Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2022

Change " well as former television writer and anti-trans activist and comedy writer Graham Linehan"

To

"well as television and comedy writer Graham Linehan"

The reason for this is that the choice of adjectives are simply a matter of opinion and not fact 2A00:23C7:C491:3001:8866:78B1:66A4:4708 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

To me, the words we are currently using seem correct but in a weird order. I don't like there being two "and"s in the same sentence. Of course, there is absolutely no good reason to remove "anti-trans activist" as that is unambiguously correct and, in fact, it seems to be his principle public activity these days. I'd be happy to see a change to "as well as the television comedy writer and anti-trans activist Graham Linehan". This is shorter and more readable without losing any meaning. We would be doing him the courtesy of prioritising his former career over his current activities by listing that first so I can see no reason for complaint. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that'd be a good change. The current word order is confusing to say the least. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Does he himself explicitly claim to be an "anti-trans activist"? If so, fine. If not, it comes across as highly POV for WP to describe him as such. -- Alarics (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

From what I can gather online, he had done so circa July 2018 on his Twitter. Though I'm unable to link those tweets as his account was banned and I can't quickly find them in one of the usual archive sites. It wouldn't surprise me if he has continued to call himself such on his Substack, but large portions of that are behind a paywall. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

(e-c) @Alarics: a better place to raise that concern would be at Graham's talk page. This article defers to how sources there characterise him. If you do challenge that, make sure to check the talk page archives first for prior discussions on that topic, as it no doubt will have been discussed multiple times. Regardless there was sufficient sourcing in Graham Linehan#Anti-transgender activism to apply that descriptor to him without violating NPOV last I checked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Basically every reliable source discussing him in the past half a decade describes him as such, either as pushing "anti-trans views" or pushing "anti-trans rhetoric". And that particular aspect of description of him in said reliable sources is relevant to the subject of this article, hence why it is mentioned. Silverseren^C 00:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Good edit. I think the previous wording was actually a bit misleading – former television writer... and comedy writer suggests he wrote comedy outside of television, which I don't think is true. The new version, television comedy writer doesn't have this problem. Srey Sros^talk 00:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"twenty-two Stonewall members"

From the start, Stonewall did not want to be a 'membership organisation' and the only "members" of Stonewall are those who are current directors (see the Articles of Association at Companies House). So this must be wrong - Stonewall did not have twenty two members in 2019! - and I have changed this to "people". What were the twenty two claiming to be: members (wrong) or something else? Lovingboth (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

We should try to find an accurate term to describe their association with Stonewall. Maybe we can go with something more vague in the meantime. "People associated with Stonewall" maybe? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"People who say they once supported Stonewall, honest, really"? Lovingboth (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Slightly more seriously, without records from Stonewall, verifying that the bulk of them had any real connection to the organisation is not going to be possible. I've been to a meeting with their then CEO and once applied for a job there: am I "associated" with it? Lovingboth (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I share your suspicions, particularity given the laughable attempts spin it as "Stonewall has split", but it would be helpful for our readers to know what the alleged connection is, if there actually is one and if it can be reliably sourced. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"Former supporters of Stonewall" seems like it would be the logical choice, given that they ceased being supporters in order to found the LGB Alliance. Do we have sourcing for that is the question though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a non-paywalled version of the letter? Without knowing the names, it's not possible to check. Lovingboth (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You should be able to access the article cited for the letter through this link on archive.today. The letter itself with the list of signatories appears about a quarter of the way down this page. More general advice, if you run up against a media paywall check to see if the unpaywalled version of the page has been archived in either the Wayback Machine or archive.today. Odds are usually good someone has archived it on one of those sites. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Membership – edit 29 July 2022

I am reverting the edit [1] about the membership because (a) it is ultimately sourced to a tweet, and (b) because, even in the tweet linked, I can’t find anything saying the membership is about 4,500. If you wish to reinsert this inf, please provide a better source. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I also can't find anything saying that LGB Alliance has said that it is a 'gender critical' organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I restored the edit. The source seems reliable for the statement - Wikipedia is not a fact checking outfit. Newimpartial (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A lot of people have been mistakenly talking about this referring to "membership" despite the LGBA not actually being a membership organisation. The removed content states that this refers to subscribers to its mailing list. That is much more plausible, and I assume that it is correct, but it is not what the reference says. If you follow the breadcrumbs from Novara, to the tweet, to the screenshots of the other tweets when you get an unofficial transcript of the court proceedings in which the LGBA say that this is indeed about their mailing list subscribers. I have no reason to doubt that this is correct but it is not WP:RS so I agree that it needs better sources. I'll see if I can find anything but I'm not hopeful. Personally, I'd love to know how many people on that mailing list identify as "journalists" but that's not a topic for this page. ;-)

I think I saw some people on Twitter saying that the judge in the Bailey case had said the LGBA was "Gender Critical" but I don't know if they were paraphrasing or even if they were correct. The Novara article identifies Bailey as "Gender Critical" but not the LGBA itself. DanielRigal (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm not seeing any RS coverage of it yet using the phrase "mailing list". This may well change as more in-depth coverage comes in. OTOH, maybe I'm not searching correctly, so if anybody else wants to have a try... DanielRigal (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I support excluding the content, particularly the membership number in the infobox. First, we should be citing the source we're actually using, which is the tweet, not the Novara Media piece. Second, subscription to a mailing list is not membership. Of the body content, only "mailing list, of which 7% identified as lesbians" is supported by the cited source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request - A better criticism section and a clearer intro

There's more criticism above the fold than there is discussion of the group's stated goals. Everything struck out needs to be in a 'Community Reaction' section. Without actually clearly mentioning the groups stated purpose before their purported purpose much of the criticism doesn't even make sense.

Proposed intro:

The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.[1] Its founders were Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott.text moved down

The LGB Alliance describes its objective as "asserting the right of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men to define themselves as same-sex attracted", and states that such a right is threatened by "attempts to introduce confusion between biological sex and the notion of gender".[1] The group has been described by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights as transphobic, in a statement signed by a number of Labour MPs including current Deputy Leader Angela Rayner, and by SNP MP John Nicolson,[5][6][7] and by articles in two scholarly journals as "trans-exclusionary".[8][9] It has also been described by Labour MPs and several LGBT organisations and activists as a hate group.[10][11][12][13]

LGBA opposes gender-identity education in schools,[2] medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria,[3] and gender recognition reform.[4]

The group was granted charitable status by the Charity Commission in April 2021, which was controversial with LGBT groups in the UK, fifty of whom signed an open letter condemning it.[14] A hearing for an appeal against its charitable status will take place in the First-tier Tribunal in September 2022.[15]

InverseZebra (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I don't think we have a problem with the introduction and certainly not one that would even begin to justify such a drastic removal of relevant material. The introduction summarises the body of the article. The thing that I can understand a reader unfamiliar with the subject finding strange is lack of coverage of the group's activities within their official remit however there is an unavoidable reason for that; They don't seem to have any significant activities that are not linked to opposition to Stonewall or trans people and we can't cover stuff that doesn't exist. If readers read this and find it strange then that's fair enough. It is quite strange. It is not for us to pass comment on this strangeness in the article but it is also not for us to seek to hide it. Should they undertake any non-trivial activities related to activism for lesbian, gay or bisexual causes then those can, of course, be added to the article if reliably referenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say remove, I said move. To a dedicated section that would allow the criticism to be expanded upon instead of lost in references.

To anyone who knows the issue the critical point is that LGBA is seen as excluding trans (TQ+) by focusing on LGB. These words are not in the article, nor is anything close to it. The pull-quote from the Independent "... has been heavily criticised for excluding ..." is in the references but should be the start of the criticism section. Nobody is quoted explaining the context of why LGBA having a group for some people is excluding others and so the article makes no sense to the "average person". We know that BLM is not the JADL and neither one is criticized for their focus. Why is it different here?

But the answer isn't to shove other people's judgements of them into the intro, but to explain the context, their goals and claims, the community inferences, and finally the judgements. Read this article while wearing your reader hat, not your editor/politcal hat, and see if it explains that. InverseZebra (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

At present, the only thing truly notable about the LGB Alliance is other people's commentary on them. As DanielRigal has said they don't seem to have any significant activities that are not linked to opposition to Stonewall or trans people. The struck commentary in your second proposed paragraph is necessary to address WP:BALANCE issues. And the struck sentence in the final paragraph on the charitible status appeal is WP:DUE in the lead as they are one of the few British charities to face such a tribunal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

They got the criticism the moment they were created though, so it's not an issue of having significant activities. (Founded in Sept 2019, criticism written in Oct 2019.) Their mission statement itself is generally what draws criticism, as the Independent's reference states. Also, not struck but marked to move as I said. I think the criticism should be expanded on, just not in the intro where it chokes out what it's criticizing. InverseZebra (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The key point here is that the fundamental nature of this organisation is disputed. I think there is very limited scope for improvement until additional information starts to come out of the tribunal. At that point we should get a clearer view of what this organisation actually claims, does and, more fundamentally, is. To provide readers with a smoother flow of information, I would not be against moving the first sentence of paragraph 2 up to be the second sentence of paragraph 1 but I see nothing in the introduction that should not be there. DanielRigal (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I support the movement of sentences proposed in the post above. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

> Move P2S1 to P1S2.

Yes, that sounds good.

> but I see nothing in the introduction that should not be there

It's an issue of volume. There's more criticism than fact (the LGBA mission statement) and yet the criticism isn't complete and useful as is, so it should be moved so it can be improved.

The test of the criticism is, is the issue as described by The Independent clear to a reader? That was written shortly after the LGBA's creation and is about the central issue that drew criticism on day one. InverseZebra (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the sentences, as discussed above. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

And I have reverted. I fail to see a consensus for the requested changes. Newimpartial (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Then look again: InverseZebra, DanielRigal and I are in favour of the change I made, and no-one objected. That is a consensus. Please edit collaboratively, respecting consensus. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

DanielRigal does not oppose; that isn't the same thing as support. And I read Sideswipe9th's comment as opposing. Since I also oppose (for now), that gives me a head count of two in favour, two opposed and one neutral. Not that we are supposed to edit by head count. Newimpartial (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Read the discussion again. DanielRigal suggested the change. I and InverseZebra supported it. Sideswipe9th has made no comment on this proposed change. Up to the point that I made the change, no-one had objected. You have not said why you object to it. There is still consensus for the change. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The initial statement of this section reads, There's more criticism above the fold than there is discussion of the group's stated goals....Without actually clearly mentioning the groups stated purpose before their purported purpose much of the criticism doesn't even make sense. Sideswipe9th responded to this in the negative, saying At present, the only thing truly notable about the LGB Alliance is other people's commentary on them. DanielRegal took a more accommodating position, objecting to the original request but "not opposing" the move of one sentence. I oppose the move, based on Sideswipwipe9th's rationale above - namely, that the supposed aims of the organization are not what it is known for, and not what the article primarily discusses (thereby following WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY).

Is it clear to you now that we do not (yet) have consensus for this change? Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You are being far too accommodating, Newimpartial. Since when do we include an organization's mission statement (and as a quote, to boot) in the lead at all? The entire sentence beginning, The LGB Alliance describes its objective as... should not be anywhere near the article lead, the focus of which should be on the perspective of independent sources, not the organization's own rhetoric. We wouldn't allow this in an article about a political party, company etc. I think one would get very short shrift trying to insert something equivalent into the Stonewall article, for example. Moving it up the lead instead beggars belief. CIreland (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

In general we do not include an organisations mission statement, the WP:MISSION essay covers most of the reasons why they're typically undue. The LGB Alliance's statement is unusual in that we actually can verify it via at least one third party source, and a not insignificant part of the controversy surrounding the organisation is contrasting how they do not meet their own purported goals, though that is not covered in the lead.

I definitely agree that we should not move it up the lead. I have no strong feelings on whether or not it should be removed entirely. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I oppose removing it, and think it flows better by moving it up. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Once again, there is a majority for moving the sentence. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

How is three in support and three opposed a majority for moving? Are you the vice-president who breaks ties, or something? Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The reason change is needed is that the article only makes sense to people who already know the entire situation. Join us. You don't need to make it sympathetic to make it useful. InverseZebra (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I am against the move. It seems very strange to remove all elements of the responses that form the bulk of the actual writing and commentary about the LGB Alliance from the lead itself. The organisation is basically only notable because its existence is so controversial. Battleofalma (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Since when? Because the article is primarily about criticism of that mission statement. If you don't have that statement before the criticism it doesn't make sense. And we also need to expand that criticism with quotes explaining why separation is being viewed as exclusion. InverseZebra (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

DanielRigal + InverseZebra + Sweet6970 + Crossroads = 4

Newimpartial + Sideswipe9th + CIreland = 3

4>3 No Vice President required. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think would not oppose statements are generally counted as !votes in favor; I also don't think a 4/3 split (if one existed) would count as a policy-based WP:CONSENSUS to amend the lead. Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

To clarify my position. I was just making a tentative suggestion. I don't feel strongly about it. I felt it improved the flow of information slightly but I was, and remain, open to the possibility that there might be arguments against it. Even though I'm the one who suggested it (and I wouldn't have said anything if I had known it would cause so much trouble) I'd like to be counted as neutral in this. DanielRigal (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

To DanielRigal: I apologise for misinterpreting your view on this matter. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it should be moved; honestly, I'm dubious about it being there at all. Mission statements aren't particularly useful when compared to in-depth coverage; even when they're quoted in secondary sources, I don't think they should be given prominent placement in the lead due to the risk of putting undue weight on the subject's self-description vs. how they're described in more neutral coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  My view is basically the same as Aquillion's plus a reference to WP:MISSION (an essay). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Usual" articles tend to have more details. As has been mentioned, the LBGA hasn't done much so they probably wouldn't be notable without the reaction to their words. As such, being that the mission statement is what's being criticized, it makes sense to move it (as the only fact, so to speak) up so that the criticism can be more tangible as well.

  It feels like some editors are placing a lot of weight on not giving the LGBA the privilege of having their words platformed, or something. Rules that are perhaps better used to stop self-promotion are being suggested here but instead of preserving the article they're weakening it by preventing pertinent details from being added. As I said above, we can write a useful article without having to write a sympathetic one. InverseZebra (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Fundamentally the most notable feature of the LGB Alliance is that many, within and without the LGBT community, believe that it is a dishonest organisation and dishonest in its intentions. This is why the bulk of the actual coverage of the organisation (that confers notability) is essentially questioning the values of the organisation and the veracity of their claims. Given this, it makes little sense to define the organisation as it describes itself. Battleofalma (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is what's being criticized, in the sense that the other sources in that paragraph don't mention it at all. Their mission statement (at least based on available sources) just isn't a particularly significant aspect, getting only a passing mention in a single source. Does it make sense to lead the second paragraph of the lead with that? --Aquillion (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Are the international versions notable enough to include in the lead paragraph?

Hi all

I wanted to check what people thought about including information on the international versions in the lead paragraph, I included it and then Crossroads removed it. I just wanted to have a discussion here so we can come to consensus that can be refered back to.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd say probably not. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should "summarize the most important points" of the article, and I don't think the international versions are one of the most important details about the group (at least not so far). NHCLS (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Since I last edited this article on 8 August, a section International offshoots has been added. It’s not clear what ‘offshoots’ means. As far as I can see, none of the ‘offshoots’ has any direct connection with the British organisation. The section implies that LGB Alliance is an international organisation with branches in other countries. This is misleading.

So: not only should there be no mention of these other organisations in the lead, the whole section International offshoots should be deleted.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The group's about page on their site seems to endorse these other groups: https://lgballiance.org.uk/about/ but specifies they are separate orgs. Some of them use extremely similar iconography and identical org names to the point they're obvious offshoots, others less so. Chillabit (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the international offshoots section. The organisations are linked to a degree, they share similar branding, are linked on the UK organisation's website, quite obviously share the same point of view and talking points, the co-founder of the Irish branch has been platformed by the UK organisation on their YouTube channel, and given the geographical closeness between Ireland and the UK PinkNews have remarked on how most of the Irish branch's membership appears to be UK based. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Not only do the other groups use pretty much identical branding, the sources all mention that they're linked to the British group. For the Icelandic group: "The newly formed debate platform has a connection to the British LGB Alliance... The Icelandic LGB Alliance’s Facebook page contains images from the British LGB Alliance." For the Australian group: "The LGB Alliance Australia, which describes itself as the “Aussie edition” of the British anti-trans group". The Irish has specifically been accused of being mostly made up of UK LGB Alliance members and the Global Project against Hate and Extremism explicitly describes it as being "an offshoot of the UK LGB Alliance." They may not be directly run by the British org, but they're definitely directly connected. NHCLS (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that "offshoots" is the best word for them but I'm struggling to think of a better term. It is hard to know how to describe these other groups as it is very hard to know how substantial they are. I mean, they tweet, but that else do they do? We do know that the Ireland, Iceland and Australia ones have been active within their respective countries and are notable enough to mention. Which brings us back to the actual topic at hand. Do they belong in the lead? Probably not. Do they belong in the body? Definitely, yes, albeit only briefly. DanielRigal (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I've changed "offshoots" to "groups", as that is the most generic thing I can think of, and tidied it up a bit. DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

> they tweet, but that else do they do?

They appear to be somewhat active in lobbying against specific government policies or bills. Search for the LGB Alliance Canada, Australia, and USA, you'll find this is the context they sometimes show up in on news reports or official parliamentarian proceedings, where they ever do. At least those three, I can recall. Some of the other groups are practically just inactive or entirely exist on social media. Chillabit (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

To DanielRigal: Thank you for amending the wording. I am still doubtful whether this section should be in the article, but the amended wording is much more accurate. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

A classic problem with categories

This is not a new issue and not a new issue for this article, but I think it deserves attention. The LGB Alliance website is clear: "LGB Alliance supports trans rights". "We fully support trans people in their struggle, for dignity, respect and a life lived free from bigotry and fear." And yet, we have a *category* here of "Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom". I don't see any way to justify that on the face of it, but I acknowledge that the issue is complex. But with categorizations that necessarily imply "in or out" we ought to err on the site of clarity and caution - particularly when being "anti-trans rights" is a pretty hardcore accusation with BLP implications. I'm removing the category for now on BLP grounds, and invite further discussion here. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the BLP ground is here as this is an organisation with just enough people in it for the category not to reflect on any particular individuals to any significant degree. (If it is felt that any particular individual is getting too much coverage making it into a BLP issue then maybe that individual should be covered less?) Also, I think that we have adequate sources to support the categorisation. Of course, we can note their denials but they do not override the third party sources. We see the same sort of denials from lots of white supremacist organisations with their "We're not racist but [insert something incredibly racist here]" rhetoric. We don't take the appropriate categorisations off those. I don't think that it is even slightly controversial that this is an organisation that opposes transgender rights in the United Kingdom. The only controversy is over whether this is a good thing or not. While you are looking at their website, check out their own list of campaigns. About 2/3rds of those are about opposing rights and protections for transgender people. That is the primary focus of the organisation. Add to that that a bisexual woman was assaulted at their conference simply for being visibly transgender and there is no ambiguity here. I agree that there has to be a high bar for this sort of category. I think that bar is easily cleared here. DanielRigal (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree and it's pretty clear to me that reaching for "white supremacist organizations" illustrates clearly why there is a core BLP issue here. You're calling a group of people bigots, and there's got to be a pretty high bar for that. I don't think the existing sources establish the matter clearly enough to have a *category* label, but clearly a great deal of the article should be about just what their positions actually are, and the sources have a huge amount to say on that (including most especially the sources that accurately report their actual position on actual policy, as opposed to pushing an agenda one way or the other).

It is quite controversial to say that this is an organization that opposes transgender rights in the UK, and I think your characterization of that is one-sided to say the least. For now, though, the issue is simply the category tag, and I think it is clear that it is a BLP issue.

UPDATE: I want to clarify the argument about the BLP issue. I don't think you would say that it's not a BLP issue to call a large organization "white supremacist" if it is "big enough". To the extent there are public supporters of the organization who are BLP subjects, calling them members of an organization that is "white supremacist" is a big deal - and well warranted in some cases. This is a more abstract point, illustrating why saying that an organization is bigoted definitely brings up BLP issues. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have independent sources supporting your belief that it is quite controversial to say that this is an organization that opposes transgender rights in the UK, or is this just something you, personally, believe? I haven't seen any such claims among the reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree about the very high bar, which I believe we clear here easily with more than adequate sources. I can't agree that BLP applies to all organisations. If that were the case it wouldn't be a BLP policy at all it would be something vastly more general. As I see it BLP applies to biographies and to biographical content about individuals in non-biography articles. If somebody says something is a BLP issue but they can't say who the specific people in the alleged BLP issue are then I think they can only be mistaken. DanielRigal (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The BLP policy includes WP:BLPGROUP, which says "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies." LGB Alliance, as a registered charitable organization, seems to count. I think there's a valid NPOV argument to be made here, and it would be good for us to look at the sources. If they're not strong enough for a wiki-voice statement that the group opposes trans rights—which the article doesn't currently include—we should keep the category out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the current "LGBT-related controversies" tag suffices and is more neutral. I don't even know why we have the other category. "Transgender rights" is not a particularly clear term. What exactly are those who are said to oppose it opposing? Gender self-identification? Then state that. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you opposed to the entire "Organizations that oppose LGBT rights" category then? I think what is being referred to by transgender rights, gay rights, and LGBT rights is all pretty clear and we even have articles that explain them here on Wikipedia, such as Transgender rights movement and the broader article at LGBT movements. Silverseren^C 00:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Just glancing through the criticism section shows me that we do have abundant sourcing to say they oppose trans rights in wikivoice. I mean, we have three separate journal articles that say this. It's not even ambiguous, as there aren't really any countervailing sources other than the LGB Alliance's own denial. Loki (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are you here, Jimbo? Did these anti-LGBT groups reach out to you and complain? It's strange for you to suddenly bring this up on this talk page. Was there a discussion on your user talk page that brought up this article? Silverseren^C 00:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I won't dignify that with an answer as it is obviously irrelevant to the question at hand, which is how to improve Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian, so that's why I'm here, editing Wikipedia. Don't be silly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm asking because your summary of the sourcing above is wholly incorrect. Basically all of the available reliable sources refer to the group as an anti-trans organization, if not an outright anti-LGBT one. Trying to make a claim about them off of their website is asinine and has nothing to do with their coverage in reliable sources. You, as a Wikipedian, should know that. Silverseren^C 12:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales I don't think that taking the LGB Alliance's website at face value is sensible. Like other groups that are considered by some to be hate groups what they say on their website and what they do are quite different. One example; "We fully support trans people in their struggle, for dignity, respect and a life lived free from bigotry and fear." is not present in their opposition to making conversion therapy for trans people illegal in the UK. John Cummings (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think @John Cummings gets to the crux of the matter. When what an organisation says about itself is contradicted by what strong sources say (in this case, including two peer-reviewed academic journals), the independent secondary sources are what we should follow. I'd point to WP:COMMONSENSE and our policy on reliable (secondary vs primary) sources to support this course of action.

The argument made by @Jimbo (that assertions about political labels should "err on the side of clarity and caution") often comes up in discussions on hot-button topics, though, and I think it's important to acknowledge that contradictions between different parts of NPOV can lend support to arguments for and against this. (This is disregarding Jimbo's BLP argument, which as others correctly point out only applies to explicit coverage of individuals, not organisations). The only specific guidance for categories is WP:CATPOV, which simply defers to NPOV while "generally" recommending that categories should be "uncontroversial", but this isn't a firm rule. So what does NPOV and its explanatory supplements say?

• Due weight, specifically equal validity, says "not ... every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity ... we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it" (the LGB Alliance's claim it supports trans rights when it is widely reported to obstruct/oppose them is effectively a minority view and unsupported extraordinary claim).
• Assert facts, not opinions says things which are not seriously disputed should be stated as fact, while opinions which are "subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective" should be attributed to people who hold that view.
• Balance, impartial tone and no objectivity say that when "when reputable sources both contradict one another and also are relatively equal in prominence" we should describe the opposing views in the debate, rather than engaging in them.
• Balancing aspects says we should treat "each aspect [of a subject] with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject"

So what all this guidance on neutrality boils down to is the sources. We've got strong sources which state LGB Alliance is anti-trans, so we're left with a relatively straightforward question: are there quality sources (or sources of relatively equal prominence) which say it isn't? I've not seen any evidence they exist, so categorising it as anti-trans is acceptable. Jr8825 • Talk 11:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jr8825, one question, for an organisation to be included in the category 'Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom' do all of their positions and actions need to oppose trans rights, or only one/some? Eg the groups opposition to making trans conversion therapy illegal in the UK or their opposition to self identification in the Scottish Gender Recognition Act. John Cummings (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

In a case such as this, I don't really think it's our place as editors to be judging whether a group's specific actions equate to a stance on an broader issue, because this could result in synthesis or original interpretation. What matters instead is what the range of voices published in reliable sources say about a group's position/stances (e.g. is a group ubiquitously referred to as far-right, or libertarian, or anti-nuclear etc.). An exception would be when common sense indicates a label clearly does or doesn't apply because of some obvious considerations (an example which springs to mind would be a diverse, decentralised group which doesn't adopt a single organisational stance on an issue). Jr8825 • Talk 14:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We've got strong sources which state LGB Alliance is anti-trans - and which exactly are these? The article text attributes this POV to an advocacy group, a trade union group, and a government official. These are not strong sources. And for such a judgmental label, you truly need strong sources, and for this to be broadly representative rather than cherry-picking a few outliers if most high-quality sources take a different approach, such as framing it as a disagreement over what trans rights exactly are. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's clearly a reasonable summary of at the very least - and of course it scarcely needs to be said that this is not a BLP issue (we can take this to BLPN if you honestly think that, but I'm baffled that Jimbo of all people would make that mistake; that much, at least, is extremely clear-cut - there's no way this is small enough to fall under WP:BLPGROUP.) So please don't remove the category when discussion is in progress, especially given that just based on a quick nose-count I'm seeing a consensus to include. I mean... even before I weighed in, the discussion looked to me to be 2 to 6. Part of the reason I hadn't weighed in yet, even though I was reading it, was that I felt that it would be piling-on. Numbers are not everything, but if you're going to remove a longstanding category from an article based on the argument that it lacks consensus, you need more than this - start an RFC, say, or raise it on WP:NPOVN or something if you're convinced your position is so manifestly correct that the people who disagree need to be disregarded. You can't just declare there to be no consensus simply because you yourself are not satisfied. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources I'm referring to are the journal articles and academics, not the other public figures. Jr8825 • Talk 06:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is problematic because the label anti trans is a value judgement, not a fact. You can say that they are accused of being anti trans but in my view you need much stronger sources supporting consensus to present it so prominently. As far as I can tell, they say gender is only a social construct. BozMo talk 13:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Two things are getting mixed up here. The category (which is not prominent, and is specific, i.e. "oppose transgender rights") and the recent addition of "anti-trans" as a descriptor in the leading sentence. My argument only relates to the category. I haven't finalised my view on the first sentence and don't have a strong opinion at the moment, but I'm uncomfortable with it and not convinced the change is appropriate/necessary (in fact I reverted the addition per BRD, but was myself reverted). The current revision has restored the original text without "anti-trans". I think we probably need a discussion specifically on changes to the lead sentence, so editors in favour of its addition can present their argument. Jr8825 • Talk 14:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

BuzMo, there is no site-wide consensus that "anti-trans" is inherently a value judgement or subject to higher standards of sourcing (and we are already referencing academic sources here). You personally may agree with the alliance that gender is only a social construct, but the corollary that gender identity does not therefore exist, or should be treated for policy purposes as though it did not exist, is a FRINGE POV that can be quite uncontroversially (and without "value judgement" be described as "anti-trans". Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me like only the first of those three sources directly calls them "anti-trans", and that's listed as a "brief report" in that journal (not sure if this makes a difference, just pointing it out). Other terms are not necessarily equivalent when it comes to supporting this one.

Regarding what positions can be called "anti-trans", the problem is that there are some tabloid/clickbait outlets that use the term very liberally. It gets thrown around for everything from clear and direct hatred (fair label in that case) all the way to, say, just thinking that there should be some medically-based standard for sports categories other than pure gender self-identification. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Pink News: Ex-Tory MP accuses anti-trans pressure groups of ‘Machiavellian’ lobbying in leadership race

This story describes lobbying efforts by LGB Alliance and others, I'm unsure how to include this in the article, any suggestions?

• https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/09/02/ben-howlett-conservative-leadership-race-trans-lgb-alliance/

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

What’s the information that needs to be added to the article? The story seems to just be stating that lobbying is happening. Is it surprising that an advocacy group would be doing that? The article doesn’t explain what is Machiavellian about it. The reader is left with the impression that something illicit has occurred but I can’t tell what that might be. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Creating a section on funding

Hi all

I'd like to create a section on how the organisation is funded, there are some short statements in other sections already but it makes sense to me to have a dedicated section. Is anyone aware of references for it?

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we have good enough sources to expand this coverage? I've heard a lot that sounds plausible but I've not seen much solid RS about it. Even if something substantial comes out in the tribunal case we won't be able to use it unless RS pick it up. DanielRigal (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Lgb was literally founded to excluding trans people

This statement not being in this article is a clear edit based on a publi-relations pov. Why is Wikipedia doing public relations for a group whose whole existence is based around spreading fear of trans people....89.14.149.17 (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)talonx

Honestly, it wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia has done something that will eventually come back to bite it in the ass. Hell, why else has just about every educational institution banned using Wikipedia for references for school work? 2600:1700:C960:2270:28D4:8F30:DA46:C0D3 (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

See WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. We aren't just adding anything we feel like, it reflects existing sources. Besides, depending on your interpretation, the literal first sentence of this article already reflects your opinion. But that's just one's personal interpretation of the facts at hand. Chillabit (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

So, it's not facts that, every time a supporter of LGB Alliance has been asked to put forth proof of what good the org has actually done for LGB, the supporter has come up empty? It's not hard to do research on Google for how much harm LGB Alliance is doing to the LGBT community. Can only hope that Mermaids is successful in convincing the UK government to strip LGB Alliance of its charity status. Not to mention, all the lies LGB Alliance has gotten its supporters to believe about not just Mermaids, but also about Mermaids's founder. 2600:1700:C960:2270:4D5E:C790:3C63:C595 (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Biased wording in 'Challenge to charitable status' section

There's a lot of slant there. Mermaids and LGBT Consortium witnesses "gave testimony", "raised concerns", and "raised issue", and are given direct quotes, while LGB Alliance attorneys questioning them "attempted to frame..." and what they said is represented by a biased summary taken from Pink News. More neutrality is needed. Some inappropriate comments were also made in edit summaries, such as "God these organizations parody themselves." Editorializing is not proper in edit summaries. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Self-parodying is a factual description when a supposedly pro-LGB organization attacks LGBT+ clubs in schools because of "gay pedo teachers" (literally section 28) and claims that LGB children don't exist (while claiming they do and are being transed and that they'll make a support line for them).

I summarized and used "frame" because the other option was including a long list of all the times they argue that transgender people are menaces to society for various ridiculous reasons. Frame also helps convey these positions are unsupported by any reliable sources or medical organization. Listing them:

1) claiming that inclusive education and resources for young people were intended “to help them decide whether to go on a medical pathway to sterilisation”.

2) She also suggested trans women accessing women’s spaces was dangerous because “men” have a “propensity” for violence against women and, citing the BBC’s infamous anti-trans article, that cis lesbians were being “coerced” into sex with trans women.

The article famously quoted a cis lesbian who'd actually sexually assualted people and called for trans people to be lynched.

3) Reindorf referred repeatedly to allegations among gender-critical campaigners that affirming healthcare for trans youth was “transing the gay away”.

In short, purely based on the sources they attempted to frame the existence of 1) trans inclusive education, 2) trans women existing in public places, and 3) trans healthcare as dangers to women and LGB people.

I'll add the fact they say we're a danger to women and not just LGB people in a second.

Neutrally speaking, saying she cried and quoting her saying "we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian" without the critical context she was referring to (and misgendering) trans women when asked if trans women could be lesbians is a heavy slant. Also her shifting the goalpost from trans women are icky because penis to trans women just icky even without them is a critical detail as it makes it obvious her issue was never the penis part it was the trans part.

Honestly, I find the idea of someone crying because you acknowledge trans people exist and aren't all straight comical. Overall, the mental gymnastics of this organization are comical if not for their constant campaigning against trans rights. While I'm glib about it in the edit comments, the edits themselves stick to the facts and let them speak for themselves. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is biased, and I prefer the wording by Dtobias. The comments by TheTranarchist above are personal views, not relevant to an article in an encyclopaedia.

But I actually think that all the detailed reporting of what was said at the hearing is inappropriate. We should not be providing a running record of what was said at the hearing – that is what newspapers are for. WP:NOTNEWS The current text on this is about the arguments made on both sides, and is open to cherry-picking both by the newspaper reporters, and then again, by editors. We should wait until there is a decision. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

That their views are unsupported by medical consensus is not a personal view, unless you consider me the personification of all research regarding transgender healthcare and rights. That LGB trans people exist is similarly not a personal view. That a quote without context is more biased than it with context is also not a personal view, but hopefully self-evident. Also, presenting something without context is cherry-picking, including context is the opposite fyi.

In terms of a running record, the case recieved a lot of press coverage, mostly surrounding the arguments on both sides, and has been halted for over a month before it will conclude. Will what has already been discussed and covered by the press change when the decision is released? The only thing we need the decision for is the decision itself, the case and arguments are already notable.

How exactly is On September 15, Kate Harris, a co-founder of LGB Alliance, testified that "I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women … We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is." She was reduced to tears during testimony, causing a break in the session.

Which does not actually say what she said this in response to or cover any details apart from a single run-on self-martyring quote

somehow less biased than On September 15, Kate Harris, a co-founder of LGB Alliance, was asked by Michael Gibbon, representing Mermaids, if some people might have a different definition of lesbian than the LGB alliance, since the definition of lesbian had come up repeatedly over the last few days in the hearing. She asked if that meant if "a lesbian can be a man with a penis", and Gibbons responded "Putting it in a more neutral way, that lesbians can include someone who is a woman as a result of gender reassignment". She started crying during testimony, causing a break in the session and later stating "A lesbian is attracted to another biological woman, full stop".

which accounts for the full interaction, past few days of context for the question, and the context she reframed her stance from lesbians can't be attracted to trans women just because they have a penis to lesbians can't be attracted to trans women regardless of their genitalia just because they're trans

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I tried to give the paragraph about 12 September a bit more of a neutral tone. I think here sticking to what was said in the courtroom is better than using the PinkNews writer's words. On the 15 September paragraph I do agree that TheTranarchist's version gives better context. You could tone down the edit summaries a bit though Madeline (part of me) 16:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Will what has already been discussed and covered by the press change when the decision is released? Answer – almost certainly: Yes. The press will be discussing the judge’s view, as given in the decision. This will establish what is notable in this case. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability doesn't seem to me to be an issue here; it is more a matter of WP:DUE. Keeping in mind both NOTNEWS and NOTCRYSTAL, however, I think it is safe to assume that this legal case will be significant to the eventual BALANCE of sourcing about the Alliance, and RS coverage of this is clearly more relevant to readers than much of the ABOUTSELF material that has, at various times, been a significant part of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:N, notability does not apply to article contents. WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:NOT, etc. are more pertinent in this case. Madeline (part of me) 16:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I was using the word ‘notable’ in the ordinary English sense of ‘noteworthy’. In Wikispeak, UNDUE is more what I mean. I agree with Newimpartial that this legal case will be significant to the eventual BALANCE of sourcing about the Alliance - but since there is not yet a decision, and won’t be for some time (because the case has been adjourned to November), I still think that it is not appropriate to pick out various comments from the witnesses and the lawyers. These may turn out to be disregarded by the court. So I would delete all these details from the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Sweet6970 that the partial and selective reporting of statements made during the hearing before the final outcome is known is inappropriate. As of now the article doesn't come across as NPOV at all. It gives an impression of bias against the LGB Alliance. The extensive reliance on citations from Pink News, as if that were an unbiased source, gives it a further slant. Also, WP editors should not in my view use edit summaries to reveal their own POV. -- Alarics (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What would you regard as an NPOV characterization of the LGB Alliance? Preferably in the form of a pithy phrase... Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't closely examined the back and forth of each edit, but WP:SAID should be followed throughout. We also have to watch out for WP:NOTNEWS excessive play-by-play of the case which we don't usually do, and maybe wait for more secondary sources, or at least rewrite when they come. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy

Similarly, you restored a quotation that I think produces needless redundancy. The result is this:

"...a number of groups...appealed against the decision to grant charitable status, on the basis that it did not "meet the threshold tests to be registered as a charity". They say that the LGB Alliance does not meet two key criteria for charitable status..."

Do we really need to say both "did not meet the tests" and "does not meet key criteria" in back-to-back sentences? The "tests" and the "criteria" are exactly the same thing. I think we should pick one or the other. I don't have a strong preference for which one gets removed, but I do think we should employ a little encyclopedic concision here and avoid redundancy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the second sentence specifies the first one - the first sentence says that the appeal is over whether the charity is legitimate, and the second one specifies what the criteria for legitimacy actually are. I didn't - and don't - see any redundancy there. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Compare:

In June 2021, a number of groups, including transgender youth charity Mermaids and the Good Law Project, appealed against the decision to grant charitable status, on the basis that it did not "meet the threshold tests to be registered as a charity". They say that the LGB Alliance does not meet two key criteria for charitable status under the Charities Act 2011: that a charity should "give rise to tangible, legally recognised benefits that outweigh any associated harms", and that they "benefit the public or a sufficient section of the public".

vs

In June 2021, a number of groups, including transgender youth charity Mermaids and the Good Law Project, appealed against the decision to grant charitable status, saying that the LGB Alliance does not meet two key criteria for charitable status under the Charities Act 2011: that a charity should "give rise to tangible, legally recognised benefits that outweigh any associated harms", and that they "benefit the public or a sufficient section of the public".

What factual information is being omitted in the shorter version?

• Both versions say there's a lawsuit.
• Both versions say who filed the lawsuit.
• Both versions say the lawsuit contests the organization's registration as a charity.
• Both versions say that they believe the organization does not qualify under the rules for registering charities.
• Both versions say that they believe the organization fails two points of the requirements.
• Both versions say name the two points.

The only difference is that one version says "they don't meet the tests for charities" and "they don't meet the criteria for charities" – an instance of elegant variation; there is no difference in the meaning of these phrases – and the other doesn't repeat this information twice.

The part that specifies what the criteria for legitimacy are is the part that says "that a charity should "give rise to tangible, legally recognised benefits that outweigh any associated harms", and that they "benefit the public or a sufficient section of the public". I could understand editors objecting if the two criteria themselves were removed, but why should we say "don't meet tests, and don't meet criteria – here's the two tests/criteria", and not just say "don't meet criteria A and B"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Off topic

@Newimpartial, you restored this bit:

Lui Asquith, director of legal and policy at Mermaids, said "LGB Alliance purports to be an organisation that supports lesbian, gay and bisexual people, but it doesn't. Many trans people are LGB and LGB Alliance actively works to oppose the advancement of rights of trans individuals."

into a paragraph about courtroom schedules and which organizations are on which side. I grant that it's a lovely quotation, but do you think that is relevant to a paragraph about names and dates related to a lawsuit? If you want this quotation in the article, maybe you'd consider moving it to the a paragraph that is actually about why people disagree with this group, instead of a paragraph about who's expected to appear in court on which dates. "Why I think they are terrible people" is not who or when. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I have moved the sentence to its place in the chronology. Newimpartial (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Why should a statement in which the organization is criticized appear in the "Lawsuits" section, and not in the LGB Alliance#Media coverage and criticism section? Doesn't it make sense for this criticism to be mentioned in the main criticism section? That quotation doesn't mention the lawsuit at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)