulates. What is un-wncyclipaedic and against the ethos of the projwct is to argue that "this specific topic is outside the narrow scope of one article, and can't be part of another because there isn't enough to say" - that kind of motivated reasoning just isn't the way we are supposed to scope out articles. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Nah, just commenting on the words, lots of which turn out to not be true. Anyway your reworded "LGB Alliance activities outside the UK" still isn't correct, unless we all agree that "LGB Alliance" is an adjective that applies to all the groups, or that the UK group has started activities outside the UK (which unless you count that professor's visit to Canada, doesn't seem to be the case).
Your second paragraph opens with a claim I did not make. Sigh. That individual groups might lose their national moniker occasionally in casual writing doesn't in fact magically make journalist's text one about some international coalition of LGB anti-trans groups, and doesn't allow us to develop this article as through there is one. On the LGB Alliance Canada website, the header contains the words "LGB Alliance" and then a red leaf signifying Canada. It seems both LGB Alliance Canada, and Newimpartial, want our readers to think they are as one. They aren't.
That editors have from time to time tried to shoehorn similar groups from other countries into random bits of the body or even the lead, doesn't change the fundamental that this article is about the UK organisation, and mentions those other groups really as an aside. One day, mention of those groups might become no more than a sentence listing groups inspired by the UK group, and we have separate articles on those other groups. But they haven't annoyed enough people yet to be notable enough for that. I think we're done. -- Colin°Talk 19:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
  • "LGB Alliance" is an adjective that applies to all the groups - yes, this is what I am saying about the groups outside the UK; it is also what RS say about the groups and what the groups say about themselves.
  • text ... about some international coalition of LGB anti-trans groups - that is not what I'm saying or implying; let's not construct any straw goats.
  • editors have from time to time tried to shoehorn similar groups from other countries into random bits of the body or even the lead - that's one way to read the page history, another being that editors have tried from time to time to exclude affiliated groups of the same name arbitratily from the lead or even the body. Tomato/tomato.
  • I think we're done - I can only live in hope.
Newimpartial (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Stop this, Newimpartial. The very reason that the comments about the Irish/Austrailian groups were removed from the lead were, as one editor put it "To me it reeks of biased editing." I get that this article, like most in this topic domain, is built by editors finding shit on the internet and throwing it onto the page and fighting to keep some of it. And I get that if you imagine that "LGB Alliance" is more than just the UK group that is the topic of the article, you can draw that shit from all over the world, but editors can smell it. RS are not doing what you say, in fact, they are by and large not talking about the other groups at all. The sources that were desperately added to the sentence about conversion therapy were actually about a protest against someone from the UK group visiting Canada. These other groups are essentially irrelevant, and deserve little more than passing mention in the relevant section. There's nothing "arbitrary" about the removal of these groups from the lead and the rest of the body. It is quite policy based: we don't just juxtapose random other groups into text on this group because they happened to be inspired by them. They are different people, different funding, and they have their own voice. -- Colin°Talk 09:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The content of this article is supposed to be based on the way the topic is treated by the highest-quality relaible sources we have, not on your personal opinion about what is essentially irrelevant and what deserves removal...from the lead and the rest of the body. To give a concrete example, there was clear consensus on Talk to retain the GPHAE material about the Australian and Irish groups in the body, so I would suggest that you not follow through on any proposed expulsion of that material no matter what temperature your blood might reach in this Talk discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead says that The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in the UK in 2019. If editors are claiming that this is incorrect, and that in fact (the) LGB Alliance are an international organisation with regional 'chapters' (or subsidiaries, or franchises...) then reliable sources that explicitly state this should be added to the article and the lead should be changed.  Tewdar  10:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The source for the "international" section makes it clear these are "LGB" organisations not "LGB Alliance" organisations, and also that they are separate organisations. Void if removed (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
One also wonders if such a primary source would be deemed acceptable for an organisation's own name, or the founders of that organisation.  Tewdar  16:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
> or the founders
/eye twitches uncontrollably Void if removed (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I believe that myokymia may be stress-related. Perhaps staying away from articles that Newimpartial edits might alleviate the symptoms.  Tewdar  17:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
One wonders how the insertion of a claim like a number of ---- groups have been formed internationally with similar objectives and branding, 'supported' only by a primary source that links to the website of one such organisation, would be received on other, more scrupulously constructed articles?  Tewdar  11:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree mostly with Colin here. With the exception of the Irish organisation, which has a large overlap with the UK organisation due to the geographical closeness of the two islands, and is largely believed to be run from London, and the shared branding across most of the non-UK organisations, the other organisations are to my knowledge separate from the UK organisation. I don't see why we would want to conflate them in this way, in the absence of reliable sourcing stating that the LGBA has ceased to be a UK only advocacy group and is now an international one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
That source resolves to a completely unverified tweet in 2020 from someone claiming to have spent 35 euros to discover that the LGBA Ireland twitter account was set up from a London IP address. I don't think it is actually possible to find out the IP address of a twitter account. Void if removed (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
In spite of Colin's straw goats, I don't anyone is suggesting that the LGBA has ceased to be a UK only advocacy group and is now an international one. I for one do not find that distinction meaningful, as it concedes more organization to the Alliance than I believe it ever to have had. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The problem, Newimpartial, is that everyone else can see that in order to do what you want to do, the article would need to be about the international organisations, not about just one. We can all see that necessary step, so you claiming you never proposed that step is unhelpful to the point of disruptive. At the moment, your "sources" that mention more than one group seem to all concern one Canadian protest and rely on the words of one 19-year-old student. Thin stuff. We have 125 sources on this page and all but a handful mention the UK group alone.
Our article on Jeff Bezos notes that "He has been compared to Branson and Elon Musk as all three are billionaires who prioritize spaceflight among their business interests." And that's the sole mention of Musk. There are hundreds of published articles that mention at least two of those guys in the same sentence. And some are actually about them collectively. But what we don't have, is halfway down the Bezos article, a sentence commenting on Musk's latest tweet or thoughts, added because some editor thinks readers would be interested to know generally about the random thoughts of 21st century billionaires.
User:Sideswipe9th, do we have anything more recent or convincing than that article about the Irish group? I don't know what website they were referring to. Is it https://www.lgballianceireland.org/ which is a single page and the current registration details are redacted, which isn't uncommon. There could be all sorts of reasons why the registrar of a website is based in the UK, and nobody has control over who choses to follow them on twitter. I mean, if "LGB Alliance Ireland" is essentially just a twitter account and a static webpage, surely that's just confirmation of how irrelevant they are. And as for "funded", what is there to fund? A domain registration and a holding page cost about as much as a few coffees at Starbucks. -- Colin°Talk 10:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist: You are edit warring and deleting longstanding material with no consensus. You've reverted the same content 3 or 4 times. Void if removed (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Scottish Gender Recognition Reform

The majority of the section on Scottish Gender Reform is given over to complaints about an advert.

This is WP:UNDUE because a) no regulatory action was taken, b) the actual reason given that the advert was "potentially" misleading was that the legislation was still under consultation and therefore the concerns raised by the advert might be addressed, and c) 2 years later the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls made the exact same warning about "predatory men" days before the passage of the bill and continued to criticise it after its passage because those concerns were never addressed.

It is impossible to balance the historical reportage so I suggest removing it as it is making a mountain out of a molehill. Void if removed (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree – a complaint to the ASA which did not even warrant a full investigation is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
There does not appear to be any objection to deleting this section. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I object to deleting the section, and if you have problems with too much focus on objections then let's address that. That the LGB Alliance opposed the Scottish Gender Recognition Act and took out adverts on this topic is highly relevant. They are an activist organisation and this is one of the activisms they did. I've shortened the text referring to the ASA.
There is more on their views on the Scottish legislation here. Can we find more on their activities wrt the Scottish reform? They also opposed the England & Wales changes in the UK parliament, so we should cover both under a section heading that refers to Gender Recognition Reform in general. This is a major aspect of activism for the group, so certainly warrants a section. -- Colin°Talk 13:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Nothing secondary - and yes, a heading change to just "Gender Recognition Reform" would be a good move. Relevant primary/self-published sources:
In January 2022 they welcomed the EHRC's intervention into the Scottish GRRB process.
They gave evidence at the committee stage. The image of Malcolm Clark on this page is sourced from the video of that session.
They sent a joint letter to the UN in support of the Special Rapporteur for VAWG's intervention in the Scottish GRRB process and criticising the Special Rapporteur for SOGI.
They wrote to the Secretary of State after the bill passed asking him to intervene (which doubtless he was going to do anyway). Void if removed (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
You can see the problem in some of the material you link. To pick one (of several examples) they are joint letters signed by LGB Alliance, Merched Cymru, Fair Play for Women, Transgender Trend, Conservatives for Women, AEA, Safe Schools Alliance, FiLiA, Sex Matters, LGB Alliance Cymru, Labour Women’s Declaration Working Group, For Women Scotland, Lesbian Labour, LGB Alliance Scotland, Women’s Equality Party Sex-Based Rights Caucus, Women Uniting, Lesbian Fightback, Liberal Voice for Women, Woman’s Place UK, Green Feminists. Some of these groups warrant a Wikipedia article. Some of them may have played a larger role in these reform battles than LGB Alliance. Adding one's signature to a letter isn't significant. At the Scottish Parliament meeting, Malcom Clark was one of three (with For Women Scotland, and Keep Prisons Single Sex) at one panel event, of which there were many. I think that got a brief mention in the Guardian here, so we could use that secondary source to note that they were among many groups giving opinions (both supportive and critical) to the Scottish government during their length debate. But essentially, although opposing these reforms is significant for the group, to the degree that they'll pay for Malcolm Clark's train fare to Edinburgh and a night in a Premier Inn, the are insignificant in the wider picture. Add to that, the Scottish parliament generally receives little coverage in UK news outlets.
Is there anything about the UK (England & Wales) legislation? Possibly not as that was dropped as the Tory government became more extreme on culture war issues. -- Colin°Talk 10:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_17&oldid=1161369094"