Talk:Bailey v Stonewall, Garden Court Chambers and Others

Better source required for ongoing appeals

Currently the only thing being used to support that Bailey has not lost her appeal is a claim from her own website. Clearly WP:SELFPUB is allowable for WP:ABOUTSELF but this is rather more than WP:ABOUTSELF would generally allow so I'd suggest a self-published source is inappropriate. I'm not suggesting an appeal, if reported upon by reliable sources, is undue. I'm suggesting a reliable source is required for this statement. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Bailey has not lost her appeal

Bailey did lose her appeal on the point of inducement by Stonewall - at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

She has further appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The attributed statement According to Bailey, a further appeal to the Court of Appeal is ongoing to a WP:SPS we use for other attributed statements on this page is hardly controversial. Void if removed (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It involves a claim about a third party - the court - that they accepted her appeal. If this case is notable then surely at least one reliable source has commented on it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

If that's your issue, reword. Eg.

According to Bailey, a further appeal to the Court of Appeal is being sought.

Or:

According to Bailey, she is seeking to appeal this decision at the Court of Appeal. Void if removed (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

So that's a no then? There are no reliable sources? Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Your objection was this was disallowed under WP:ABOUTSELF because it was a 3rd party claim.

I've removed the 3rd party claim, but now you want a secondary source to establish notability of what she says WP:ABOUTSELF - why? Do you think this is an exceptional or self-serving or irrelevant claim?

The case is already notable, we don't need any more sources to establish notability of the case. This is just her saying she's still trying to appeal.

We could equally take a quote from her immediate response to the EAT loss and say Responding to the ruling, Bailey said "she will consider carefully next steps with her legal team".

That would be entirely allowable. If you still objected, this source quotes that too, so we can back that up with secondary coverage.

But it seems like pointless obstacles to actually getting the accurate state of affairs in per WP:ABOUTSELF, when they aren't controversial. Void if removed (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I cannot read the ThirdSector article because of a paywall - I'm not a subscriber. However it does appear to be an appropriate secondary source. I've no objection to a properly attributed statement that uses that article as a basis. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A statement in our article that Bailey has stated on her website that she has leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal would be a statement about Bailey, not about the Court of Appeal. This would be perfectly adequately sourced by her website. If we do not mention this in our article, then we would be misleading our readers, because we are telling them, by omission, that the case is closed, whereas it is still active. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no. That's incorrect. A statement by Bailey about the case extends beyond WP:ABOUTSELF because A) she is saying that the court has accepted her case and that's a third party and B) she has a potential to gain from advocating that her court case is not over.

However that's somewhat irrelevant because @Void if removed has provided a secondary source which I have said would be fine to base a statement around. I'm leaving it to them to complete that change as I cannot, myself, read the source but I trust them to do so in a way that accurately reflects what the source says. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A statement by Bailey about the case extends beyond WP:ABOUTSELF because A) she is saying that the court has accepted her case

I suggested a rewording above to address this concern.

and B) she has a potential to gain from advocating that her court case is not over.

So we've gone from 3rd party concern, to notability, to now a suggestion it is self-serving.

It is a simple statement of fact that the case isn't over, it isn't exceptional, it isn't self-serving, and it can be adequately sourced from her website and left as a fairly low-key attributed statement that she says she's seeking to appeal.

I don't see the point in dancing around it. Void if removed (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the point to arguing about this when I've already said I'd be satisfied with you crafting a statement based on the secondary source you provided. Just use that source. This discussion can close at that point as you will have satisfied my concern that a better source is needed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• All else aside, information about an ongoing court case someone is involved in like this is generally going to be unduly self-serving, which is another restriction for WP:ABOUTSELF; if we can't find a secondary source covering it we should leave it out. --Aquillion (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ok this is getting stranger and stranger. Whenever Bailey's Court of Appeal is brought up it's either via her website or the website of her lawyers. Neither link directly to the text of the hearing that allowed her appeal and I cannot find a trace of data about it in UK government primary sources. This is, as it stands, a phantom appeal. Can anyone provide any evidence that doesn't come directly out of the Bailey camp that this is a real thing? Like a single non WP:ABOUTSELF source that isn't either by Bailey or her lawyers or directly quoting Bailey and her lawyers? Just one ref? I'm trying here and I found nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I already linked it to you on the 4th, here: https://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/getDetail.do?case_id=CA-2024-001933 Void if removed (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, I misplaced the link. That quite obviously provides no support for the partial quote that was put in sourced to Bailey's lawyer's website. As such we cannot validate if the cut words were something like "I am not sure you" or something of that nature. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  The quote is pretty standard for a grant of leave to appeal – it refers to a ‘real prospect of success’ because if there was no chance an appeal would be successful, leave would not have been granted. And again, the fact that there are (legal) issues ‘of some general importance which should be considered by this Court’ is a reason for granting leave to appeal. But I would leave the quote out because it is so standard that it means nothing, and it may be misleading, in that ‘real prospect of success’ really means ‘not hopeless’. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this - "real prospect of success" is redundant.

  The part that's notable is that it raises issues of some general importance which should be considered by this Court. In particular, an issue arises as to the correct interpretation of section 111 of the Equality Act 2010 which does not seem to be the subject of previous authority. There is therefore a compelling reason to grant permission to appeal. Void if removed (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Then I would ask you find an independent source from the Bailey legal team for inclusion of that quote. It's clearly within the definition of unduly self-serving within WP:ABOUTSELF. All I'm looking for here is independence from Bailey to include any such quote. This is very specifically policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not terribly concerned about the quote appearing on the page at the moment, just observing which part of the statement is (legally) interesting. All I'm fussed about is that it's now clear that this case is going to the court of appeal. When it gets there, there will be further coverage, if it's notable. Void if removed (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Rename

@Raladic I object to your using the rename to completely reword consensus text needlessly. The article needed only minor changes, and anything further can be done incrementally as normal.

For example, the sentence:

In October 2019, Bailey co-founded the LGB Alliance, an advocacy group and registered charity which opposes LGBT registered charity Stonewall's policies on transgender issues

Is longstanding consensus. You changed it to:

In October 2019, Bailey co-founded the organization LGB Alliance, an anti-trans advocacy group which opposes Stonewall's policies on transgender rights.

As part of a huge update to the entire article text, with the comment "Post move about court case, standardize into law article, cleanup puffery". This is completely inappropriate and misleading. Void if removed (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The decision at AfD was to rename, and to amend the suit the new name. There was no consensus for a complete rewrite. Major changes need consensus. Raladic, you do not have authority to rewrite this article as you like. You should discuss major changes, and get agreement before implementing them. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

See, this is an article about a court case now, we use the words of the case, specifically from the case: He said Allison Bailey of Garden Court supported the anti-trans LGB Alliance just launched. WP:STICKTOSOURCES. For reference, since it's a case you've mentioned before Forstater_v_Centre_for_Global_Development_Europe is similarly devoid of puffery, a article about a legal case is strictly WP:SUMMARIZEing the facts and findings of the court case, not adding commentary or puffery about crowdsourcing or the likes. So the refocus of the article really shows that this case article here is now a very run-off-the-mill court case, might not actually meet WP:EVENTCRIT as I pointed out in the AfD, it was just harder for some participants to see that in between all the non-legal case related puffery that was in the article, which is a lot easier to see now. Raladic (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Consensus text is rich. I support Raladic's edits. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

++

Consensus does not mean you two agree. VIR, this edit[1] re-added an obscene amount of puffery, including a huge blockquote sourced to Bailey's website with no hint of it being due. Sweet6970, you removed quotes of the tweets the case this article is about centered around, saying in your edit summary that major changes need consensus – see Talk page – ‘Rename’[2], without giving any explanation here or there why you object to their inclusion.

WRT The decision at AfD was to rename, and to amend the suit the new name. There was no consensus for a complete rewrite - making an article about a legal case, as opposed to a person, does necessitate a complete rewrite of the article. It was previously about a person; it is now about a case; this obviously calls for major updates.

I restate, and re-emphasize, that consensus does not mean that you must agree with any and all changes to the article and people have to run them by you first. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to add more to the page with citations to support the reasons why the case is notable and significant, but the edits have been reversed. There was a fir bit of content lost in the renaming move. Are we trying to make this a better article or just make a case that it should not exist? Melissa Highton (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles about legal cases are about the legal case, not puffery about what other anti-trans people endorsed someone.

We summarize the legal case and either the case passes the WP:EVENTCRIT showing enduring historical significance, or it could simply be WP:TOOSOON for the article until it can show whether it had any enduring significance (such as setting new legal precedence, though that is less likely with cases that have been largely dismissed like this, or it is simply a routine news event, and thus not notable.

So if there's something to add, it should be about the case, not the plaintiffs musings for "highlighting the influence in...", those are already neutrally summarized as neutral claims in the article as allegations she made, especially since those claims relating Stonewall were also dismissed, they are entirely WP:UNDUE for inclusion as those were false claims as determined by the tribunal and appeals court. Raladic (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

When you say 'musings' do you mean her published reasons for bringing the case? The citations of coverage from the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph which you removed would speak to it being not a run of the mill case. The fact that she is a black lesbian barrister with a background in campaigning for gay rights, and yet was suing Stonewall in relation to her own experience of discrimination would make it notable and could be included in the article. Each of these cases, Bailey, Forstater, Stock, Adams etc contribute to establishing precedent in the context of workplaces in the UK. I think the fact that so many employers were reconsidering their membership on the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme around this time is also useful context for why she felt able to bring the case. Melissa Highton (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Lots of civil cases get coverage in the press. There's nothing remarkable about this except for the stuff that Bailey has, to date, entirely failed at - to get a court to penalize a pro-trans advocacy group for calling her anti-trans. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

But the content, even if not remarkable, would be ok to be in the article. Melissa Highton (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)