Talk:Mermaids (charity)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Discussion on "rude images" reported by The Times

I asked Paddykumar on their talk page to open a discussion before restoring a section added earlier that was objected too by two other editors. While Paddy did address the GENDERID issue stemming from pronoun use, they did not demonstrate why this article from The Times is WP:DUE.

Paddy per WP:ONUS could you please demonstrate why you think this section and citation is DUE? By my reading of the source, this seems like yet another hit piece put out by The Times to demonise the charity, after trawling through the social media accounts of individuals connected to/working for the charity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Whatever else is true, it is reassuring to see The Times step up with some anti-trans fearmongering; I was afraid The Telegraph would attain an insurmountable advantage with the target market for that form of bigotry. Newimpartial (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Please always keep in mind WP:TALK#TOPIC: Talk pages are meant for editors to figure out how to improve an article, not to converse about this or that. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself whether what you are about to post serves to improve the article, or not, and to refrain from posting if the latter is the case. - LilySophie (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The images are not innocent holiday snaps but are pornographic and appeared in Haus Magazine.

For a children's charity this raises serious safeguarding concerns.

This should also be seen in context with the other two current stories: breast binders and the trustee who had to resign.

All THREE issues were raised by Miriam Cates in her question to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that was broadcast on the BBC on 12 October 2022. This is now very public and very DUE. Paddykumar (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:DUE arises from the strength of coverage in reliable sources, not from the strength of your convictions.

I am also unsure that there is universal agreement that a social media coordinator posting cosplay photos in a fashion magazine raises safeguarding concerns, but clearly Miriam Cates is of a different view than I. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

From what I have seen "[C]osplay photos in a fashion magazine" is very charitable indeed! Miriam has a PGCE, is a former teacher and sits on the Education Select Committee, so is in good position to comment. Paddykumar (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe you have made that last point (or something similar) before, but what matters is what reliable sources say about it. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Times article states that in Haus Magazine Mew is naked and his penis is erect. "Social media coordinator posting cosplay photos in a fashion magazine" is disingenuous. Paddykumar (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTGOSSIP, why does it matter what Mew gets up to in their private life? They are a consenting adult, and there is no sign of evidence that Mew's personal activities have impacted upon their professional work. Also again, please check your pronouns before replying. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, whatever you mean by disingenuous, sharing pictures featuring one's genitals (erect or otherwise) is not exactly unknown among social media coordinators, and selling them to an adult magazine's paying subscribers seems downright responsible. This seems more like a queerphobic witchhunt by The Times and its allies than anything else, to be quite honest. Newimpartial (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The breast binders story is an absolute non-issue, and arguably an attempt to whip up a moral panic. There is no safeguarding concern in this story, and frequent attempts to cast this as a safeguarding issue minimises what actual safeguarding concerns are. And it's kinda a strange indictment that the Metropolitan Police were forced to confirm that supplying or wearing a chest binder is not a criminal offence.

The trustee story is on the one hand concerning, but also not. Delivering a presentation at a conference, no matter how objectionable, is not something that would come up in a standard or enhanced due diligence check. Mermaids themselves have issued a press release detailing how they are addressing this to prevent something similar from happening in the future, as well as assurances that the individual concerned had no contact at all with any of the Mermaids service users. Again there does not appear to be a direct safeguarding issue, and it's being handled responsibly by the charity now that the issue is known.

As for the MP, Miriam Cates, she has attacked both Stonewall and Mermaids in the Commons, in the past, and I would have been shocked if she hadn't made similar comments today. Her call for a police investigation into the charity is kinda on-brand for her at this point.

Finally, as for the images posted by Mew, I've now done a search for other sources that are discussing this, and the only other RS that has any content on this is an opinion article in The Telegraph. As for non-RS discussing it, all I could find were a blog entry by the pressure group Christian Institute, one Daily Mail article, and one Scottish Daily Express article. This lack of RS discussing this very clearly makes it fail the WP:DUE test, and per the NPOV policy we cannot include this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like Mermaids have confirmed that Mew is not a current member of staff, and that they have not been informed of any complaints made to the Charity Commission as a result. So again, this seems like a non-event. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd asked if it was appropriate to have this later instance included - it seemed to be a question of its noteworthiness or otherwise, which is why I put the question. On its own it seemed to be certainly a controversial issue, but perhaps not necessarily meriting inclusion. But in the context of the multiple recent events which have prompted the additions to the page, it is certainly notable. Especially if it has prompted a suspicion that it is part of an organised media attack on the organisation in which the Times are participating, as is implied above. Another interpretation might see it as arising from increased scrutiny following numerous issues with the organisation that its critics have been voicing for some time. As for 'rude images', one half of what was highlighted involved the individual in question posting sexual images while dressed as a child. This certainly has serious resonances for a children's charity, especially coming so soon after the several issues involving Mr Breslow, and is hardly mere 'rude pictures'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.45 (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Have other RS started to cover this, yet? Newimpartial (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Addressed this above. TLDR version; only one opinion article in The Telegraph. No other RS content as far as I could find. Even the unreliable sources discussing this are slim-to-none. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it's part of this also - https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/10/12/liz-truss-mermaids-trans-the-telegraph/ Who, like the non-RS and minor sources treat it as part of the Prime Minister's questions reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.45 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion The Times' and The Telegraph's coverage on transgender issues is tabloid-like at this point and should be treated as such, especially concerning WP:BLP. Unless other sources cover this, I just can't see how some employee's nudes are WP:DUE or WP:NOTGOSSIP. In any case it should not be covered in its own subsection, and most definitely not in one titled simply "Inappropriate Images". Madeline (part of me) 20:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I definitely share that view. I think both The Times and The Telegraph have demonstrated that they are somewhere around WP:GUNREL when it comes to reporting transgender issues. The sheer amount of hit pieces and outright misinformation they publish is particularly damning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

To make such a claim it would need to be demonstrated - with reference to reliable sources - that they publish false claims. Not merely that they report things that actually happened but don't frame them in a way one would prefer. In other words, it's the difference between simple bias which is not a problem and can be accounted for per WP:BIASEDSOURCES and unreliability for facts that is commonly mentioned on RSN. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you'll find that RSN also considers selective reporting and dubious investigative practices in determining reliability of sources, not just the publication of false claims. In fact, I seem to remember you arguing at RSN that supposedly inflammatory language used by a source ought to be taken into consideration as well. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I am well aware of the requirements for a discussion at RSN, thanks. However with The Times and Sunday Times publishing over 300 anti-trans articles in 2020, and that rate having continued over the last two years, it is necessarily taking time to sort through that and prepare a solid basis for such a discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We should under no circumstances referring to cosplay nudes as "rude" in wikivoice, IMO. The more risqué photos have the merit of being distributed to adults over legitimate channels, in spite of the outraged tone adopted by the broadsheets. Newimpartial (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Do wikipedia rules allow for the exclusion of sources otherwise accepted as reputable on the basis of an editor's opinion on their treatment of a particular issue ? It could just as clearly be claimed that the exclusion arose from excited tempers that result in using phrases like 'anti-trans fear-mongering'. The inclusion or exclusion of the matter surely needs to be decided on rational bases. The Times piece has been added to some smaller outlets as part of coverage of the initial Telegraph investigation, the Trustee issues and the House of Commons questions; treating them as a single story - which is how they were presented in Prime Minister’s Questions. Makes sense to include reference to the Times article on the photos as part of the reference to this (q.s in parliament) here, too. And can't really just be dismissed as employee nudes (- children's charity / photos were of participant dressed as sexualised child / Trustee's activities, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.45 (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Many reliable sources - including academic sources - have noted the anti-trans campaigning The Telegraph and The Times have been doing. Calling this observation an editor's opinion is dismissive of the quality sources that have already been presented on this. Newimpartial (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It is completely normal for sources to be reliable in some topic areas but unreliable in others. I don't think we have had an RFC about this yet but it seems pretty clear to me that these outlets are engaged in publishing sensationalist hit pieces on transgender people. Madeline (part of me) 21:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Re- Many Reliable Sources: which themselves are coloured by the own objectives and positions. Hit-piece vs investigation/scrutiny may equally depend on opinion. As it was part of the MP's questions (alongside and as part of the other issues) it makes sense to refer to it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.45 (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Now it appears to be included as part of https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/10/12/liz-truss-mermaids-trans-the-telegraph/ So, again, makes sense to include it as part of the reference to the issues raised at PM's questions, with both PN & Times sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.45 (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A single attributed quotation, with very little context and that links back to a Daily Mail article, does not demonstrate WP:DUE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Propose replacing existing reference to issues raised during Prime Minister's Questions with: '[....] raised The Telegraph's investigation alongside the issues surrounding the resignation of their Trustee and online pictures of a member of staff at the organisation dressed as what Cates described as “pornographic images” of themself “dressed as a school girl” during prime minister's questions, calling for a police investigation into Mermaids.' Editors formerly complained that because only The Times had refered to the most recent story it could not be used. But overlooked that it was part of the story and detailed in the existing referenced article at Pink News. So now two sources, ideologically balanced (according to the voluminous discussions above). As raised in parliament and dealt with in the context of the earlier events, noteworthy enough to be included. Details of the matters raised by the MP are necessary. Preventing this inclusion via tag-teaming implies editorial bias rather than consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.45 (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Again no. A single attributed quotation in the PinkNews source, with very little context and that links back to a Daily Mail article, does not demonstrate WP:DUE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Again: Pink News + Times. Raised in Parliament = due. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.45 (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

No. WP:DUE states Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. We have two sources, The Times, and PinkNews. The Times is unreliable when it comes to reporting on transgender issues. PinkNews is reliable, however they only give this factoid a single sentence, via an attributed quotation and cited to the Daily Mail. Per WP:DAILYMAIL, the Daily Mail is an unreliable source. As no other reliable sources have covered this, this is very much undue.

That an MP chose to raise this at Prime Minister's questions in Parliament is immaterial, because Parliament is not a reliable source. We cannot cite BBC Parliament, a co-broadcast of BBC Parliament on BBC News, or the transcript of this in Hansard, because that is a primary source. Primary sources do not demonstrate demonstrate DUE, because per policy we are not allowed to interpret them, and they do not provide us any context as to how those comments were received by others.

At this point, because of the absolute lack of secondary reliable sources or covering this, I would strongly recommend dropping the stick, and backing slowly away from the horse. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"The Times is unreliable when it comes to reporting on transgender issues" What a bizarre claim to make. Not a sentiment shared by the majority of editors and therefore not the consensus. - LilySophie (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We haven't had the RSN filing on that yet, no. However, the sourcing in the issue largely supports what Sideswipe9th has said, and we are supposed to follow the evidence in such cases rather than our priors. Newimpartial (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"Parliament is not a reliable source" - for the words concerning issues that were referred during proceedings, not the validity or otherwise of speakers contention or opinions, it is. There is no interpretation - it currently states that a police investigation was called for and leaves out the why (in her opinion). This is simple factual reporting and I'm surprised that you're pretending you don't know this. "The Times is unreliable when it comes to reporting on transgender issues. PinkNews is reliable" - your opinion; concurring (or dissenting) academic papers from social science - also opinion. No stick raised to horse or any other animal. You've argued yourself back into the hole you dug at the onset here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.45 (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are you repeating yourself? Newimpartial (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

PinkNews has a strong bias, just in the opposite direction of The Times. They're also known for obsessive hit pieces about targets they dislike, such as J.K. Rowling and Kathleen Stock. It's not "more reliable" on the subject, just differently biased. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

PinkNews stopped doxxing/outing people some time ago, and to my knowledge they have never engaged in catfish journalism. The comparison you are making reeks of stale fish WP:FALSEBALANCE, I'm afraid. If there's any way I would fault the PinkNews coverage over the last year or so, it would be for trying too hard to radiate "journalistic objectivity" and, in so doing, repeating without comment statements the writer knows to be nonsense. The Times and The Telegraph are largely devoid of that weakness. Newimpartial (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, took a look at that Daily Mail article you mentioned, and while there are words similar to the quote from Pink News that linked to it, they are not those of the MP's quote that Pink News give. The Daily Mail article is actually not about the raising of the issue during PM's question but the parent's complaint that preceded it. So the quote was Pink News' own independent reporting of the talk in Parliament. There's your two sources. Or will you come up with something else now ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.45 (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't read all of this section (I'm lazy), so sorry if I'm repeating what has already been said. Searching around, this seems to have received extremely little coverage in reliable sources, so it's fine to leave out. This is unlike the stuff about the chest binders/Telegraph investigation and resignation of Dr Jacob Breslow, which did receive more coverage. Endwise (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the sequence was that the material was (i) initailly included, then (ii) removed until there was a source additional to the Times article. Then I proposed including it as part of the mention of the questions raised in parliament (it was one of the issues raised by the MP for which she called to be investigated). (iii) I placed a provisonal edit to thie effect; (iv) consensus was requested and the need for reputable source for the story in addition to the Times was given as reason for refusing; (v) it turned out that there was an existing source in the Pink News article where they quoted the comments from the MP; (which was from their own - i.e. Pink News' - reporting, not referencing anything in the Daily Mail.

I agree ( with regard to your comments below) that it doesn't merit a separate section, which is why I suggested including it by expanding the sentence referencing the proceedings in parliament (which as they stand are skeletal/oblique with regard to context). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.45 (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Unless this "issue" receives further coverage, it does not merit a mention in this article. PMQs do not guarantee inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

So earlier it was 'referenced in another reputable source', now it's Prime Minister's Questions do not merit inclusion. As I predicted (can we make excuses up as we go along, here ?). In any case it's not the instance of the questions but their relation to events which have been deemed newsworthy and in that context. (And the matter raised in parliament during questions is already part of the article...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.45 (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Other editors simply do not agree with you that the coverage of this to date establishes any degree of significance in relation to the topic of this article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 37.228.200.45 that it should be included in the article, seeing as how it has been covered in several RS and is WP:DUE. - LilySophie (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That's fine - just be more consistent in your obstruction in the future :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.45 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ThirdSector also quotes what Cates said in parliament: Mermaids defends itself after MP calls for police investigation | Third Sector AndyGordon (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of The Telegraph and PinkNews reporting on Mermaids

So an IP editor attempted to add material from a Telegraph story alleging that the Mermaids was being investigated for safeguarding concerns. However, according to PinkNews, it seems that the central claim of the Telegraph story is false:

However, the Charity Commission confirmed in a statement that there is no investigation into Mermaids at this time. “In general, allegations involving vulnerable young people are serious in nature and our guidance is clear – safeguarding should be a core priority for all charities and trustees,” a spokesperson said.

Samcowie and X-Editor, are you prepared to adjust your prior assumption that Telegraph coverage of Mermaids is no less accurate, and no more biased, than PinkNews coverage? Or is it time to take this to another venue to obtain a higher level of consensus? Newimpartial (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you're working off a Pink News article from yesterday. The Telegraph article is from today. Earlier this week The Telegraph reported potential for investigation. Today they have confirmed that there will be an investigation. I don't know the wording the IP editor used but from what you said, they're correct. This should be added but there will no doubt be further articles about it by days end. Samcowie (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess I am learning to recognize doubling down when I see it. Newimpartial (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it's learning that bias and insincere editing in these articles has gone on too long, but what do I know. Samcowie (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much you know about bias or about self-awareness, but that isn't precisely in scope for this Talk page IMO. As far as what is in scope, it will probably be well into 2023 before these examples of The Telegram's anti-trans bias are worked into academic articles, since those published to date are all working from older examples. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

So these contradict each other? Just wait and see how it develops in other sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that adding the investigation by the charity commission can wait until another source is available. Samcowie (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

As Samcowie has pointed out, I had the sequence wrong so there isn't actually a contradiction. Future events will reveal what is an accurate "Exclusive" and what is just spin. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Samcowie is correct about the order of events, the PinkNews article from yesterday is referring to a Telegraph article from Monday, which did open with the sentence Concerns over the trans charity Mermaids are to be assessed by the charities watchdog after a Telegraph investigation found that it was sending chest-flattening devices to children.

However given that, per the PinkNews article, the Monday article by the Telegraph is for whatever reason incorrect, I believe that today's article by the Telegraph should also be considered suspect until we get confirmation by at least one other RS, ideally with verifiable statement to a press release on the Charity Commission's website or social media, or acknowledgement from Mermaids that such an investigation has been opened.

I would also be minded to hold any article by The Times as equally suspect on this topic. The article they published on Monday has at some point between 26 September and 29 September been edited to add the sentence The Charity Commission is assessing claims that a charity set up to support transgender children is offering chest binders to children as young as 14 without parental consent to the start of the article. This too seems erroneous based on the PinkNews piece. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait for another source and/or ideally a press release from the Charity Commission before adding anything regarding potential action from the charity commission. Samcowie (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

SpongeBob Narrator: One hour later.

Sorry for the jokey tone, but I can't think of any way other than humour to get this across. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I came very close to posting here my own WP:OR intervention on this, based on the same sources PinkNews has now used. I have mixed feelings about not doing so, but anyway it's too late now. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The Times and The Telegraph probably shouldn't be considered reliable sources in general on trans-related topics. NHCLS (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'm currently planning for a RSN discussion on this, as this unreliability in reporting from those two sources affects multiple articles beyond this one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sideswipe9th:. As per you request for an additional reliable source, my edit included a BBC article stating "The Charity Commission has launched a regulatory compliance case and has written to Mermaids' trustees.". I encourage you adhere to NPOV and to self revert. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Why would we base a paragraph on The Telegraph and the BBC, to the exclusion of PinkNews? Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the BBC are oversimplifying "regulatory compliance" vs "statutory inquiry" — the charities regulator has opened a "regulatory compliance case" (this allows "the commission to assess complaints against a framework, but does not constitute a finding of wrongdoing") and not a "statutory inquiry" (which the commission has confirmed is not underway). — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That seems a fair observation and worth including in the article. I would point out that the BBC article was published around two hours ago. Situations do change over time. 80.229.22.58 (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that we have some confirmation from sources other than the Telegraph I'm in two minds over this. On the one hand, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE might apply to a regulatory compliance case. Based on media sources, the Commission appears to open at least several of these per month, and according to their own policy on gov.uk The commission does not routinely inform the media on a proactive basis when it opens regulatory cases.

Though I'm not overly fond of it as I think it projects a date too far into the future, the 10 year test thought experiment does lead to one of two likely outcomes; that Mermaids was not in compliance with the regulatory standards, or that Mermaids was in compliance with the regulatory standards. In the first outcome, that there was a regulatory issue, any subsequent actions taken would likely be of more encyclopaedic relevance than the compliance case. In the second outcome, that there was no issue, then at best we may have a press release from the Commission or Mermaids, that will hopefully be picked up by one or more media sources, saying that no issue was found. At worst, due to the overall hostility of UK media to trans issues, there will be silence bar a press release from the Commission or Mermaids. In that second outcome, will the compliance case have any encyclopaedic value? I don't know. I am pretty sure though per policy we don't write speculative content on what may be.

On the other hand, I think some variation of a brief neutral sentence like On 29 September 2022 the Charity Commission opened a regulatory compliance case, based on complaints made about the charity as a result of The Daily Telegraph's investigation. might find support. This would be cited to the PinkNews and BBC coverage. If we can find it a citation to the Commission's website for what exactly such a case is we could also include that. This sentence would avoid the issues of oversimplifying by the BBC, and entirely misleading statements by the Telegraph.

But I'd like to hear from more editors before adding such content to the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Sideswipe9th. There is so much (accidental and wilful) disinformation going around that it is hard to be exactly sure what is really going on making it hard to know exactly what, if anything, to say in the article. Anything that we add is likely to be (both accidentally and wilfully) misconstrued so we would need to keep it simple (but not oversimplified) and leave out all the spin and innuendo that many of the sources are garnishing it with. I think the suggested text is perfectly reasonable, if we want to say anything at all. It is brief, neutral and (as far as I can tell from peering through the confusing fog of nonsense going around) factual. I do worry that a regulatory compliance case is such a low level thing that we could easily miss the outcome and hence anything we say could become outdated without us noticing. We could unintentionally give the impression that there is a case open long after it is closed, which would be inadvertently doing the innuendo merchants' dirty work for them. Maybe that is an argument for waiting to see what happens or maybe we just need to keep our eyes open for press releases? Anyway, while I'm unsure whether we should include anything at this stage, I do agree that this is what we should say if we say anything. DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The Telegraph publishing one potentially incorrect article about a trans issue does not mean their coverage of trans issues as a whole is unreliable. All newspapers make mistakes. X-Editor (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Until we get more coverage, I do agree that we should wait and see if this is actually an investigation before adding any content from The Telegraph or PinkNews. X-Editor (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Is TheGuardian reliable enough? Samcowie (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also support the sentence proposed by SideSwipe9th as an initial overview of the events, on the basis that the Guardian article was also cited. More can be added at a later date if required but the sentence proposed adequately covers the situation right now Samcowie (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(Very) weak support for inclusion of Sideswipe9th's proposed sentence, but I'm not convinced coverage of a statutory agency conducting a standard review is worthy of inclusion; maybe wait until there's an actual report that would maybe pass the ten-year test? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you don't think The Charity Commission opening a case to investigate whether or not Mermaids are complying with regulations should be included on the page for a kids charity? Despite it being reported in several major publications? I feel like I'm missing something but it may just be that I'm not as seasoned as the other editors here. The proposed sentence by SideSwipe9th is short and accurate. It should be added to the article, in my opinion. It's also not a standard review. It's a review due to an investigation and the complaints that have followed since. Samcowie (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a review that resulted from "investigative" (catfish) "journalism" by The Telegraph in pursuit of one of its policy objectives, along with lobbying by MPs and notable anti-trans organisations. This certainly isn't routine, but it would also be irresponsible to report it (as The Telegraph essentially has) as "Mermaids has been naughty and is now receiving their comeuppance". Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Whatever consensus is reached here, I certainly look forward to the same standard being applied to the "regulatory issues" section on the LGB Alliance page. Void if removed (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this WHATABOUTISM is intended to demonstrate. The LGB Alliance has been found by the fundraising regulator to have broken the code; these are not parallel situations. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No, to be clear, I don't think the Charity Commission opening a case on foot of a complaint by the Telegraph is WP:DUE. If the Charity Commission conclude their investigation and find that Mermaids have breached regulations, that absolutely would be due. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Not withstanding the rest of the discussion here, I've just reverted another attempt at adding content on the regulatory compliance case in a way that seemed to give it far more prominence than seems either due or with regards to a potential consensus emerging here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I support the wording in the section ‘Regulatory issues’ which has been deleted by Sideswipe9th. i.e. Following the publication of the Daily Telegraph article, the Charity Commission confirmed that it had opened a regulatory compliance case against Mermaids, after concerns regarding the charity's “approach to safeguarding young people” were raised. A compliance case is not a finding of wrongdoing, but allows the commission to further investigate the concerns raised, and request further information from the charity's trustees.

This is actually more favourable to Mermaids than Sideswipe’s suggested sentence On 29 September 2022 the Charity Commission opened a regulatory compliance case, based on complaints made about the charity as a result of The Daily Telegraph's investigation., since it includes an explanation that the fact that there is an investigation does not imply wrongdoing. However, it may not be appropriate to have the separate heading ‘Regulatory issues’, which may perhaps give the impression that the investigation is more advanced that it is at present. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe just On 29 September 2022 the Charity Commission opened a regulatory compliance case into Mermaids, based on investigating complaints made about the charity as a result of The Daily Telegraph's investigation.? That way it's obvious it's just an investigation rather than a finding of wrongdoing, without having to dedicate more words to this saga than it deserves. Also agree that there shouldn't be a "Regulatory issues" header given that Mermaids doesn't actually have any regulatory issues yet. Endwise (talk) Endwise (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

So the reason I deliberately excluded the word "investigating" is that a regulatory compliance case is not an investigation. PinkNews have it most accurate when they describe it as a framework assessment. Though this distinction may seem like semantics to some, and I've seen comments to that extent on social media, if you look at press releases involving past regulatory compliance cases (eg Gerald Curgenven Will Trust case, Runnymede Trust case, To Inspire case) the Commission do not appear to use the word investigation for these sets of cases. I am therefore very hesitant to describe this as an investigation, despite the oversimplifications made by The Guardian and BBC News when describing this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

What's the difference between an investigation and a "framework assessment" (where the charity gets investigated)? I don't really understand. It's the language The Guardian and BBC uses, and at least using the verb "investigating" makes it clear that a regulatory compliance case doesn't mean they've found any wrongdoing. Endwise (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I see it as massive overkill. Giving its own section is way beyond ridiculous. People need to stop trying to make fetch happen. DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my thoughts as well. At best this currently deserves no more than a single brief sentence. Making it a standalone section is giving this far, far too much attention, for something that even the Commission themselves does not routinely draw attention to. That said, despite my proposal of a sentence above, I'm still not entirely convinced that even that is due. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It has been reported in the Guardian and on the BBC news website, and it got a mention yesterday on the PM program on BBC Radio 4. I think that something which gets this attention from reliable sources is DUE. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not convinced yet either way, and I am open to being convinced, which is why I drafted a sentence that best fits with how much.

WP:VNOT and WP:NOTNEWS are policy, and as I illuded to earlier, WP:RECENTISM is held in pretty high regard by our community. Will this regulatory compliance case even be relevant in 6, 12, 24, 36, or 48 months? I suspect regardless of outcome that it won't be. If the compliance case finds that Mermaids breached its regulatory requirements, then it would in all likelihood be followed by some other form of action. Such subsequent action would almost certainly be noteworthy. However if the compliance case finds no regulatory issues have occurred, then per the Commission's on statements on press releases, we may never hear about it, and we'd be left with a sentence that had no verifiable outcome. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Surely PinkNews will report it if the case comes to nothing. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not the Commission releases a press report or statement for PinkNews to report on. Per the Commission's own guidance on this area, they do not routinely issue such statements about regulatory compliance cases, either on their commencement or conclusion. As far as I can tell, the Commission launches several of these cases every month, but only a handful per year ever get press releases (five cases in 2021, four in 2022). Based on the Commission's historical actions when it comes to regulatory compliance cases, this may very well be a routine action that has simply been blown out of proportion by some aspects of the UK media.

As a comparison point, mentioned because the LGB Alliance has already been brought up by another editor, the current situation with Mermaids differs significantly from August 2021 action involving the Charity Commission against the LGBA, and which is mentioned in that article. The August 2021 action taken by the Commission seems to be a follow up to a regulatory compliance case, and accordingly our content in that article contains solely the response to a case. We do not mention the case that lead to the action. Conversely for Mermaids, we have the opening of a case, but we are obviously too soon to have any sort of action arising from it.

I'm still trying to find out more information to come to a decision on this, though that is difficult per the misinformation that is being distributed in relation to this, as mentioned previously by DanielRigal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I support adding a sentence on it; any of the ones proposed which you all decide is more accurate is fine. If nothing else it will preclude future debates with people who want to add it. And I do really think it is DUE based on the coverage so far (the 10 year test is from an essay page and in any case there's no way to know what will matter in 10 years). Agreed that it does not need its own heading however. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly I have issues with the 10 year test. If we were to follow it verbatim as a guideline or policy, as some editors and admins suggest, we very likely wouldn't have any content on enwiki newer than October 2012. And I think as a timeline projection, it is too far in the future to even apply as a thought experiment for "how will we be talking about this in 10 years".

The idea behind the thought test however, on a smaller timescale, eg 2-5 years, seems like it could be useful when dealing with situations like this, where the current press is overly sensational due to a perceived controversy. While we obviously can't predict the outcome, we can try to map the likely outcomes, and use that to inform how we may react in the future. For example in this situation, setting a reminder to periodically check for a press release by the Charity Commission or Mermaids on the conclusion of the compliance case, that may or may not have been picked by the media. Once we have that, we can then base our content for now on the least sensationalistic way to succinctly and accurately cover the current issue, knowing that we will be revisiting it again for a conclusion, whatever that may be, a short time in the future. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

we very likely wouldn't have any content on enwiki newer than October 2012 🤔 hold on, that would be a lot simpler for all of us... Crossroads ^-talk- 04:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

And, again, if that is the approach then I would expect the same process to be applied to the LGB Alliance page, which right now has a dangling claim with no resolution after more than a year, simply concerning the CC writing to LGBA's trustees, based on two sources, one of them Pink News. The efforts here to downplay the action against Mermaids despite far more coverage and diversity of sources, concern for the reputational damage of dangling unresolved accusations, and resistance to applying the same standard to the LGBA page is, IMO, revealing. Void if removed (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"Far more coverage and diversity of sourcess"? Really? What about these: [1] [2] [3][4] (I'm leaving out PinkNews and The Telegraph, which are both also covering the hearings = and three is more in The Guardian.) Now, if you think the LGB Alliance page is outdated, please JUSTFIXIT, but your argument that the hearing there has far less and less diverse coverage than the Mermaids "investigation" is, ahem, unproven. Newimpartial (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the tribunal. The section is titled "Regulatory issues" and has 2 sources, one of them pink news, and relates specifically to the charity commission writing to the trustees about a tweet. The concern repeated in this discussion is over whether such a matter need mentioning at all (for fear of providing fodder for "innuendo merchants"), or if it is to be added whether it might remain dangling some time after because the closure was not newsworthy and editors never followed it up. I'm pointing to a situation where a lesser act (writing to trustees vs regulatory compliance case) has been left dangling in exactly this way. If this is a concern on this page, it is a concern there too. How long do you leave this open waiting for a resolution before removing it as not noteworthy? A year? If so, I'll go delete that section on the LGBA page now. Void if removed (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. Yeah, that paragraph can go, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe there is anything wrong with the section on the Daily Telegraph "investigation". It has received coverage from other sources and lead to a regulatory compliance case. That the Telegraph failed to find misconduct, instead finding that Mermaids (big surprise) provides resources to transgender children, is a matter for the reader to conclude, not for us to state or use to withhold the information. I think the "undue weight" tag should be removed as unactionable. — Bilorv (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

If you feel that way I would encourage you to do so as I already attempted and got reverted. So far as I can tell the argument is that the tag needs to be there to cast doubt on sources the section hardly even uses? I don't see any route to removal from the proponents of this tag that isn't deletion of the secondary-sourced content. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Go on then; I've removed it. My rationale, better placed on the talk page than an edit summary is: at present, only one of the five sources in this section are The Telegraph, which does not fit the explanation given for the tag, Excessive focus on coverage from the Telegraph. Readdition of this tag should be accompanied by a clear, actionable description of what improvements in the section could lead to its removal. — Bilorv (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: based on your unrelated edit summary, I don't think you intended in this diff to revert both my removal of the tag and the minor improvement of wikitext formatting. Could you please restore any changes you did not mean to undo? — Bilorv (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that's all done now.  Tewdar  20:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Reflist - Reliability of The Telegraph and PinkNews reporting on Mermaids

References

The Telegraph are unreliable for reporting of trans issues. The Times is also not to be trusted in this regard. Pink News are a reliable source for these issues. Except when they misguidedly give a platform to terfs when they describe the position taken by people or organisations whose views are at odds with the editorial position of Pink anews on trans issues. Because this is wrong even if their intentions might be ok. We are not activists. We are wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.200.179 (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Times allegations removed

I reverted the removal of material here [[5]] - the removal had the edit summary "We've been through this once before." I am not sure that we have been through this - though there is significant discussion of other material from "The Times" above: a discussion which did not reach consensus. The Times is a perennial reliable source - which does not mean it is reliable every time, or that its reliability cannot be questioned, but suggests a presumption of reliability: it really is for those who wish to remove the material to justify why we consider it to be unreliable on this occasion. I note also that this article is not under the byline of the journalist discussed above Talk:Mermaids_(charity)#Very_biased_and_unreliable_journalist_from_The_Times. May we please find a consensus here before re-removing the material? At the moment it feels as if we are using unreliability of source or non-noteworthiness as fig leaf for I just don't like it. But we don't have an opinion on the organisation; we just cover what the RS say. Springnuts (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

#Discussion on "rude images" reported by The Times <-- right there ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't see for looking! Springnuts (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Madeline. Again, I apologise for missing this substantial discussion higher up the page, which did not reach consensus. Have we been to a RfC yet? Have I understood correctly that the objection is to including this information at all in the article, and that the objection is twofold: that the Times is not, in this instance, a RS; and that the material is not DUE? Springnuts (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That represents my position more or less, though I think saying The Times is biased rather than non-RS might be a better formulation. In any case it is a question of DUE. CC @Newimpartial @Sideswipe9th @Paddykumar @Dtobias @Endwise @AndyGordon from the last discussion. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s most helpful, thank you, and DUE works for me as a reason not to include any detail. But a Cheshire Cat’s grin of DUE seems appropriate rather than a total blackout. A generalised comment, say, along the lines of “Other allegations appeared in The Times” with a reference which people can follow through if they wish? Springnuts (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't use Easter egg cryptic references to external links like this, particularly for paywalled sources. Something is either worth including in prose or not. A "Further reading" link could be appropriate, but DUE is still a consideration there. — Bilorv (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Structure of article

Is it just me or does the structure of this article kind of suck? Every time something new happens you have to add a new section for it, which tends to lead to undue coverage on singular incidents. If a section on their history needs subsection splits, it would be better IMO to have them split by time. Here are some featured/good articles on similar organisations for comparison: Sesame Workshop; Seacology; American Civil Liberties Union. Any objection to reorganising it? Endwise (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made it a bit more chronological between the sections for now, but did not touch the sections themselves. If you manage to reorganize it completely chronologically and that turns out better, go right ahead. Madeline (part of me) 15:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That re-ordering is an improvement. Thank you! AndyGordon (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• The underlying issue is that the page contains a bunch of flash-in-the-pan articles sourced overwhelmingly to right-leaning outlets in the British press; since most of them go nowhere and amount to nothing, they don't form a coherent article. Cleaning that out and looking to more in-depth coverage from secondary sources rather than just a bunch of random news articles would be the first step to organizing the article better. --Aquillion (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Charity Commission (which reports to the House of Commons) launching a statutory inquiry into Mermaids' culture and management, with power to compel witnesses, because Mermaids' responses to the initial regulatory investigation were unsatisfactory, is not going to be a flash in the pan. Nor is the abrupt departure of the CEO, though the attempts by remaining staff to scapegoat her in the press and thereby distance themselves may well be somewhat temporary in effect. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This is definitely not an isolated incident. See similar action in Sweden and other EU countries, where gender transition is no longer recommended for minors. DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)