Jump to content

Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

RFC on opening sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This four-part RFC sought consensus for the opening sentence on the subject. The first part found clear consensus on describing the subject as an "advocacy group" in the opening sentence as a neutral term. Some editors suggested an alternate, "pressure group", which found some support, but concerns were raised with regards to "pressure group" as being seen as pejorative outside The United Kingdom.
The second part also found clear consensus against describing the subject as a "hate group" in the opening sentence. Editors commented that it would lack context, and should not be said in Wikipedia's voice, but there was rough consensus that the topic should be featured later in the lede, with proper attributions and respecting due weight.
The last two parts are directly connected. The third question asked editors how the subject should be addressed when it came to its charitable status, if at all. Only two of four options were really considered by editors (B and D), with consensus for D (not feature that information in the opening sentence). Some editors considered that, since this is not a defining characteristic, it should not feature in the opening sentence, as it would go against WP:NPOV. The fourth part was dependant on the third. Since the opening sentence should not contain information about charity status, it should also not contain information about the challenges of its status, but editors agree that the information about its charitable status (and challenges to it) should appear later in the lede. (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🔔 20:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)



This RFC attempts to gain consensus on the wording of the first half of the opening sentence, which at time of writing reads: "The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group and registered charity[neutrality is disputed] founded in 2019". A number of other forms of words have been proposed on this talk page. Some of these forms of words are not mutually exclusive (e.g. one could say it was an advocacy group, a hate group, a registered charity AND something else as well). For further context, please see extensive discussion above. Many thanks, The Land (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Q1. Advocacy Group

Should the opening sentence refer to the LGB Alliance as an advocacy group?

  • Support Using this alone, for now, seems like the most neutral option. As I noted in the discussion above as an example, "the Trump Foundation was listed as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, but was not described as such in our article even prior to its dissolution or even announcement of intent to dissolve. Because it didn't do any actions that would relate to being a charitable non-profit organization." Depending on the country, it is relatively easy to be listed as a charity without your organization ever doing anything that defines a charitable organization. Making the registered listing rather irrelevant to the importance or relevance of the subject organization. Since there is conflict specifically over the LGB being registered as such in the reliable sources, what with the appeal to its registry going on and such, it's fine to note that in the lede since it's covered in the body. But noting that in the lede is far different from actually defining the group as a charity in the opening sentence, which seems inappropriate to do even more so in this instance because of that conflict going on IRL. SilverserenC 18:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I was originally considering something along the lines of “registered charity” + position/controversy mention, but with the Trump precedent this more neutral option seems much better. —Artoria2e5 🌉 18:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support advocating for particular positions, and against others is obviously its primary purpose. Advancing fairly rapidly to what LGBA's positions and oppositions are (as largely happens at present) is clear and NPOV intro. Pincrete (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. "Advocacy group" is a neutral description that passes no implicit or explicit judgement over whether what they advocate for is good or bad. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I see some support for "pressure group" as an alternative in discussion below. I'd be perfectly OK with that but I don't think that it is a big deal either way. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how common that is in the UK, but to my eyes, it seems POV. Other groups are not generally described as such, and "pressure" seems to imply unscrupulous tactics IMO. Crossroads -talk- 19:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Except it's considered the same thing here on Wikipedia as well. Pressure group redirects to advocacy group and we have articles like List of pressure groups in the United Kingdom. Your personal opinion on the word pressure is rather irrelevant. Also, your claim that other groups aren't described as such is blatantly false. See Backlash (pressure group), Critical Mass (pressure group), and N-56 (pressure group) as just some of many usages of the term on Wikipedia. SilverserenC 19:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, a clearly neutral and supported description with no real dispute. Crossroads -talk- 19:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: what is the most commonly used similar description to this? Is it advocacy group, pressure group, campaign group, or something else? Also are there other similar organisations on Wikipedia and what are they described as? John Cummings (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Alternative: Pressure group: 'advocacy' implies support within the group they claim to be advocating for which does not describe how a large number of LGBT individuals and groups see the organisation (e.g 50 LGBT groups publicly condemned them getting charitable status). I think pressure group would be more accurate. John Cummings (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. "Advocacy group" is descriptive, and as said above, does not imply that they are either good or bad, but "pressure group" is pejorative. If they are described by multiple WP:RS as a pressure group, that can be mentioned further down the article. -- The Anome (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
In the UK, "pressure group" is the more common term and is generally not considered pejorative. To me, as a British reader, the two terms are very close to being entirely equivalent both in tone and meaning. If readers from elsewhere are likely to see it differently then that probably does tip the balance back towards "Advocacy group" but we should not assume that there was any intention to introduce non-neutral language in suggesting it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed entirely. I was writing on the basis that Wikipedia's readership is global, and many (most?) non-British English speakers would not be aware of the British usage of "pressure group". -- The Anome (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Q2. Hate Group

Should the opening sentence refer to the LGB Alliance as a hate group?

  • Definitely not. Even the present 'hate group' claims appear overstated: "The LGBA has been called a “hate group” by members of the LGBTQ+ community, and many leading LGBTQ+ organisations." In fact the sources have The IWGB Charity Workers Branch committee say "The LGBA has been called a “hate group” by members of the LGBTQ+ community, and many leading LGBTQ+ organisations.". Elsewhere the Scotsman says "The LGBA has been called a “hate group” by members of the LGBTQ+ community, and many leading LGBTQ+ organisations." So these sources are merely repeating that some (unnamed) orgs and individuals use 'hate group' to describe them. Other sources used for this claim express individuals strongly disagreeing with LGBA's views, but don't mention 'hate group' at all. The IWGB source is also used to support the claim that: "The LGB Alliance has been described as a hate group by Pride in London, Pride in Surrey, the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights, the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain," From that list, only a single branch committee of the IWBG has condemned LGBA according to the source used at present, and even that branch committee merely says that others have used 'hate group'. So, overall the idea that 'hate group' should be in WPVOICE or in the opening sentence frankly is for the birds. It isn't even clear at present who thinks they are a 'hate group'. That some other advocates disagree with them strongly is obvious, but that is fairly standard for the topic area. Pincrete (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    Hello Pincrete - still forming my own view on this, but not sure if you've seen the sources listed at Talk:LGB_Alliance#Should_the_group_be_described_as_a_hate_group_in_the_lede? or whether they affect your position. The Land (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Those aren't the sources currently used, which is ultimately all one can go on, and I misread 'LGBT+ Liberal Democrats' as being 'Liberal Democrats', but basically it's a rag-bag of individuals and small - highly partisan and in some cases, relatively marginal - groups using the label. Others notable figures offer some endorsement of LGBA, so no, my overall position doesn't change both that WP:VOICE and first para should definitely be excluded and that the current lead text overstates and oversimplifies the sources. Is 'the IWGB Charity Workers Branch committee' really a 'leading LGBTQ+ organisation'? Not to my knowledge. Pincrete (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Pincrete, for pointing this out. Do you have a suggestion for how to reword or fix this so the attribution is accurate and NPOV is followed? Crossroads -talk- 19:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
It actually isn't AS overstated as I first thought, but the additional refs should go in and "many leading LGBTQ+ organisations" become and "several LGBTQ+ organisations" or just name the principal 'hate-callers', who I imagine would be the 'Pride' orgs. Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No but this is not the right question. First up, we can't call them a "hate group" in Wikipedia's own voice because their status as a hate group is contested. (As time goes on this may well change but we can't assume this.) For the same reason, we should not raise this matter in the opening sentence as we need to establish some context for the readers first. However, I do support mentioning that they have been called a hate group elsewhere in the introduction. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No, to the narrow question posed of mentioning it in the opening of the first para. However I believe it's important, as things stand, to retain the present mention of it in the 2nd para of the lede (or somewhere similar). The Land (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No, the first para of this article should read the same as the first para of pages for anti-LGBT organizations such as Family Research Council do. It would be inconsistent to apply a stricter standard to this group and it seems very likely that describing it as a hate group in the opening para would be challenged.Cretaceousa (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm still forming my opinion on this with regards to the narrow question though I am seeing some convincing arguments. Can the question of an RfC be changed after it has been opened? As there may be consensus for it somewhere else in the lead but not in the first sentence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    Probably too late to change the questions as written, but there is no reason not to make a Question 2b or something if it's linked but slightly different. That could be helpful! The Land (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No We should definitely not say this in wikivoice – it is only an allegation, and it’s not clear who alleges it. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Something like, "Groups like ABC, DEF, and GHI have described LGB Alliance as a hate group" would be alright I suppose. Tewdar (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No, absolutely not in the opening sentence. Opening paragraph is also too slanted. This claim is only an allegation, and is only by some. And the current mention should be fixed to be accurate per Pincrete. Crossroads -talk- 19:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment What do the sources say? What are the quality of the sources? Don't put it in Wikipedia voice.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Although "hate group" is too nonspecific, I think the current introduction inadequately summarizes the LGB Alliance's general stance and actions. Right now, the introduction only states that the LGB Alliance was founded in opposition to Stonewall's stances on trans issues, followed by their own words on their own stances, which is pushing POV in my opinion, and then specific policy positions. I think adding "anti-trans"/"anti-transgender" somewhere in the first sentence or introductory paragraph would best fix this issue. PBZE (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Not in opening sentence but yes to it being in the lede, perhaps in first paragraph. It has been called a hate group and anti trans by many organisations, I don't think its unreasonable to say it is a common description of the group, especially by LGBT groups. John Cummings (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No. It belongs in the article, but definitely not in the lede sentence; it is an allegation, and needs the NPOV treatment to make this clear. -- The Anome (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No. Not in the lead. And including an allegation in the body of the article that it is a "hate group" also needs to be balanced 50/50 — 50% that say it is and 50% that say it is not. This organization was accused of being a hate organization the moment its formation was announced and before it even took its second breath. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No, not in the opening sentence in wiki-voice, but yes, in the lead with attribution, even if vague. This is a clear case of MOS:INTRO. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No, of course not. Also, we should be careful not to imply that all liberal or progressive or gay opinion necessarily supports the Stonewall line on transgender issues, even if a majority of LGBT groups do. We don't know how representative these bodies are of gay people generally. See e.g. Matthew Parris, one of the co-founders of Stonewall, who has left the organisation over this issue.[1] -- Alarics (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No - Not in Wikivoice and not in the opening sentence. Yes - It should be included later in the lead, attributed. Fieari (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No. This is just the opinion of certain groups and individuals, not an unquestionable fact. The first sentence should establish what an article subject is, not what it is alleged to be by selected sources. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Q3. Charity, Registered Charity, or Neither

Should the opening sentence refer to the LGB Alliance as:

A) a charity
B) a registered charity
C) a charitable organisation
D) None of the above - no reference should be made to its charitable status
  • D There is no need or value to mentioning the charitable status. Most similar advocacy orgs have charitable status, so mention of legal status is irrelevant in the opening para. Possibly in the body or late in the lead, the fact that the status has been legally challenged could be mentioned, but the named orgs challenging don't appear to me to be especially noteworthy (to my untutored eyes) and the basis of the legal challenge extremely unlikely to succeed, since it boils down to disagreeing with LGBA about what SHOULD BE advocated. Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • D, but following that B. It's not particularly important to mention charitable status in the very opening. But if we do, then let's be as specific as possible. The Land (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • D or B. We do not want to say anything that endorses their activities as actually charitable but we also can't hide that they are, currently, registered as a charity. C is by far the worst option here as that credulously accepts that their activities are actually charitable. All the others are not too bad but I think that "registered charity" is better than just "charity" for extra clarity. I'm inclined more towards D as I don't think it needs to be in the opening sentence but it does need to be in the introduction somewhere. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • B or D. While I agree they don't meet the broader definition of a charity thanks to a lack of charitable campaigns, the term registered charity has a specific meaning in UK law through the regulatory body Charity Commission that at the present time the LGB Alliance meets. I'd also be happy with D though if that's the way this falls. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • B The legal status of this organisation is that it is a registered charity. As I have said in the previous discussion on this, an important reason for stating prominently in the lead that the LGB Alliance is a charity is that you can complain to the regulator – the Charity Commission for England and Wales - if you think that a charity is engaging in improper behaviour, or that it is misusing charitable funds. This is significant information for readers. It also primes them for the information that its charitable status is subject to a legal challenge, which may not make sense to them if they have not been told that it is currently registered. I can’t see any justification for omitting this simple factual information from the opening sentence. I see that the first sentence of the article on Stonewall is: Stonewall (officially Stonewall Equality Limited) is a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights charity in the United Kingdom. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    I'd just note here that adding a charity's 'official' name (ie the one on their company registration documents) is relatively unusual. Plenty of charities are incorporated under different names than their trading names, we don't normally remark on that... The Land (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    Having just had a read through of the Stonewall article's history, I can tell it was added on 31 May 2015, but the edit summary gives no hint as to why it's there. I suspect, outside of some vandalism attempts recently, it has been unchallenged since that date. I agree though that it is quite unusual. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • D - Even the Save the Children article doesn't have this in the lede, and nor should this one. It should be in the infobox, however. Tewdar (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • D - I think the current reference to being a registered charity and its disputed status at the end of the lede works just fine. There's no reason to put it in the opening sentence. SilverserenC 18:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • B per Sweet6970. It is simply a factual description of legal status at present. Crossroads -talk- 19:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • D followed by B - I do not think that its legal status as a charity is significant enough to be included in the very first sentence, so I would not support option B. But B is at least neutral, while the other two options uncritically call it a charity in Wikipedia's voice and push POV. PBZE (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Update, I no longer think calling it a "registered charity" is necessarily neutral. It is only neutral if the dispute is mentioned as well, since not doing so would imply respectability and legitimacy as John Cummings said. PBZE (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • D, not something that is usually mentioned in the sources discussing it outside of ones directly referencing the dispute over the legal designation. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: what is the norm for organisations if they are charities? Being a registered charity in the UK implies respectability and legitamacy so is not a neutral statement if this is not the norm. John Cummings (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Charity status in the UK is largely a legal, rather than a moral status. It simply means the org's primary purpose is not profit. Registered status really doesn't imply much 'respectability' or 'legitimacy' - except in the literal sense of 'legality'. Some charities defend private education, benefitting only the few who can afford it - mainly the rich, for example. Since what is in the public good is often a matter of opinion, orgs advocating polar opposite viewpoints can often both enjoy charity status. I think it very unlikely that the challenge to the status will succeed, since LGBA will argue that they are defending the rights of certain groups, rather than opposing the increase in the rights of others. Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the missunderstanding, what I want to ask is is it normal within articles of organisations to say they are registered charities in the first sentence? John Cummings (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think there’s any particular norm in this respect, but the obvious comparison is Stonewall. The first sentence of Stonewall's article is: Stonewall (officially Stonewall Equality Limited) is a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights charity in the United Kingdom. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't actually come with respectability/legitimacy, but it connotes it, both within the UK (the average person can't tell you the law on "registered charity", but they can tell you it has positive connotations) and outside it. — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • D. It's an advocacy group first and foremost. Its status as a registered charity should be mentioned further down the article, where it can be put in context as to what this means, and the relevance of the controversy over it to this. -- The Anome (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • D - the controversy over the Alliance's charitable status can be discussed later in the lead section, and also in the body of course. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • D - "registered charity" is a minor tax/legal/regulatory detail, rarely mentioned in sources and not worth highlighting in the lead. "Charity" is much more widely-covered, though in a way that requires some explanation, and it therefore is best saved for later in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • B -- "Registered charity" is the normal UK usage. It means you are allowed to call yourself a charity. "Advocacy group" sounds American to me. -- Alarics (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • D -- this doesn't seem like first-sentence material. In particular, "registered charity" is a legal term of art; throwing those around without elaboration is a good way to sow confusion and misconceptions among a general readership, and an opening sentence is a poor place to fit nuances and clarifications. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding term of art and elaboration: I would change the link for 'registered charity' to link to Charity Commission for England and Wales, which I think is more explanatory than the current link. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • D: Firefangledfeathers gets it right. Technical regulatory status is not a significant detail here, so the main thing achieved by including the phrase is giving non-neutral (positive) connotations. We don't really care about legal status in the lead, except where it's been the subject of significant attention (here it has, but over whether it should be a registered charity, even less of a reason to state it as uncontested fact in the first sentence). What we care about is what the group actually does. — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • D - It's not relevant to identifying who / what they are, and is clearly only included at the moment to suggest respectability. Fieari (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • B (preferably) or A. In the UK, having the status of registered charity has implications for an organisation's finances, bureaucratic structure and legal responsibilities - i.e. the nature of what the organisation is. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Q4. If charity is mentioned should challenge to charitable status be mentioned

If mention is made of 'charity' or similar option in Q3, should the opening sentence refer to the ongoing controversy over, or challenges to, the charitable status? If so how? The Land (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  • per above. No not status nor challenge in the opening sentence, but challenge could go in the body or possibly late in the lead, briefly. Pincrete (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this is a good illustration of why we don't want to get into this stuff in the opening sentence. This is why I prefer D to B above. We need to establish a bit of context first otherwise we will confuse readers who are not already familiar with the topic. We do need to get into it later on though. It definitely does belong in the introduction but not in the first sentence. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes though I agree with DanielRigal that it doesn't need to be in the first sentence. Lead follows body, and both the charitable status and its appeal is mentioned in the body. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No, not in the opening sentence, but it should be mentioned shortly afterwards, in the opening paragraph. It is unusual for an organisation’s charitable status to be challenged, and so this is significant information for readers. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - this is about the only time sources bother to mention the "registered charity" status. But I'd just leave it out, unless they actually lose this status, which would then probably be worth mentioning. Tewdar (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No, not in the opening sentence. It would be impossible to add there without reading weirdly and POV. Mentioning this later in the lead is fine. Crossroads -talk- 19:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes if we're going to mention it at all. The dispute over their designation is the only thing that makes it noteworthy and therefore the only context in which it could be mentioned in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, calling it a charity without this context is non-neutral because it would imply that this organization's charity status is broadly respected or agreed-upon when it is not. PBZE (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes mentioning charitable status immediately makes the challenge relevant. -- The Anome (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Since the charitible status is being challenged in court it makes sense to me to exclude the charitable status from the first sentence and have the fact they have charitible status, the reaction from LGBT groups and the challenge to the status together in a later sentence in the lede. John Cummings (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, since its status as a charity is controversial. Wherever "charity" is first mentioned, something similar to "charity" belongs. It would be best to address this later in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No, or at least not in the lead. The challenge will of course become more worthy of mention if and when the court upholds it. We should not appear to be pre-empting the court's decision. -- Alarics (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - But I still argue against the inclusion regardless. Fieari (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Not in opening sentence, which should establish what an article subject is, and not get bogged down in what it might become (which can be outlined elsewhere in the lead). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The Land thanks for starting this RFC, it seems as though there is broad consensus on the questions you've asked. What are the next steps? John Cummings (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the next step is for someone to close the discussion - given the topic, it's probably worth waiting another couple of weeks (RfCs are meant to run for 30 days, and we are still getting comments at the moment), and then probably worth dropping a line at WP:CR to get someone uninvolved to close it. Then we can move on to the RfC on the contents of the second sentence of the article. The Land (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
The 30 days are now over, and I've listed this discussion for closure at WP:CR. Firefangledfeathers 18:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Parris, Matthew (2021-05-22). "Stonewall should stay out of trans rights war". The Times. Retrieved 2021-05-25.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stonewall ‘charity’

As a result of the RfC, the first sentence of this article no longer refers to the LGB Alliance as a charity. However, the first sentence refers to Stonewall as a charity. This has the effect of implying that LGBA is not a charity, and you have to get to the end of the lead to find out that LGBA is also a charity. So I propose that either (1) the words ‘LGBT rights charity’ be deleted from the first sentence, or (2) that the word ‘charity’ be replaced by the word ‘organisation’. Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any implication in the current lead sentence that the Alliance is or is not a charity. Also, AFAIK Stonewall (charity) is uncontroversially a charity, so I am unsure why anyone would try to create FUD using a false parallel between the two- the reasoning that prevailed in the recent RfC here does not apply to Stonewall. Newimpartial (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: What’s an FUD? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Try FUD. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
We had a whole RfC about what to put in this article that ended only a couple of days ago. We had a good number of participants and there was a pretty good consensus. We will not be reopening this can of worms again for at least a while.
Kvetching about the Stonewall article is completely off off-topic here. As Newimpartial says, it is argument from a false parallel. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
To Newimpartial: Ah. Thank you – I had thought an FUD might be some sub-variety of RfC. Or that the FU part might stand for a well-known phrase. But I don’t see how my proposal could be regarded as disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear.
To Daniel Rigal – I am not complaining about the Stonewall article – I am pointing out a problem with this article.
Sweet6970 (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You have drawn a false parallel between the two organizations. "Fear" might not really apply, but "uncertainty" and "doubt" are quite relevant in this instance. There is no actual uncertainty or doubt that the two cases - and the sourcing behind them - are very different, but here you are suggesting (without evidence) that maybe they should be treated the same... Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to gently point out @Sweet6970: that you're kinda re-litigating the RfC that closed only yesterday, making very similar points as you did for question 3. I'd also point out that the last sentence of the lead currently contains information about the charity registration, the controversial nature of it, and the legal challenge against it. I suppose an argument could be made for bringing that paragraph earlier in the lead, perhaps as the second sentence however. But we should otherwise stick with the consensus established in the RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
(reply delayed by edit conflict) To Newimpartial: I don’t want to be rude and ignore your post, but I think that if I answered it, we would be drifting off into WP:NOTFORUM territory. I have got the message that you and DanielRigal do not agree with my proposal. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

New lead edit

As of right now, this article is included in Category:Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom, and the consensus that this article belongs in either this category or its parent category seems to be unopposed. I have edited the article's lead to reflect this fact, which is possibly the most notable fact about the organization. If anyone is opposed to the description of the organization as being opposed to transgender rights, please let me know. PBZE (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@PBZE: Since you ask, I am dubious about having this category applied to this article. ‘Anti-trans’ is what other people/organisations say about them, and that is why this is attributed in the article. In a category, you can’t attribute. Presumably it would not be appropriate to have a category ‘Organisations said to be opposed to transgender rights’ (?) Sweet6970 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the first sentence should include the description in some form. (possible alternatives could be e.g. "is a British advocacy group that opposes transgender rights" or "is a British advocacy group described as anti-trans" or something like that). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't want to bring this up since it would inevitably be a pain, but that category may violate WP:CATPOV and possibly WP:CATV. Even if some sources support it, most sources when introducing the group seem not to describe it that way. The placement of a category is not relevant since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and it implies nothing about majorly shifting the WP:WEIGHT in this way. The opening sentence has already been decided on by #RFC_on_opening_sentence above on this very page. Pinging Mattymmoo since Mattymmoo reverted you and hence has a stake in this dispute. Crossroads -talk- 01:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The sentence reinstated by you is, quite frankly, very poorly written purely in terms of readability and quality. No less than five co-founders, four of whom are non-notable (no articles), are squeezed into the first sentence (it would be better to mention them later), in addition to the date the group was founded (it would be more appropriate in one of the following sentences, e.g. the second sentence), an organisation they oppose and other information, and finally the word transgender (the only topic they are known for focusing on) is mentioned at the very end of a lengthy sentence and in relation to a different organisation. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I do think that at a bare minimum it doesn't really make sense to include the founders in the first sentence, since they're not a defining aspect of the topic. The focus on their split from Stonewall doesn't precisely seem like first-sentence material, either - it's a key part of their history (since it relates to how they were founded) but isn't the core definition of the group and doesn't belong in the first-sentence concise summary of the topic; their stance on trans rights (or however it ought to be worded) is, since it's the crux of their advocacy and the focus of essentially all coverage of them - they're a topic notable for one reason. There's room to massage the exact wording, but both the other versions were more to-the-point summaries in that respect. --Aquillion (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I think moving the founders out of the first sentence, perhaps into the second or third, would help with the run-on nature of the first sentence. Two possible alternatives below. Same sources and Wikilinks would be kept as current for either version.
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to LGBT rights charity Stonewall's policies on transgender issues. Its founders were Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott. This is the same as the current wording, but moves the founders to the second sentence.
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to LGBT rights charity Stonewall's policies on transgender rights. Its founders were Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott. This is almost the same as the current wording, but replaces transgender issues with transgender rights, as well as moving the founders to the second sentence.
I'm fairly certain we can find consensus for the first variant, or some slight adjustment of it for wording and placement of the founders sentence.
However neither of these addresses the point that @Aquillion: raised, about whether or not the split from Stonewall is first sentence material. Having only recently had an RfC on this, I would be wary of changing too far from the established consensus so early. Personally I'm OK with the Stonewall mention in the first sentence, the nature of that split was an important part of early media coverage on the organisation. While more recent coverage tends to cover statements they've made, either on social media or as commentary to journalism, the split and the reason for it is still a key part of their history. I'd also be concerned that if the split from Stonewall is moved to a later sentence, the first sentence becomes rather short, unless there's some other content we want to add there? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I would be happy with either of these changes, if "policies on" were replaced by "support for", which would be more to the point and which might also assuage some of Aquillion's underlying concern. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I prefer the first of SS9’s suggested wordings, as it is more neutral. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Either option would be an improvement compared to the current sentence. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
First is better and is fine with me; it's just a switching around of words that doesn't change the meaning, hence RfC compliant. Crossroads -talk- 05:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
As there appears to be a stronger consensus for the first version, I'll make that edit now. I am interesting in hearing @Aquillion:'s views on substituting support for with policies for as proposed by Newimpartial, but that's a small enough change to make later. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The Scotsman: House of Commons Speaker refers historic ‘abuse’ sent by LGB Alliance to Scottish MP John Nicolson to security after David Amess killing

Unsure how to include this, would appreciate if someone could have a look and add

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That's already in the article. See the last paragraph in LGB Alliance#History. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry to miss it. John Cummings (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

MP calls for 'minimum standard of behaviour' for organisations seeking charity status

This article includes an MP discussion about if charity law should be changed given LGB Alliance's behaviour, unsure how it could be included.

John Cummings (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

There's two places that seem like it'd be obvious to place it. There's a sentence on/by Nicolson in the "Media coverage and criticism" section, and we could append a summary of this source to that. Or, because it is tied to their charitable status and mentions the appeal against it we could add a summary to the end of that section. I'd prefer the later, adding it to the Charitable status section as it is more relevant there. We can also probably get the DCMS transcript from Hansard if we want to put a specific date to when Nicolson said this, I don't think that would be OR or SYNTH. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Sideswipe9th that any comment would be better placed in the Charitable status section. But I'd like to know what the proposed comment would be. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_6&oldid=1072156494"