Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Inclusion of GPAHE evaluations

Should the GPAHE evaluations be included in this article?

Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Context

As of the current article version [1] we have four independent sources [2] [3] [4] [5] that discuss the GPAHE reports concerning the LGB Alliance in Ireland and in Australia. Is this enough to make inclusion in this article WP:DUE? Or do other considerations apply? Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I have deliberately not placed an RfC notice on this, but if someone else wants to, I would suggest placing a "Survey" section ahead of this one and going for it. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

So, are we considering the general WP:DUE nature of GPAHE as a reliable source? Or just about this report? Since, for the former, Colin pretty clearly pointed out that the group is considered a major source by major publications up above.

GPAHE are covered in The Guardian in at least 8 stories (search '"Global Project Against Hate and Extremism" site:www.theguardian.com'), 8 stories in www.independent.co.uk, 13 stories in www.nytimes.com and 19 stories in www.washingtonpost.com

And the report itself has more coverage than just what you listed there. Including OutInPerth [6] and The Times [7]. And that was from just a quick Google search. Silverseren^C 18:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, any discussion on this article's Talk page is only relevant to the inclusion of GPAHE evaluations in this article.

Also, I deliberately limited myself to mentioning sources that were cited in the article version that I linked and that discuss LGB Alliance explicitly. Other independent sources undoubtedly exist (though I'll point out that OutInPerth concentrates on Binary while The Times is mostly outraged concerned at the inclusion of The Iona Institute on the hate list. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I do find the latter rather interesting by The Times considering just how extreme The Iona Institute is. Full anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. But I suppose this is off-topic. I included those sources to show the report as a whole is getting more coverage than that, rather than just the ones you listed existing. So the report itself does have DUE coverage. Silverseren^C 19:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it as off-topic. It seems relevant that the The Iona Institute is considering legal action and their director says "They also throw together genuinely far-right groups with those which are not, in order to create guilt by association. It has been good to see fair-minded liberal voices denounce the tactic and defend the Iona Institute against the accusations, even though they would usually disagree with our positions." They also note that the Irish LGB Alliance is "a tiny offshoot of the UK LGB Alliance".

Per WP:NOTNEWS, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Many of the news stories editors have been arguing about recently are possibly DUE on some article on Wikipedia, if we had that article. I'm not sure why the Irish and Australian groups are discussed in this article beyond a mention they exist. They aren't chapters of some global parent organisation but AFAICS, completely independent groups that have adopted similar names and objectives. It is like discussing all parties that call themselves "The Liberal Party". At the moment, I think these two groups are barely notable themselves and their contested inclusion in a list even less so. Claims of LGB Alliance being (or being associated closely with) the far right or in the same category as violent groups that march with guns need exceptional sources. -- Colin°^Talk 11:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Having the GRAPHE comment about other groups in the Lead diminishes the quality of the article. To me it reeks of biased editing. I would not object to a well-sourced comment in the Body if others think it is relevant. Graham Beards (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The gcn.ie link is not a great source - it attributes the actions of LGB Alliance to LGB Alliance Ireland, and conflicts with other sources. Void if removed (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The LGBA website lists and links to several of the international groups, including the two in question here. There is at least some degree of connection and endorsement, even if they claim independence. DanielRigal (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The basic point seems pretty obvious to me. GPAHE's evaluation has been covered in reliable sources so we should cover it based on those sources. There is no possible argument for excluding it entirely. The question is how much weight to give it? GPAHE is clearly an organisation who's evaluation has been noted by multiple reliable sources, and taken seriously, but it is not an organisation on a par with, say, Amnesty, the ACLU or the SPLC in terms of international recognition. As such we can't give it as much weight was we would if it was one of those larger organisations saying the same thing in the same words. It merits coverage, but not over-coverage, in the body. I think the current level of coverage (two sentences) is fine. There is no good argument for reducing it. I am neutral on naming GPAHE in the lead section. It is essential that we note that the LGBA and some LGBA branded groups have been called hate groups in the lead section but I don't think that we absolutely need to list every organisation saying that there. I'm not saying to definitely take it out, just that I am neutral on that issue. DanielRigal (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there would be nearly the same problem if they had only been branded a "hate group", on the grounds they are seeking to remove/reduce rights on another group of people on the basis of their innate characteristics and transphobic comments. Also, I don't think you can say there is "no possible argument for excluding it entirely". There's quite a strong argument, in the sense that these groups really are not LGB Alliance UK. I can't stress that enough. Linking/endorsing another group is not the same as being in an association with or in some formal alliance with. Every single Wikipedia external link is supposed to follow WP:EL which suggests readers will find some information of value there that they could not here. Their links to "sister" groups is not a whole lot different. Plenty organisations link to others that share some of their values but not all.

Editors need to be more conscious that what has weight in some part of Wikipedia (which may not exist because they just aren't notable) doesn't mean it has weight here. This organisation has not listed the UK arm and I wonder why. I suspect it may be because they'd have their backsides sued for libel, but that's just my theory.

My preference would be that this article discusses LGB Alliance UK and that any mention of related organisations is relegated to being a sentence noting their relationship. Should those other groups become notable in themselves, they can earn their own articles and their own smears. So, to that extent, the GPAHE listing would not appear here. Should instead we keep the paragraphs on each organisation, then perhaps a mention is warranted in the body only. Some consideration then should be given to the newspaper article that criticised this listing on the grounds that they aren't far right. Mentioning the GPAHE listing in the lead is very obviously UNUDE because it isn't actually about the topic of the article at all. -- Colin°^Talk 21:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

As per others and above, GPAHE shouldn't be in the lead, and could maybe be in the body but only with very careful attribution and specificity. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The consensus goes against its inclusion in the lead and I propose removing it. Graham Beards (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

“Transgenderism” – word

@Newimpartial: I object to your edit summary here [8] you can’t introduce “transgenderism” in wikivoice, which implies my edit was in some way improper. I took the wording from the report in the Telegraph (which I now see may not have been a good idea). But I am not aware of any negative associations with the word “transgenderism”. I have just searched for it on the internet, and found this [9]. Please assume good faith in future. Thanks for sorting out the error in the sentence. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As Wiktionary notes, it's basically the same thing as saying the "homosexual agenda", it is a term used to imply some sort of ideological position, rather than gay or trans being just a basic biological factor of one's existence. Also see the usage notes part on that page, where it follows similar things where a term may still be used in some scientific literature, but is considered outdated and not used more modernly in most cases. Similar to how past studies would have used the term "transsexual" instead, but that isn't as common anymore. I agree with Newimpartial that the term transgenderism shouldn't be used in Wikivoice, but only as a part of quotes or other naming terminology attributed to sources. Silverseren^C 18:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The Telegraph article in question literally links the word "transgenderism" to an article on "transgender ideology" and "ideology of transgenderism". It's a loaded term, and exactly the kind of reason the Telegraph should at the minimum be noted to have a caveat that it's language around transgender topics is biased and should not be used in wikivoice. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

100% this. It is a deeply loaded POV term that has no legitimate use in wikivoice. It should only be used as part of a direct quotation and, even then, not in a way that gratuitously shoehorns it in. The trouble is that it has a lot of currency in anti-trans writing and that gets picked up by the anti-trans media where it can spread into general discourse without people realising. If an editor uses it without understanding this then that's just one of those things that needs fixing when editing. It's not something to assume bad faith over unless there is substantial additional evidence of bad faith. DanielRigal (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Using that word on Wikipedia should be grounds for an instant indef for transphobia. Va Jyna (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to give some external views, Alberta Health Servcies (citing another source) lists it as a word to avoid: 'it is often a term used by anti‐transgender activists to dehumanize transgender people and reduce who they are to a “condition”'. Another article Why I Don’t Use the Term “Transgenderism” (a Christian blog) explains much the same but, as you might hope from a Christian blog, is more forgiving if people use it out of ignorance. Hanlon's razor may apply to someone new to this area or accidentally careless when dealing with transphobic newspapers. I'm not clear why Sweet6970 is accusing anyone of bad faith, the edit summary was fine, unless you want to nit-pick the use of "you" rather than "one". We have to be very careful to avoid giving Wikipedia's voice to groups and newspapers who use transphobic language. -- Colin°^Talk 08:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have not accused anyone of bad faith. I said good faith should be assumed. And WP:AGF applies to you as well. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The words "Please assume good faith in future" imply good faith was not assumed currently or in the past by another party. If you didn't mean that, then it would be good to strike it. -- Colin°^Talk 11:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I said Please assume good faith in future. This is Wikipedia policy. You have accused me of accusing someone of bad faith: I'm not clear why Sweet6970 is accusing anyone of bad faith,. I have not accused anyone of bad faith. I suggest you strike your accusation. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Making the Media coverage and criticism section easier to navigate

Hi all

The Media coverage and criticism section is becoming quite large, can I suggest that some subheadings are added? Is it possible to split it into media coverage and another for criticism? Or could it be split by criticism by sector, eg politicians, LGBT groups etc.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

30 November 2022: My edit summaries and my edits which have been reverted

@Newimpartial: There’s nothing weird about my edit summaries: [10] cherry-picked out of context is perfectly clear, and I don’t understand why you have any difficulty with it. [11]this is inf about Paul Roberts, not LGBA also should not give you any problem: the material added to the article is Mr Roberts’ view, not a factual comment about LGBA. I know of no reason why his views should be considered significant enough to be included in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The views presented on behalf of the LGBT Consortium at the Chatity Commission proveedings, which are its views about the LGBT LGB Alliance, seem to be pretty clearly on topic for this arricle when covered by reliable sources. And your assertion that another passage of that hearing, voiced by your supposed "founders" and selected by an RS, was "cherry-picked out of context" seems to be an edit summary that reflects only your own opinion, rather than the source or the article text. Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC) corrections by Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

OpenDemocracy is not a reliable source, it is out of context, this is not significant, nor is it neutrally presented. This is WP:BLPGOSSIP Void if removed (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you believe OpenDemocracy to be reliable? Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Open Democracy isn't listed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as an unreliable source, I've searched the reliable sources discussion archives and I can't find anything there to suggest that Open Democracy isn't reliable. John Cummings (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a campaign organisation with an agenda and it does not pretend to be unbiased.Graham Beards (talk) 13:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

And given that the article is factually wrong - Eileen Gallagher is not a founding member, she is chair of trustees - it should be treated with caution. Also the text attributes the statement to both Kate Harris and Eileen Gallagher - which is it? It is plainly Eileen Gallagher, so the text here is badly written anyway. And all that aside, this is not notable, is not neutral, and doesn't belong here. Void if removed (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification Void if removed, it would be helpful to have another source which confirms Gallagher is not a founding member. Could you explain why do you think it is not notable or neutral to include information on a founder of the charity or a trustee saying they have not fulfilled one of their charitable aims in a section about a court case about them having charitable status? John Cummings (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This just repeats the nonsense going on in the "Founders" discussion above. You are now demanding negative evidence. We have exactly one source for her being a "founding member" - this article. There is zero mention of Eileen Gallagher's association with LGB Alliance before she was appointed chair of trustees in May 2021. The announcement at the time made clear the trustees were recruited.

As for not notable - it is gossip. It is not a direct response to the allegation made in the previous paragraph by another witness. You can't tell what question was put to her or what she was responding to. There is no admission of not having fulfilled one of their charitable aims, that is your interpretation. Void if removed (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Graham Beards for clarity, which you are refering to as a campaign organisation? If you mean Open Democracy could provide a source for that claim? Thanks John Cummings (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

"(They) give those fighting for their rights the agency to make their case and inspire action". page 270.Graham Beards (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Graham Beards I think I'm missing something, I was asking what source you were using which describes Open Democracy as a campaign organisation, sorry for the confusion. John Cummings (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Graham, your reply seems to suggest that being a campaign organisation might make it unreliable. There are plenty highly respected campaign organisations. I agree it may not be unbiased, but then we are dealing mostly with highly biased sources here (e.g. Telegraph and Pink News) so that doesn't make it unreliable for facts. The claims, about what people said in court about each other or about organisations, are not AFAICS false or even claimed to be false. Surely we are discussing whether their opinions have WP:WEIGHT and are being covered in WP:PROPORTION.

We've only recently had a huge (and ongoing) waste of time at RSN where editors achieved "support - reliable" votes by confusing the community into debating the reliability of sources where the concern on the article was weight/due/proportion/etc. We need to get out of this mess.

There are other sources for "they exist to oppose free, safe and empowered trans lives". See Charity Times which I guess is neutral on the matter of trans/LGB. For "we will get round to it" there is Pink News.

Other sources may well cover these matters without direct quotes. There has certainly been coverage of the allegations made that LGB Alliance are anti-trans and allegations that they have so far done nothing much for LGB people either. That they admit this in court would seem quite relevant, but matters of what I or Void or others feel are relevant or gossip are decided by our sources.

I don't think it is helpful for us to keep wasting our time with reliability debates, especially on matters such as these where the actual claims are not in dispute. -- Colin°^Talk 15:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this Colin. I think my real concern is a risk of cherry picking quotes that go against the organisation. Do we need to stand back a little? As I said earlier, this article comes across as terribly biased. I am no fan of LGBa, but our personal opinions should not be relevant here. Graham Beards (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

From Pink News:

Gallagher gave many reasons for why projects aimed specifically at LGB people – for example the helpline, a film about gay history for Queen Elizabeth II’s 2022 jubilee, and a report of the experiences of LGB NHS workers – had failed to materialise.

These included “we really have no staff and no resources”, and “because we’ve been labelled as a hate group, it’s very hard to get people to give us money”.

“Trust me,” Gallagher added, “we have really good intentions and we will get round to it.”

This is WP:WEASELWORDS. They do not say "no projects aimed specifically at LGB people". They do not say anything about failing to fulfil charitable objects. There is no notable admission. Asked about why certain projects hadn't borne fruit yet, they say time and money. It doesn't seem to be in doubt that Gallagher said those words, but what was the context of them? Incomplete, but Pink News' partial context indicates this is far less notable than what is being inferred from Open Democracy's context-free presentation and exaggerated headline. Void if removed (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Graham, I'm not arguing we should include this, only that the proper way to examine this is to look to see how the tribunal is being covered (or being ignored or given brief mention) in reliable sources and to summarise this as neutrally as we can. And by summarise I do mean summarise, not document in detail each exchange. Articles in this area seem to end up being a collection of insults and allegations by activists on each side, where we are fighting in front of the reader for their attention to the good or bad bits. We have Wikipedia:Proseline where editors insert whatever bit of negativity is found in today's papers or by a google search.

I wrote earlier this month "Why are editors determined to include every bit of tittle tattle in a court case?" Void, your comments here are picking apart the court transcript and playing the role of judge or the role of journalist. -- Colin°^Talk 16:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. I feel out of my depth here and I will step away now. Graham Beards (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Graham I don't think you are out of your depth here, though I can understand if you just don't want to participate. I'm not really getting an impression that editors want to up their game wrt editing practise in this domain, and quite like just throwing muck onto the page and hoping some of it sticks. Like countries in a trade war, nobody wants to back down and play by the rules. My hope, possibly in vain, is that when the judgement comes through then we can summarise the whole tribunal thing in a paragraph. -- Colin°^Talk 16:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm picking apart the sources to highlight that the ongoing edits to the article and paraphrasing that prompted this new talk section are supported by neither source. What's there right now says:

• When questioned what work the group had done to fulfil their charity's aims of benefiting lesbian, gay and bisexual people, representatives of LGB Alliance stated “trust me, we’ve got hugely good intentions, we will get around to it.”

That is neither a fair nor accurate summary of either article. I think this level of tribunal blow-by-blow (or tittle-tattle) shouldn't even be in, but if it must be, at least be neutral and not editorialized. Void if removed (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

To Newimpartial: (1) Presumably LGBT Alliance is a typo, and you meant ‘LGB Alliance’. (2) I don’t know what you mean by your “founders”. I have nothing to do with LGB Alliance, and (as far as I remember) I have never participated in any of the discussions about who the ‘founders’ are. (3) You have not answered my point that Paul Roberts’ views on LGBA are not significant enough/due to be included in this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Briefly: (1) thanks, typo fixed above; (2) fixed5clarified above; (3) based in RS coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Graham Beards could you be more specific about which parts of the article 'comes across as terribly biased' and how this could be addressed? E.g I have tried to find other notable sources which describe which people and organisations who support the group but I can't find any, there just appear to be a lot more people in the LGBT community and elsewhere who think they're transphobic/a hate group/etc than support them. John Cummings (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see my comment above.Graham Beards (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Colin, you have now reiterated your comment "Why are editors determined to include every bit of tittle tattle in a court case?" So does this mean that you are in favour of deleting all the comments cherry-picked from the case?

John Cummings: You should not be adding material when you know that this is being disputed and discussed on the Talk page. And your text:The LGB Alliance counsel Karon Monaghan described the tribunal as a "profoundly homophobic conspiracy”…. misrepresents the source and is just flat wrong. The ‘tribunal’ is the body of people who are going to make the decision on whether LGBA should be a charity. She was not accusing the tribunal of being a homophobic conspiracy. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Still wrong. The words quoted in the PinkNews article are:

In her closing arguments, she told the tribunal: “Mermaids’ evidence insinuates conspiracy… their documents and witnesses speak of ‘hidden messages’, ‘agendas’, ‘a front to take away trans rights’, ‘transphobia’ and setting ‘out to deceive the Charity Commission about the true nature of their activities’.“Mermaids stigmatises LGB Alliance’s use of terms such as ‘sexual orientation’, ‘sex-based rights’ and ‘lesbian, gay and bisexual people’ which, it is said, ‘are used to signal a particular position on trans rights in a way that is not obvious to the casual reader’.“This is deeply offensive to LGB Alliance’s founders and profoundly homophobic – it is again the love that cannot speak its name and it pushes LGB people who identify as same-sex attracted back in the closet if that stigma is to be avoided. “Any expressed anxieties on the part of LGB Alliance about the approach of Mermaids are well founded and certainly not borne out of some hidden conspiracy.”

This is not properly summarised as the LGB Alliance counsel Karon Monaghan described the appeal against the decision to grant charitable status as a "profoundly homophobic conspiracy” There is nothing here about a ‘homophobic conspiracy’ at all. It is only the headline which talks about a ‘homophobic conspiracy’. Headlines are not part of a source. Either all of the quote above should be included, or there should be no reference in our article to it.

Sweet6970 (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Massive problems with sourcing

I reached the end of the first paragraph of the lead before giving up on trying to make sense of this article's current sourcing.

• The BBC News source is used to support article text that the LGB Alliance advocates for "a ban on conversion therapy for trans people in the UK, gender affirming care including puberty blockers for children reporting gender dysphoria". There is nothing in the source to corroborate this. There is no mention of conversion therapy or puberty blockers in the article at all; the only section in the source relating to the LGB Alliance is a direct quote from Bev Jackson, saying: "We don't think children should be allowed to self-diagnose any medical condition. The numbers of referrals are so huge that I believe this is a social problem caused by miseducation. It is impossible for the NHS to deal with all of these young people who are coming forward. We need to take a step back and ask why are so many young people presenting at the clinic for a gender treatment?" This quote does not corroborate that the group as a whole advocates for a "ban" on anything.

• Likewise, The Telegraph source does not confirm the cited text that LGB Alliance "opposes gender-identity education in schools". Instead, the only relevant statement in the source is a quote of Kate Harris saying: "If I was in school today, I would be taken to one side and helped to come to terms with the fact that I was gender non-conforming. And how special would I feel? What child would turn down additional attention?" This quote does not in any way confirm that the group as a whole is "opposed" to "gender-identity education in schools".

• This article makes extensive use of PinkNews (35 of this article's current 114 sources), which according to its own Wikipedia article has made numerous libelous claims and has an extensive history with Stonewall. The current version of the lead here confirms LGB Alliance was "founded ... in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall". WP:RSPS says "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Most of those who commented on PinkNews' reliability for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject." That's hardly a glowing endorsement of its neutrality or capability for investigative journalism with regards to its reporting on LGB Alliance.

• Regarding its use in the lead, PinkNews is used to support the text that LGB Alliance opposes "gender recognition reform." However, the previous Telegraph source specifically says LGB Alliance "do[es] not want to see further reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA)." So the more substantive source used immediately prior discredits what PinkNews is used to cite. That definitely doesn't bode well for the other 34 instances this source is used in the article.

It's clear from even this most cursory glance at current sourcing, that this article requires a healthy dose of WP:TNT in order to adhere to the core Wikipedia policies of neutrality and verifiability. I'd TNT this article myself, but don't have the time, patience, or strength to edit an article when the entire topic is currently under ArbCom "discretion". Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

And by "numerous", you mean two and were very plainly issues of individuals upset at their own statements and past history being described. I think that sort of statement on your part pretty clearly showcases your personal biases on this subject matter. And why you would make this sort of section post. Silverseren^C 01:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I made "this sort of section post" because content in this article is not verifiable in the references used in the article. That you're already seeking to politicize this section by not WP:AGF speaks volumes. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding its use in the lead, PinkNews is used to support the text that LGB Alliance opposes "gender recognition reform." However, the previous Telegraph source specifically says LGB Alliance "do[es] not want to see further reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA)."

Here, one example of many in your original post. This statement pretty clearly shows you don't understand what you're even quoting. The source says they oppose "gender recognition reform", which you then quoted a Telegraaph article of them saying that they don't want to see reform of the Gender Recognition Act (the reform being the expansion of trans rights in the law). Hence, they oppose gender recognition reform. Where is the contradiction exactly? Silverseren^C 01:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 was introduced to allow people with "gender dysphoria to change their legal gender", according to the Wikipedia article for the act. Current sourcing says nothing about any proposed changes revolving around "the reform being the expansion of trans rights in the law". All you've done is point out yet another glaring sourcing issue. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to replace the lede source with any of the ones in the section further down in the article. Or you can use this one as well. Silverseren^C 02:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If you dont understand that PinkNews is a more consistently reliable (and less obviously biased) source on this topic than The Telegraph, then IMO you should not be offering an evaluation of the article. Also, the article is required to use NPOV terms based on the highest quality sources addressing the overall domain (in this case, LGBT rights) in general, not whatever terms the BBC or The Telegraph happen to use. Please read for content. Newimpartial (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Care to provide evidence by way of RfCs, ArbCom measures, AN reports, or any other venue that shows consensus of PinkNews being "more consistently reliable" than The Telegraph or BBC? You saying "the article is required to use NPOV terms based on the highest quality sources addressing the overall domain (in this case, LGBT rights) in general, not whatever terms the BBC or The Telegraph happen to use. Please read for content." reads a lot like "infer what I'm inferring from the sources". If content on Wikipedia is not immediately WP:Verifiable, then it can be removed, much more so for political topics. The entire purpose of this section was to discuss overall source quality. Responses here so far, as well as this, read a hell of a lot like a blatant threat and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Homeostasis, I have previously linked to multiple discussions where The Telegraph and The Times have been pilloried brought into question for their treatment of transgender issues. Rather than do so again, I will point out simply that this limitation has been noted in multiple, high-quality WP:RS including academic sources. Meanwhile, PinkNews has a green rating at RSN with the only noteworthy limitations concerning outing, which they don't do any more and which is by no means relevant to the use of the source here. Newimpartial (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The Telegraph and BBC are also rated green on WP:RSPS. The only discussions I can find in talk archives here regard this Telegraph source, which is still used in the article, BTW. I can't find links to any particular Times article, or any notably harsh criticism of that publication, in the archives at all.

I admit this entire discussion has gotten off to a bad start. For my part in that, I apologize. I want everyone to know that I have not edited this article or begun this discussion with any ill intention. I may be a straight cis-male, but my intention in starting this discussion was to help address the issues I observed in the article. I've been a Wikipedia editor for nearly 15 years, so I notice when sources don't line up with content. Hope you all fix these issues eventually, using more explicit/more credible sources. That being said... bye. Have a happy life. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I dispute your characterization of these sources:

• I am not sure in what world Bev Jackson, from the LGB Alliance, a self-funded lobby group, said: "We don't think children should be allowed to self-diagnose any medical condition. ... " in the context of this article about said medical treatment does not constitute verification for opposes ... gender affirming care including puberty blockers for children reporting gender dysphoria.

• I am not sure in what world Lesbians are facing “extinction” because of the “disproportionate” focus on transgenderism in schools, a controversial campaign group for gay rights has claimed. does not constitute verification that said campaign group (the LGB Alliance) opposes gender-identity education in schools.

• PinkNews is RSP green and frankly is more reliable on trans issues than the majority of British news sources.

• You literally say the Telegraph source backs PinkNews up. The claim is that they oppose ... gender recognition reform. The Telegraph source says they admit they do not want to see further reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). I really don't know what to tell you, it seems like you have entirely misread either the source or the article here.

Loki (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

What Newimpartial is saying (01:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC) here is that if anyone disagrees with them, they should not be editing the article. This does not contribute to the discussion.

Regarding Loki’s points:

1st point: The source wording given does not support opposes ... gender affirming care including puberty blockers for children reporting gender dysphoria.

2nd point: The source wording given does not support opposes gender-identity education in schools

3rd point: Loki has given no reason to support their view that PinkNews is more reliable than other sources.

4th point: Loki is correct: the proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act would allow self-ID. LGBA is opposed to this, as is said in the source and the article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sweet, are you under the impression that a source has to use the exact same terminology (e g., "gender-affirming care") to support a statement in our article? Newimpartial (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

No.

The wording in our article should be an accurate representation/summary of what is said in the source.

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

And saying that minors should not receive affirming treatment for gender dysphoria that they themselves report is opposing gender affirming care...for children reporting gender dysphoria. It is right there on the tin. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh come on, Newimpartial. "We don't think children should be allowed to self-diagnose any medical condition. ... " is not the same as “opposes ... gender affirming care”. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Homeostasis07, I agree the article has issues. Unfortunately, there's way too much 'here's what I think the sources really mean' going on here as well as double standards about greenlit sources and source bias - favoring one bias over another and absurd claims about which source is more biased. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You are aware, I hope, that the corpus of high-quality and academic sources is at odds with you over what claims...about which source us more biased are absurd? I'm sure your prejudices unexamined underlying assumptions lead to more accurate conclusions than an actual examination of evidence, eh? Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC) revised by Newimpartial (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial: It is absolutely unacceptable to accuse another editor of harboring "prejudices". That, along with SilverSeren above accusing me of having a "personal bias", really does not create the impression of this being a collaborative page. If you're so quick to rush to judgement about users's personal motivations, then it's probably time you take a step back from editing in this topic area. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you see the irony in telling other editors to step back from this topic area after you yourself stated you "don't have the time, patience, or strength to edit an article" in this topic area? ––FormalDude (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Homeostasis, I trust that my prior comment has been adjusted to your satisfaction. I was carried away by my frustration with an editor who refuses to recognize the authoritative evidence contradicting their prior assumptions, which has been presented to them repeatedly but which they elect to ignore. My apologies. Newimpartial (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, FormalDude, I see no irony in that statement. I do, however, see irony in you following my contributions page for 4 months solid, though. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for months. I assure you I have zero interest in increasing the number of interactions I have with you. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Right Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

So anyway... nothing in this discussion has resulted in any attempt to address the content issues evident in this article. A core tenant of Wikipedia is that if content is not verifiable, it can be immediately removed. Instead of addressing the issue of unverifiable content, users have thrown around DS notices, accused editors of "POV-based tag bombing", having personal biases" and "prejudices". This is certainly not an ideal situation. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Well seeing as you have yet to achieve a consensus that there is a problem, much less propose any actual solutions to problems that you're seeing, there doesn't seem to be anything to do at present. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

As opposed to sourcing the content in the lead such that it's actually verifiable? Wow... Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Silverseren and Loki's reading of the sources and the points you've raised. WP:LEADCITE is the relevant guideline, and the content on conversion therapy, puberty blockers, and opposition to gender-identity education in schools are already cited in the article's body. Silverseren did suggest on 27 October that you could easily rectify the LEADCITE issues by taking citations from the article's body, but you have yet to actually do so.

As for PinkNews' "numerous libel claims", while 2 is certainly a number, it does not meet the threshold for numerous. The RSP clarifier on additional considerations applies for PinkNews only refers to claims on a person's sexuality. Despite the five discussions on the source, none have actually reached a consensus that additional considerations apply anywhere other than that.

Honestly I'm really not seeing any actual problems here, bar the sadly usual sniping between a handful of editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not the responsibility of the user raising concerns on a talk page to fix said concerns, especially when that user - and others - have been subjected to extensive threats, insults and WP:Badgering. The WP:ONUS is on the users adding the content in the first place to make sure their prose is supported by the sources immediately following said text. Multiple users above have expressed genuine concerns RE sourcing, but these are apparently falling into unwilling ears. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 04:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not the venue to complain about the conduct of other editors. Take your concerns to the proper noticeboard or drop them. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Homeostasis07 case against PinkNews (that PinkNews has made "numerous libelous claims") is, as already mentioned, rather undermined by "numerous" being two. In the UK, claims of libel are common. In 2020, there were 43 such cases against media/news outlets in the UK, 10 of which were against the publisher of the Daily Mail. That's just one year.[12] and newspapers require legal departments to anticipate and respond to such.[13] The fact that PinkNews responded with a published apology and correction in fact demonstrates a trustworthy news organisation. But it is interesting that editors have shoehorned two libel cases into the PinkNews article, when there are no such entries in The Guardian or The Daily Telegraph articles. Instead, the lost libel cases suffered by both papers are so numerous that, if mentioned at all, appear in the biography of the journalist. For example, the Telegraph lost a notable libel case from George Galloway over allegations that he took money from Saddam Hussein[14] and the Turkish PM Erdogan over allegations he accepted a donation to his political party from Iran[15]. I think someone demanding we regard The Guardian or The Daily Telegraphs as unreliable because they have a history of making "numerous libelous claims" would be laughed at. The Daily Mail, on the other hand, is on another level. -- Colin°^Talk 10:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

There are substantial problems with the reliance on Pink News for what is essentially one-sided portrayal of unfolding social media drama. Likewise Pink News stories never carry comments or response from LGB Alliance. I don't see how some of these aren't simply WP:BLPGOSSIP. As noted in the "Founders" discussion below, Pink News has an editorial voice that calls LGB Alliance "anti-trans", and to call them hostile would be putting it mildly. They are certainly a long way from neutral. Also as part of that discussion, I have pointed out that Pink News is the original source for calling both Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott "founders", and that other sources are opinion, or cite Pink News, or have been corrected since publication. Pink News now repeats the list of five founders, verbatim, in the same order as appears on this page, something I argue appears to be WP:CIRCULAR and should IMO at least raise some suspicion about their reliability and editorial rigour as regards LGB Alliance. In terms of the rest of this article, as an illustration, the section "LGBT+ Clubs In Schools" is entirely supported by two pink news citations - one which is selectively framing a social media post, and one which seems to bear no relation to the section, and is comprised of a screenshot of some random anonymous Spinster user, and statements made by Women Make Glasgow - and then a link back to the earlier Pink News article. This is ultimately a singly-sourced claim, made to look like it has multiple sources, and attributes the social media posting of one person to the "views" of the charity itself, which is completely inappropriate. And so on. Any factual errors in their articles are of course impossible to sensibly rebut without WP:OR, and since they are also not part of IPSO there is no independent regulator to refer them to. They come with the caveat "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used.". So, what to do? Blindly accept Pink News because they are "reliable"? Or treat editorial bias, singly-sourced claims and social media drama about LGB Alliance and anyone connected to it with suspicion? I'd say as a starting point there should be no singly-sourced claims made about LGB Alliance where that single source is Pink News. Void if removed (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you seem to be treating the LGB Alliance as though it were BLP topic, which it (generally) is not. Newimpartial (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is a personal facebook post by Malcolm Clark a basis for a "views" entry on a charity he's connected to? It isn't the stated view of the charity. Void if removed (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Including a quote from the CEO of the LGBT Consortium

Hi

I added this quote (taken from the tribunal) to the article, however it has been removed so I would like to discuss its inclusion here.

Paul Roberts, CEO of LGBT Consortium described the LGB Alliance as “they exist to oppose free, safe and empowered trans lives”.

I think this important to include, the consortium (started in 1998) is the largest network of LGBT+ groups, projects and organisations in the UK, it has 100s of LGBT memeber organisations.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC) John Cummings (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

He is an obscure individual. The views of the CEO of an organisation which does not even have a Wikipedia article (!) are not significant. Also, there is no context here. It sounds as if he is just making wild allegations, without any evidence. LGBA is not actually a BLP article, but some individuals are closely associated with it. We should not be encouraging the slinging of dirt. Sweet6970 (talk)

I don't think that the CEO of the largest network of LGBT+ groups, projects and organisations in the UK is obscure. John Cummings (talk)

You may think that he ought not to be obscure, but the fact is that he is obscure. No inf has been provided as to why his opinion – which does not appear to relate to any evidence - is sufficiently noteworthy to be included in this article.

And @Newimpartial: you should argue any point you have here, and not in an edit summary.

Neither Newimpartial nor John Cummings have answered my point in the section above about the comments by Lisa Townsend, who is more publicly known, and has been elected to office. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It does have a wikipedia article for the record: The Consortium of LGBT Voluntary and Community Organisations UK. Not a particularly good one, but it exists. I'll work on improving it sometime. Anyways, the existence of a Wikipedia article does not have anything to do with notability - it is only your opinion the organization is obscure. According to the article it's cited from, the LGBT Consortium is supporting Mermaids in the court case. The CEO making a succinct statement on how they view the alliance is indeed worthy of inclusion. The "allegation" is not really off the mark, considering the article says Since forming in 2019, LGBA has campaigned against gender recognition reform, challenged school education on gender identity, and sought to exclude trans people from a proposed ban on ‘conversion practices’. Its members promote a “gender critical” view that “sex is immutable”, argue that gender identity is inherently “homophobic” because it “erases homosexuality”, and that trans people should be treated in accordance with the sex they were assigned at birth, irrespective of gender identification and expression. One of the group’s founding members, Katherine Harris, told the tribunal: “Gender identity ideology is a belief system based on nothing… I call it lies.”, in addition to large array of other things that corroborate his statement. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, for the record, a quick google search shows that Paul Roberts has been quoted as CEO of the consortium since 2015 and received an OBE as "Chief executive, LGBT Consortium. For services to LGBT communities." Hardly obscure. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added the link to the Wikipedia article for the organisation and the fact he is an OBE to the article (with reference, thanks TheTranarchist). John Cummings (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I searched for ‘LGBT Consortium’ and nothing came up at all; so the organisation is obscure. The article shows how completely unnotable the organisation is – there are no references at all, so presumably the material is taken from the organisation’s own website. I also searched for Paul Roberts, and what came up was ‘Linked In’. This person, and his organisation, are utterly obscure, and Wikipedia has no business giving his opinion about LGBA in this article.

Lisa Townsend, on the other hand, has been reported in the mainstream media: [16]

Sweet6970 (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep this quote, Paul Roberts is CEO of a notable LGBT organisation and his opinion is relelvant to the topic, he is also arguably notable himself due to the OBE. Battleofalma (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Citation needed

If a citation is available for the 'needed' one in the opening paragraph, how exactly does it get added when the page is locked? PortholePete (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@PortholePete: Please make an wp:edit request here. A {{edit semi-protected}} appears to be the appropriate wp:template. Please include a full citation. See help:referencing for beginners. Thank you! Adakiko (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

New source available, Surrey PCC denies she's transphobic after emails to LGB Alliance uncovered

Not sure how to include this information in the article, any suggestions?

• https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/surrey-pcc-denies-shes-transphobic-25578910

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we add this quote from the article? She also said she had no reason to defend herself when it came to communicating with the LGB Alliance. She pointed out the group had been regulated by the Charity Commission since 2021, a decision which is currently being appealed by trans charity Mermaids, and there was “no suggestion from anyone remotely credible” the LGB Alliance were a hate group. Ms Townsend added: “I know the founders well. They are lovely people who have an awful lot of experience and are anything but a hate group. They’re a group that promotes understanding and compassion and the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, there doesn't seem to be a story here beyond "commissioner sends email", but it's a good source for effusive praise to balance the already over-egged criticism. Void if removed (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I propose we add to the article: Lisa Townsend, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, said of the LGB Alliance: “I know the founders well. They are lovely people who have an awful lot of experience and are anything but a hate group. They’re a group that promotes understanding and compassion and the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people”. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s a tabloid/clickbait outlet reporting on a spat between a non-notable org and a borderline-notable minor public official, with no new facts about the subject of this article. It’s not going to improve the article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Goodness me. Look, google is wonderful but really, if you have to dig up a citation to "Get Surrey", a local newspaper, citing their, as Barnards puts it, minor public official, it looks very desperate. This is someone who's day job is overseeing a local police force, not an expert in trans issues or sport issues, or an author of feminist best sellers or professor of gender issues at big-name university. They have got into trouble on the internet, as happens these days, and reacted defensively. I would be surprised if "I know the founders well" extends beyond "I follow LGB Alliance on twitter". What next, "Gary, Surrey's premier boiler engineer (fair and reasonable prices guaranteed), thinks LGB Alliance are wonderful, because he once fitted a new boiler to Alison Bailey's house, and she was very kind and made him a cup of tea, which was the best tea he'd had all day". For crying out loud folks. You don't "balance" a wikipedia article by google searching and proposing dregs. -- Colin°^Talk 15:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)