Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Short description

Sandstein has changed the short description for this entity from Advocacy group with charitable status to British advocacy group founded 2019. Why not: charity and advocacy group for LGB rights (along the lines of the short description for Stonewall? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Though a short description is not a definition, it kinda makes sense for me to replicate the disambiguation from the lead. Our lead sentences states that the organisation is a British advocacy group founded in 2019, and that alone differentiates it from international groups that share the same name. Sandstein's SD is concise, and reasonably representative of the article I think.

As for your proposal, for me it doesn't suitably differentiate it from the other LGB Alliances, and there's an element of WP:NPOV at play (SDs are subject to normal content rules). At the very least, keeping British in it keeps the disambiguation from the other groups with the same name, so no matter what proposal we come to, something about the national scope should be included. With regards to NPOV, the organisation is far more notable for its controversy and advocacy, than for any charity work. Calling it a charity in the short description would be to give undue weight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SDAVOID, A short description ... should ... use universally accepted facts ... avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial. It is well established by reliable sources that the campaigning purpose of the organisation is a matter of dispute. e.g.

Critics argue that the LGB Alliance exists only to differentiate between those attracted to the same sex and transgender people.

— The National, 7 September 2022

therefore should not be included in the short description. TSP (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Calling a charity a charity is undue weight? The fact that they are a charity despite a 2 year legal battle to strip then of it is highly notable. That one aspect has probably produced as many column inches as anything else about them. Seems odd timing to remove it from a long-standing short description on the day the challenge is thrown out. Void if removed (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the timing is bad but the fact that they have charitable status is a very minor aspect of identifying this organisation, which is an advocacy group, even if this aspect has generated headlines. I don't think the date they were founded is as helpful as what they advocate for, though perhaps the name is enough of a clue, since it isn't like we are distinguishing it from the LGB Alliance formed in the 18th century. Refugee Council is "British humanitarian organization" and National Trust is "Conservation organisation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland". Which? is "Brand name of Consumers' Association, a UK organisation promoting informed consumer choice". All of these are charities but their primary purpose isn't fundraising for a cause, which is most people's primary thought about a charity. The purpose of the "short description" is, for example, so that when you start typing "LGB Alliance" into the search box, you can pick the correct choice from the list. Currently, we don't have articles on the other country groups with similar names, but if we did, the primary reason for having this description is to let them pick the British one. So I think British advocacy group for LGB rights is best imo. -- Colin°^Talk 07:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

(This seems to have been resolved, but FTR I agree with Colin.) -sche (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

ACE claim

@AndyGordon: I am not convinced that the ‘gender critical’ case against ACE has a place in this article. The case does not involve LGBA directly. As far as I can see, the ruling made no comment about LGBA. Also, I disagree with your text the judge made his ruling on the basis of hostile comments about LGB Alliance made by an ACE executive. My reading of the report in the Guardian (I don’t have access to the Telegraph) is that the claim was successful because of the failure of ACE to deal with the petition. The report says: Mellor’s comments and actions were found not to have crossed that threshold for harassment. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree, at least with the amount of weight or phrasing given here. I think it is related and more notable than some of the other things that are mentioned on this page, but hard to weave in in an encyclopaedic way? The sequence is:

• LCF announce grant
• Social media backlash
• LCF announces review of grant
• ACE meeting in which Deputy CEO denigrates LGBA and says things are happening "behind the scenes" to address the situation. Employee speaks out in favour of LGBA. There is pushback which does not amount to harassment.
• LCF withdraws grant, citing Mermaids action against Charity Commission
• Some weeks later, petition is circulated attacking unnamed employees for supporting LGBA, attracts comments, original employee clearly the target. ACE leave petition up for 21 hours. This constitutes the successful harassment claim

It takes a few steps from "LGBA grant is withdrawn" to "employee wins harassment claim after petition circulated after meeting to discuss grant prior to withdrawal" and I'm not sure there's a source that clearly states this in that way?

Not saying its not interesting or notable or related to LGBA. An employee won a harassment claim on the basis of treatment at work specifically after speaking out in their support, that's not insignificant. Its just difficult to sum up in one sentence and stating it was directly the result of the comments by the deputy CEO is WP:SYNTH.

Secondarily, I don't think any of this - including the LCF grant hokey-cokey - belongs in history really either. It's just more media coverage and controversy rather than anything about the org itself's history. Void if removed (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I agree the current wording is misleading as Mellor's comments were not themselves harassment. I was indeed trying to keep it brief and it was based on the Guardian article. How about: "The judge ruled that an internal message and petition constituted harassment, and that hostile comments by an ACE executive about LGB Alliance had triggered the petition". AndyGordon (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the wording you have just suggested. But I would equally accept if the reference to the ACE claim was deleted entirely. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sweet6970 thanks, I think we should include it because the harassment was triggered by the employee questioning withdrawal of funding from LGBA. Maybe the whole paragraph is better in another section though. AndyGordon (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the changes resolve the fundamental issue that this isn't concerning LGB Alliance. It's as if our article on some football club included a section about someone who was criticised for commenting that the club got relegated due to the manager's incompetence. Totally meta to the football club. WP:NOTNEWS means not everything in the news that even mentions LGB Alliance belongs in this article. -- Colin°^Talk 20:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement here. While the grant application and its withdrawal were due to the LGBA's direct actions and circumstances, the case brought by Fahmy doesn't directly involve the organisation, only her indirect support of it. I don't really see the relevance to include it here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Telegraph article mentions LGBA four times, including fourth sentence: "Denise Fahmy took Britain’s biggest arts funding quango to an employment tribunal after she resigned as a grants officer having challenged a decision to withdraw funding for LGB Alliance, a group that represent gays and lesbians."

Also Telegraph quotes: Kate Barker, chief executive of LGB Alliance, whose funding was made and withdrawn by a body separate to the Arts Council, said artists who “believe biological sex is real” could be “considered ineligible for funding”.

Guardian article mentions LGBA five times, including in second sentence: "Comments were made that LGB Alliance had ‘transphobic staff’ and ‘neo-Nazi, homophobic and Islamophobic’ supporters"

According to core policy WP:NPOV we are to reflect all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Here, the significant view is that a controversy over LGBA led to harassment of a GC woman, as judged by the employment tribunal. It's a direct chain of events with the press quoting LGBA's reaction. If there was no direct connection why does the Telegraph bother to quote LGBA? LGBA exists because some LGB people hold GC views. Here a GC woman was harassed for daring to question why their funding got pulled. The unfortunate harassment of this person is directly relevant to LGBA, as attested by these two reliable source. For the sake of neutrality we need to include it. AndyGordon (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding reflecting all significant views on LGBA – I don’t see any views about LGBA in the source. There is no information about LGBA in the report. When I saw the news story in the Guardian, my first instinct was to make a note of it, in order to add something this article. But when I considered what to add, I realised there was no information in the story which was actually about LGBA (apart from the fact that some people hate this organisation, which is amply detailed in our article). So whilst I think it is borderline, I come down against inclusion. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Far-right"

In response to this line:

In August 2022, the Global Project against Hate and Extremism released a report in which it classified LGB Alliance Ireland as a far-right anti-transgender hate group.

I don't believe the inclusion of this is appropriate as the source in question presents no evidence that the group is far-right and more generally there are virtually no credible and impartial sources that describe it as "far-right". It's therefore misleading and unwarranted to include such a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.168.100 (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed already at

• Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 9#Does the GPAHE "Irish Far-right Hate and Extremist Groups" report describe LGB Alliance as a far-right group?
• Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 11#Reliability of Global Project Against Hate and Extremism as a Source
• Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 12#Inclusion of GPAHE evaluations.

While you may be right that they presented "no evidence", that doesn't mean they don't have evidence and it isn't our job to ensure you or I agree with everything that we report that organisations claim. The article doesn't say, in Wikipedia's own voice, that LGB Alliance are a far-right group, for which we would indeed need multiple reliable sources making such a claim. A consensus of editors appears to support the idea that GPAHE are "credible and impartial". There are many other articles where the GPAHE report is noted about organisations. -- Colin°^Talk 12:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with not agreeing with the organisation's claim and everything to do with the claim being entirely unfounded and contradicted by the overwhelming consensus of other sources.

It's highly disingenuous to try and argue that just because Wikipedia isn't directly stating it as fact but rather saying "so and so says it's far-right" that this somehow makes it any less wilfully misleading. 194.80.168.100 (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Links please for the "overwhelming consensus of other sources". We describe the views of LGB Alliance too, even if many editors and readers think they also are "entirely unfounded". -- Colin°^Talk 10:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"Links please for the "overwhelming consensus of other sources"."

Literally every media report ever published by major UK publications. 194.80.168.100 (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This was argued to death and the consensus is it merits inclusion as things stand, but confined to the international sections. Whether GPAHE's opinion is notable is something that is attested by the reporting of their opinion by other sources.

The only suggestion I would make if this were to be revisited is that the framing of LGBA Australia's response is weak. That is, "far-right anti-transgender hate group" is an incredibly strong claim, but "misrepresented" is quite a tepid summary of the response.

Also, the only direct labelling of the org in the reports is "anti-transgender". "Far-right" and "hate group" are an extrapolation/combination derived from the report title. It is debatable whether it is appropriate to do that, and (given the extraordinary strength of the claim) I'd argue safer to reduce it to just simply "anti-transgender", as that is the only explicit claim they directly make about LGBA Ire/Aus. Void if removed (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Void if removed that the categorisation of the Irish and Australian organisations as being ‘far right’ and ‘hate groups’ is not fully supported by the source, which only classifies them as ‘anti-transgender’.

Regarding the response from the Australian organisation– what alternative wording does Void propose?

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Depends - if we tone down the GPAHE claim to just "anti-transgender", it might be fine as is, although I'd personally prefer to quote or paraphrase the part of the response that says they "represent the interests of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals", as that is the core ideological dispute (from their POV) and provides a better balance. Void if removed (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It isn't our job to "tone down" what others report just because editors disagree with it. The news articles covering both the Australia and Ireland reports pick up on the "far right" and "hate" and "extremist" accusations and focus of the report on far right extremism. The report title "Far-Right Hate and Extremist Groups" doesn't allow us to say, "well, when you said Far-right Hate and Extremist", you didn't really mean it, did you? The report is part of Country Reports which is absolutely focussed on "Far-right extremism movements". See also their FAQ. It would appear that they see anti-trans groups as part of the far-right extremism movement. You guys may disagree but if you do, write to GAPHE. And if you think "misrepresents us" is too mild a response, again, write to LGB Alliance Australia, for those are the words they chose. We can't just replace that with "hogwash". -- Colin°^Talk 14:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have never suggested that we should ‘tone down’ what others report – merely that we should report it more accurately. They actually only claim specifically that the LGB Alliance organisations are ‘anti-transgender’.

Regarding the response from the Australian organisation – how about including their comment ‘This thinly veiled homophobia alleges we are aligned with extremists and puts the safety of LGB people at risk.’

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I've re-read the report, and I'm afraid it's pretty unambiguous as to its description of the LGB Alliance Ireland (LGBAI). All 12 of the organisations, which includes LGBAI, listed in the report are classified as far-right by the GPAHE. The very first paragraph of the report clearly states that the far-right extremists active in Ireland are largely made up of both white nationalist organisations like the National Party and anti-LGBTQ+ organisations like the LGBAI and Iona Institute. I don't see any valid reason for why we should, to quote Void, down the GPAHE claim to just "anti-transgender", as that would fundamentally be changing what the report states.

I don't see a good reason to include that quote from the LGBAA's response to the report. We already summarise that they believe it misrepresents their position, but as no secondary sources seem to actually include that quote it seems like it would be undue. I'd also query why that sentence, and not one of the others like the more neutrally worded We are a non-partisan, non-political advocacy group. We are not far-right extremists. Though again, even that quote seems to lack secondary coverage. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

By "tone down" I simply meant to the most clearly attributable claim in the text. LGBA Ire is actually a bit different, since Pink News for one interprets the source as calling them a "far right hate group", but I don't think there is a secondary source clearly doing the same for LGBA Aus? The sources in that case talk of far right and extremist groups, which is slightly more ambiguous. I wonder if text that was originally justifiable because it was Pink News' interpretation of the Ire report has been assumed to be directly applicable to the Aus report, when we don't actually have a secondary source giving that same interpretation in that specific case. Ie, does the incredibly strong wording "far-right anti-transgender hate group" come from editors' interpretation of the primary source, or verbatim from a secondary one? If it's the latter, I don't think it can be said to apply to Aus? Void if removed (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Compromise alternative wording. How about instead of the classification, simply say in both cases "Global Project against Hate and Extremism included LGB Alliance Ireland/Australia in its report "Far-right Hate and Extremist Groups in Ireland/Australia"? The inclusion in the reports isn't debatable, nor is its title. Void if removed (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The report, whether you're looking at the one for Ireland, Australia, or any other country is not on far right and extremist groups, it's on far-right hate and extremist groups. The far-right scope applies to both the hate and extremist groups. This is one of those things where the report is so unambiguous as to its overall scope that the secondary interpretation by PinkNews is simply the plain reading of it, and inherent when looking at the scope of the source report.

As for the Australia report, this feels like splitting hairs. However at least one academic, Rodney Croome, as mentioned in the Star Observer's article about the report, appears to have made the link. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Sideswipe’s comment about the ‘homophobic’ quote: (1) It is Wikipedia which is supposed to be neutral in reporting what people say. There is no obligation on LGBA to be neutral in responding to criticism, and we are not being neutral if we suggest that LGBA is neutral about criticism of the organisation. (2) Does Sideswipe agree to include in our article the ‘We are a non-partisan, non-political advocacy group. We are not far-right extremists.’ quote from LGBA? Sweet6970 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Does Sideswipe agree to include in our article the [non-partisan] quote from LGBA? No, I've already said that I think even that quote would be undue because of the lack of secondary coverage of it. Without secondary coverage of the LGBAA's response to the report, selecting any specific quotation from it would be cherrypicking, and find ourselves running afoul of several policies (NPOV, NOR). The only reason I drew attention to that quote was to use it as a framing example when questioning why you picked the other one.

The current summary, that the LGBAA believes the report misrepresents their positions, seems more than adequate. If readers truly wish to see the full nature of how the LGBAA disputes the report, then, like for any source we summarise, they can click through to the citation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I support the compromise wording suggested by Void. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Sideswipe9th here.

That a couple of editors don't like that reliable sources describe the LGB Alliance as a far-right hate group is irrelevant unless there are reliable sources to support watering down the wording.

That there is a disagreement and a "compromise wording" does not mean the "compromise" is justified by reliable sources. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

To OwenBlacker: Please do not turn this discussion into personal remarks. It is not a question of what editors personally like. There is a problem that the report by the Global Project against Hate and Extremism does not explicitly say that the LGBA organisations are far-right. Void’s suggested compromise wording accurately reflects the source. Please give this matter serious consideration. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I can see that you're British so you must know full well that the label of far-right is virtually never used by UK media when describing this group. 194.80.168.100 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The alternative I am proposing is, I think, a way of avoiding any hint of straying into WP:SYNTH for what is the single strongest accusation made in the whole article.

So rather than "far-right anti-transgender hate group" - which seems to derive either from combining multiple sources or from interpreting the primary source - reference the title "Far Right Hate And Extremist Groups". This is more straightforward to source, and not open to question. That was the title, and they were included in the report. Void if removed (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have any justification for treating the Australia group differently. The Star Observer leads with "Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, anti-trans groups LGB Alliance and Binary Australia and the anti-LGBTQI Australian Christian Lobby are among the 20-odd organisations identified as ‘far-right and extremist groups’ by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE)." and says it is a "report that profiles far-right groups in Australia". Sweet6970 and Void, I think you are deliberately ignoring the report title and the overall purpose of these reports. You can't just just skip that bit and cherry pick the "anti-transgender" label that you can live with. Sweet6970, the report does explicitly say what you keep claiming it doesn't. Void, I know you are keen to split out "Far-Right Hate and Extremist Groups" into "Far-Right Groups, Hate Groups and Extremist Groups" but there is nothing in the report or the project's mission to suggest that they are categorising these as distinct phenomenon. I think really that both of you are trying to push this report into being something that it isn't, which I can understand. But they have said what they said and I think we've spent long enough trying to salvage the reputation of both of these (Ireland and Australia) sister organisations. The Australian one, for example, seems only notable for the drag show issue and their inclusion on this report. Makes you wonder how they did enough to warrant a mention at all. I think we on this talk page have spent more time writing about these two groups than the rest of the world media put together. -- Colin°^Talk 07:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Reliable sources are reporting the accusation reliably. Leave it to readers to judge the credibility of all parties. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are reporting the accusation reliably"

They provide zero evidence or justification for describing the group as far-right, and very few if any credible sources in the UK & Ireland use that description. It's about as unreliable as it gets.

I accept that the organisation being cited is broadly a credible source but that doesn't mean every individual claim they make is reliable and worthy of inclusion. In this case it certainly isn't. 194.80.168.100 (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We're not stating in the article that the subject is far-right, we're stating that it's been accused of being far-right. For what it's worth, GPAHE do give a justification for why the subject is on the list. We may agree or disagree that those reasons constitute a classification of "far-right", but the article needs to be based on what sources say, not on what we think. We could include sources that refute GPAHE's justification, if they existed. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

IP, you keep mentioning "credible sources" but don't ever link to any when asked. I'm struggling really to find any quantity of sources on LGB Alliance Ireland/Australia. I don't think anyone in the UK is talking about those two groups at all, except it seems, people on this page. -- Colin°^Talk 09:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you read the (lengthy) previous discussions Colin linked already here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_9#Does_the_GPAHE_%22Irish_Far-right_Hate_and_Extremist_Groups%22_report_describe_LGB_Alliance_as_a_far-right_group?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_11#Reliability_of_Global_Project_Against_Hate_and_Extremism_as_a_Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_12#Inclusion_of_GPAHE_evaluations

Unless a reliable source publishes a clear rebuttal, or GPAHE retract, or something like that, there are no policy grounds to remove this. Void if removed (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out (since the topic has been raised) that "far-right anti-transgender hate group" all together is an incredibly strong wording that I don't think appears in that form in any single source.

From what I can see the closest to that text is Pink News coverage of this report on LGBA Ire ("far right hate group"), and is probably fair paraphrasing here, but there isn't an equivalent single source that uses quite the same strength of language directly for LGBA Aus, which is why I wondered if that wording was simply assumed to apply to LGBA Aus when the second report came out. So is the wording in that case an interpretation of the primary source, or secondary ones? If the former, I think - given the strength of the claim - that's questionable.

And I've offered what I think is an acceptable (and IMO more encyclopedic in tone) alternative that keeps the strong language of GPAHE's title verbatim (far-right, hate and extremism) and sidesteps all issues of source interpretation. It is uncontestable that that is the title of the report, and that they were included. Void if removed (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

To Colin: I am not ‘ignoring the report title' – Void’s suggestion, which I agree with, is to use the report title:Global Project against Hate and Extremism included LGB Alliance Ireland/Australia in its report "Far-right Hate and Extremist Groups in Ireland/Australia". Sweet6970 (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to when you said "not explicitly say that the LGBA organisations are far-right" but they do, when they include them in a list of "Far-Right Hate and Extremist Groups" Their introduction to the country reports here says "Far-right extremism movements in countries across the world are growing at a frightening rate, threatening flourishing, inclusive democracies that promote fundamental freedoms and human rights" and "These far-right movements not only spread white supremacy, but also push for discriminatory policies that restrict the basic human rights, dignity, and equality of numerous communities" and "To further our work combating global hate and extremism and highlighting the transnational nature of far-right extremism, GPAHE conducts and shares deep research on far-right extremist groups and movements in multiple countries. Entities covered by our research generally embrace beliefs and activities that demean, harass, and/or inspire violence against people based on their identity traits including race, religion, ethnicity, language, national or social origin, caste, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity." I've quoted it and bolded it for you and I hope you can see there is no escaping the labels. Wrt Void's compromise, I don't think "included" in a report is sufficiently clear as the report "includes" lots of people (e.g. Australia’s Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, British MP John Nicolson, the UK LGB Alliance (LGBA), the UK Charity Commission, the Australian Broadcasting Company, the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination commissioner, etc, etc.) -- Colin°^Talk 13:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think saying that they were also just included in the report as Void has suggest begs the question for why they were included in the report, and what the report said about them. By saying that the report classified [them] as a far-right anti-transgender hate group we avoid that issue entirely, as we are succinctly summarising the findings of the report, while also making sure that we're attributing those findings to the GPAHE and not putting this into Wikivoice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Btw, Void, I do think your attempt at compromise wording was a good attempt and a very worthwhile thing to try. I also think people should write to GPAHE if they think their report websites are unclear or unfairly listing organisations they don't think are far-right or hateful or extremist. -- Colin°^Talk 13:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The key issue here seems to be what weight to give the GPaHE report. I had never heard of them despite having been involved in quite a few articles about fringe US orgs. It turns out that according to Irish Times they were "Launched in 2020, the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism was founded by Ms Beirich and Wendy Via, both previously involved with the Southern Poverty Law Center" and that they are headquartered in Alabama. Those two names (mainly Bierich) are the only ones referred to in the (extremely scant) coverage of them by media. Basically there is nothing to indicate that this org has any authority or credibility whatsoever or that the report was anything more than a copy-paste of material freely available on the net.

On a more concrete level, Irish Times does not even mention LGBA, despite being used as a cite for them being "far right". The report itself, while highly critical of LGBA, does not call them far right (though it does speak of far right and "anti-LGBT" orgs sharing views/platforms in a general sense and clearly thinks far right and "anti-LGBT" views are equally odious). Only Pink News makes the 'far-right' claim, and then only in the headline AFAI can see.

So WP is calling LGBA Ireland 'far-right' on the strength of a headline in Pink News, itself seemingly based on a misreading of a 'report' by two US-based advocates, neither of whom is known to have any 'track-record' or expertise, or even to have ever had any contact with EU/UK politics or orgs. Why is this being given any credit whatsoever? Except for the 'far right' label, the report mainly repeats reliably sourced criticisms of LGBA, fairly well documented in WP:RS and already recorded in the article? Pincrete (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

If you check the archive, I suggested at the time the report was basically plagiarised from this wiki page, but it's not really relevant because unless a decent source says that, it's all just WP:OR. Void if removed (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I am in favour of deleting any material sourced to GPAHE, particularly the ‘far right’ claim. (Note I am having trouble with my keyboard and may not be able to respond to further comments.) Sweet6970 (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be a big stretch to suggest there is — or is likely to be — anything close to consensus for deleting material sourced to GPAHE — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The present coverage of LGBA Ireland is frankly ridiculous. On the one hand there is a single activist from Ireland tweeting that LGBA Ireland is actually British-run (the argument being that LGBA Ireland is using a central London based server for its launch (ironically the Irish site for which this activist, Noah Halpin has written has a US server He is clearly a Yank Trojan Horse!). Then there are two people from Alabama whom a PinkNews headline is claiming are saying LGBA Ireland is 'far-right', though the GPaHE don't actually say it themselves AFAI can see. How or why an Irish LGB org can possibly be 'far-right' isn't stated or obvious. Are they extreme (Irish?) nationalists - as well as being Brits in disguise? Are LGBA Ireland anti-semetic, anti-immigrant, Islamaphobic? Racist? Militaristic? What attributes commonly associated with the 'far-right' do they exhibit? Of course they don't but this kind of absurdity is what happens when any source and accusation is included, regardless of how poor, as long as it says something negative about LGBA, which appears to be the logic at present.

The present coverage of LGBA Ireland is frankly ridiculous. On the one hand there is a blogger from Ireland claiming that LGBA Ireland is actually British-run (the argument being that LGBA Ireland is using a central London based server (ironically the Irish site for which this blogger, Noah Halpin has written has a US server Halpin is clearly not Irish, but really a Yank impostor!). Then there are two people from Alabama whom a Pink News headline is claiming are saying LGBA Ireland is 'far-right', though the GPaHE don't actually say it themselves. How or why an Irish LGB org can possibly be 'far-right' isn't stated or obvious. Are they extreme (Irish?) nationalists - as well as being Brits in disguise? Are LGBA Ireland anti-semetic, anti-immigrant, islamaphobic? Racist? Militaristic? What attributes commonly associated with the 'far-right' do they exhibit? Of course they don't but this kind of absurdity is what happens when any source and accusation is included, regardless of how poor, as long as it says something negative about LGBA.

I'm taking this article off my watch list. The article itself admirably illustrates the point made here by Joanna Cherry - (that well known supporter of far-right, pro-British causes), that those who disagree with LGBA, wish to silence all points of view apart from their own. Pincrete (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Charity status appeal

Almost forgot to mention, I saw on Twitter a couple of days ago that the judgement for charitable status appeal will be handed down tomorrow at around 10am UK time. Obviously we can't add the tweet to the article, but I just wanted to give a heads up for editors to keep an eye out for it and for a burst of attention to be drawn here tomorrow morning. Regardless of the outcome there should hopefully be some good sources we can use for this by mid-afternoon. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It would appear that LGB Alliance won and have retained their charitable status. -- Colin°^Talk 09:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. There is supposedly a more detailed statement on their website but that has just crashed, presumably due to everyone trying to read the statement. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Mermaids: Statement on the ruling in Mermaids v Charity Commission and LGB Alliance.
• LGB Alliance: Error establishing a database connection.

It would seem that the ZX Spectrum that is running the LGB Alliance website can't handle the load, or someone unplugged it while hoovering their bedroom. -- Colin°^Talk 09:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

First reporting at [1] for The Irish news. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Going on what Mermaids have written, the ruling is legally disappointing in that they failed on the technicality that Mermaids did not have "standing" to challenge the ruling. They claim it didn't address the fundamental of whether the court agreed or disagreed they could be a charity, and they claim the two judges were split on this (and presumably didn't have to resolve that split because it failed on the other test). Mermaids are claiming that if this holds, then no third party can challenge the approved charitable status of an organisation. My feeling is then that the law hasn't performed optimally, in that this matter could have been settled at the beginning and nobody would have had to go through the rest of the arguments. But we shall see if Mermaids interpretation is supported by reliable sources. -- Colin°^Talk 09:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The Good Law Project have written about it here. In the lead sentence the "dismissed" word links to a Google Docs that is the tribunal ruling. I won't link to it as I'd rather we had a link to an official source. But you can read it if you like. -- Colin°^Talk 09:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The official ruling is at [2]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent text added "the judges holding that competing views should be publicly debated and exposed to public scrutiny, and adding that other charities have “no legal right to operate free of criticism”." This is a small part of paragraph 68 out of 77 in the tribunal report. For example, other writers have drawn out the point in paragraph 70 "that LGBA has gone beyond the boundaries of civilised debate" and the judges noted "the Commission can be seen to have had similar concerns. In light of the evidence, we consider that these were well-founded." Should we all get a go at adding a sentence that we think scores points for one side or the other, or that on their own appear to be making a different point to what the judges were actually ruling, which was was very specifically whether Mermaids met the test for standing? No. Wikipedia, as a encyclopaedia, is supposed to briefly summarise the overall appeal decision, with the weight appropriate for this very minor organisation. If we somehow had an entire article on the tribunal appeal of Mermaids vs LGB Alliance/Charity Commission, then perhaps points 68 and 70 would each have merit of mention. This article is about LGB Alliance, and so specifics of how Mermaids failed to establish standing, which these points form part of the argument about, are by the by. I've removed the sentence. -- Colin°^Talk 19:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The "Two issues"

In the tribual outcome it clearly states:

"There were two issues in the appeal:

a. Whether Mermaids has the legal right (known as “standing”) to challenge the decision of the Commission to register LGBA as a charity; and

b. If it does, whether LGBA is a charity as defined by the 2011 Act.

Two editors here and here have removed sentences remarking on the second issue. I'm not sure why. For the second one, Pincrete claimed in the edit summary "It was never asked that question and we have no need of primary sources". They are wrong on both counts. The judges could not reach an agreement on the second point and stated, essentially, that it was moot, since they were unanimous on the first point. I have already reverted the first removal and personally prefer not to revert more than once. I would appreciate if someone else could restore the information, about BOTH issues in the appeal, to the lead. The BBC source mentions this but the government source I used here is not a "primary source" about the judgment. A primary source about the judgement is this. They are a primary source about their own opinions but a secondary source about the judge's opinions. So their reporting that "The judges made no finding on the question of whether LGB Alliance is a charity." is secondary source material. You might think they aren't independent enough (but see Wikipedia:Party and person), but they are no more biased that any newspaper journalist and as a government body on the government website, have a legal requirement to be accurate and truthful. So I don't think using them for a source on this matter is any problem at all.

Another edit here made to the body, changed that portion from "There was no finding made on question of charitable status, with the two judges unable to reach an agreement." to "There was no finding made on the question of whether LGB Alliance should have been given charitable status, with the two judges unable to reach an agreement." This change is wrong. As you can see above, the issue being examined is whether it "is a charity" not whether it "should have been given charitable status" (for example, their behaviour since being awarded charitable status was an important aspect of the judges decision). They may seem similar but we should report this as it is. As this is a related matter of dispute, I would appreciate someone else reverting that back to an accurate description. -- Colin°^Talk 07:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [[EC}}

You are using a primary source to draw conclusions. All the secondary sources which I have read refer to the tribunal being asked whether LGBA SHOULD HAVE BEEN registered as a charity in the first place, which it declined to answer/could not agree on, but in what way is not made explicit and which is moot since the first condition (the right to challenge) was not met. The question of whether LGBA is a charity is a bit silly anyway. Under UK law anything registered as a charity IS one. The question and phrasing is attempting to imply that there is some mysterious category in which something has charitable status, but somehow isn't REALLY a charity. This legal category simply doesn't exist. There are of course orgs that some think shouldn't be allowed to be charities - which is what this case revolved on. Matters that the tribunal did not rule on, they did not rule on. The absence needs 3rd party sources to draw attention to them, not drawing inferences from primary sources. Pincrete (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

There simply aren't "two issues" in the tribunal, there are many more in some regards, but only one legally. Saying that the tribunal did not make any finding on whether LGBA is a charity is no more informative than saying it didn't make any finding on whether LGBA is an elephant. It didn't address the question in either case. Pincrete (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let's not concentrate on the precise wording of "is a charity" or "should have been given charitable status". I think there are secondary sources that support your choice, eg. Mermaids wrote "Because they found against us on standing, the Tribunal didn’t have to rule on the main issue in the appeal – namely whether or not LGBA should have been registered as a charity to begin with". And the guardian "The tribunal has considered extensive new evidence about LGB Alliance, so is not reviewing the Charity Commission’s original decision, but will deliver a fresh judgment on whether it was appropriate to grant charitable status".

But why on earth did you remove that from the lead. And make false claims that "It was never asked that question". It most certainly was. We aren't writing "didn't make any finding on whether LGBA is an elephant". Nor are we conducting OR when we state that they didn't make a finding on the second issue. There were two legal issues. Have you not been following this closely? Both sides are acutely aware there were two issues and this is not something I just invented. -- Colin°^Talk 09:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't read the tribunal ruling when I left that edit reason and was partly wrong. I had read 2ndary sources which chose the wording "should have been granted status" - besides if you read section 15 of the ruling, the judges make explicit that they are declining to come to any decision, despite being asked to do so. So they did try to consider the issue, but reached no agreement for reasons which are themselves not made clear. We shouldn't either of us be using rulings or reactions as sources for facts anyway, but the wording used by the tribunal "is a charity according to named piece of legislation", and conditional on Mermaid having a right to challenge the status. This is very different from "is a charity", which implies there are some kinds of 'real' charities distinct from legal ones, and the court equivocated about whether LGBA was in this 'real' category. It didn't, it didn't rule on the matter just as it didn't rule on other contentious issues. That can't be spun into the tribunal being uncertain as to whether LGBA is a charity according to some moral meaning of the word. Pincrete (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the wording in the body is accurate and concise:"There was no finding made on the question of whether LGB Alliance should have been given charitable status, with the two judges unable to reach an agreement". It would be WP:OR and fairly silly IMO to imply that two judges were uncertain as to whether an organisation IS a charity - it implies they don't know basic UK law or basic facts of the case. If they had have ruled on this matter, they would have said something akin to "doesn't meet this provision of this charity law in this regard and therefore shouldn't have been granted etc".Pincrete (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Pincrete I think you are getting bogged down on your own WP:OR about what "is a charity" means. The government department, the Charity Commission, wrote "The judges made no finding on the question of whether LGB Alliance is a charity". Can I suggest it is a little presumptuous for you, random Wikipedian that we all are, to declare the Charity Commission is being "silly" about the matter. Look, I don't now care really whether we write "is a charity" or "it was appropriate to grant charitable status" or whatever. All I want you, or anyone else, to do is restore the sentence to the lead, in some reasonable form, that declares this to be a matter the judges did not rule on.

This matters quite a lot, though those who are supportive of LGB Alliance would prefer not to report that matter (the right wing press largely ignored this, as did LGB Alliance's press release). Mermaids challenged the charitable status of LGB Alliance in court and the court did not decide that matter but told them that actually they aren't allowed to challenge it.

This isn't just any old issue that the court may have and could have looked at. The court looked at two issues, which I quoted in green at the top of this section. I find it frustrating that anyone might even question that these are the two primary issues in the case. The judges say so. Your opinion is unimportant. -- Colin°^Talk 14:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote, I agree whole heartedly with the charity commission, the Gdn and others that - effectively - there was no ruling WHATSOEVER on the "is it a charity" issue. I apologise if that has not been clear. What I might not agree about is how to render a non-ruling in the lead, though as said already, I think the text body accurate and succinct, possibly even expandable. I also don't understand why this aspect is receiving so much attention, but from a different perspective. The judges and Ch Com said many things about one point of view needing to respect the other, those bits of the rulings aren't being given much attention. Those who are antagonistic to LGBA are equally keen to present this as a 'moral victory' rather than a predictable legal failure. So what? That's why we prefer independent sources. Pincrete (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

What I think is a "bit silly" is for us to say: "There was no finding made on question of charitable status, with the two judges unable to reach an agreement." This implies that they were uncertain as to whether LGBA actually HAS charitable status. That phrasing is silly IMO, clearly they do since they were granted it and it hasn't been taken away. Even in the abstract, the question was "whether LGBA is a charity as defined by the 2011 Act". The BBC says "should have received", as I believe does the Gdn once, but the Gdn also renders that as "whether LGB Alliance qualified for that status", which I think is concise and avoids legal-ese. I'm happy to re-insert something along those lines in the lead if you want, though it isn't the key issue IMO. I think we may have been arguing at cross-purposes here. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring a sentence on this matter. For those who have been following this case for its duration, we are well aware that the primary issue was indeed whether LGBA met the requirements for charitable status. The judges phrase this as "whether LGBA is a charity as defined by the 2011 Act" and the Charity Commission phrase this as "the question of whether LGB Alliance is a charity". These two are, respectively, experts in the law and experts in determining what organisations merit charitable status, and thus call themselves a charity in the UK. I think you have said often enough that they are being "silly" and please, no more. Wikipedia is not interested in your view on that and I'm not interested in you trying to persuade anyone why it is silly.

Your edit summary was that the question wasn't asked. It was and it is in fact the primary question. But the law required a prerequisite to be examined, which was whether Mermaids had standing to challenge the Charity Commission's decision. And it was decided to examine both issues simultaneously, rather than having two steps. Those following the case know this and there was much speculation about what the two outcomes would be and whether even we might get a no on the standing issue but a no on the "is a charity" issue too, which would be awkward. The result means the Charity Commission's decision has not been fully tested in law, though it was examined. The judges noted they were undecided on the matter and decided they didn't need to resolve this because the "no" on the other matter made it moot. This is relevant, as it shows the case is legally difficult and unclear, though ultimately doesn't have a legal effect.

This receives attention because it is the primary issue in the case. The comments the judge made about all parties being nice and respectful to each other were not findings but just asides. They weren't asked to comment if being hateful on Twitter was a nice thing to do, but clearly the evidence presented painted a picture of behaviour that they felt warranted comment. Those comments were unspecific as to quite who they were aimed at so not particularly important for this article. -- Colin°^Talk 11:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you are happy, but I have never said the judges, the charity commission, or any of the sources were "a bit silly". It was our ambiguous phrasing that was "a bit silly". I apologised long ago for a poor edit reason, but I was at least partly correct that whether LGBA is a charity was neither asked nor ruled on. It self-evidently is a charity, since it is registered as one. There are no other criteria. Whether LGBA should be or should have been a charity according to specific charity laws were questions the tribunal did seek to answer, but were unable to do so. Whether it should be or should have been according to various moral principles was what a lot of the accompanying disagreement has been about, but that is inherently a fairly extre-legal question.

What the primary issue was is decided by the weight given by sources, not our own interpretation of the judgement, nor of the 'losing' party's press releases. I haven't read any sources that would generally be regarded as 'right-wing', only BBC, Gdn, Indy and US, Scottish and Irish ones added by others. They mostly mention the "is it a charity?" issue, but none gave it prominence. As I said previously, as the judges couldn't agree, it might well indicate fundamentally split alignment with the arguments of the opposing factions, or merely some technical/legal quibble. We simply don't know and can't conclude anything about a matter they chose to not rule on. They were unable to agree on it in spite of wishing to do so, but we don't know why. Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, no "is a charity" does not follow from "it is registered as one". That's got it backwards. Go look in any dictionary. Or go read the 2011 Act. There are specific tests an organisation needs to meet in order to be a charity. Being registered as a charity is simply something that organisations that are a charity can do, and the Charity Commission's job is to determine if they are indeed a charity and can therefore register as one. A charitable organisation could, I suppose, not register.

I'm not "interpreting" the judgement. There are two reasons for that. Firstly, we can (though we don't need to here) use primary sources when they are clear and don't require interpretation. I don't really think you'd get very far if you opened an RFC to ask the community "where there two issues in this appeal?" and the actual judges in the case said clearly "There were two issues in the appeal". No interpretation required. But secondly, you only mention sources that covered the judgement, so I suspect strongly you haven't been closely following this. As I keep saying, if you'd been following this closely since the start, it wouldn't be any surprise to you that there were two issues to the appeal, and which was the primary issue and which was a legal prerequisite. I think this matter can close. If you disagree, I strongly advise you do so some research on the case since the beginning, and then ask me about it on my user talk page.. -- Colin°^Talk 09:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

In general, I agree with Colin’s comments above about the ‘two issues’ and the position on being a charity v registering as one. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there were two issues that everyone sought clarification on. The second issue is whether LGBA meets or met the legal prerequisites to be a charity - that was not ruled on. So we can only record that it was asked but not answered, since the two judges were unable to agree about some matter.

There are probably charities that all of us wish were not or that we have very little respect for. When you say that "is a charity" does not follow from "it is registered as one", are you really saying anything other than you don't like some charities and think they shouldn't have been allowed to register as such? There are no charities that aren't really charities. There are ones we admire and others we don't, but having been registered as one is what makes them legally -if not morally - charities. We are both reasonably content, I hope, with the text, so how we have each come to our respective positions is a bit academic. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

To me, it seems entirely reasonable that there will be different definitions of a charity, and that these definitions may sometimes reject something as a charity even if it is officially registered as one. For example, I'm fairly sure in many countries I'd completely fail if I tried to set-up a charity whose sole purpose was to collect money for Nil Einne to travel the world, staying in luxurious restaurants, buying designer clothing, eating at top rated restaurants and otherwise live a full life. Even if I could register such a charity in some country, when I find no one actually wants to give to my charity, I still probably can't then go to my local McDonald's and say, hey I don't need a salary but give money to my charity so you'll pay less tax, I'll pay no tax and we all profit. If it turns out I'm a despot's child and I can do that in my country; it's entirely reasonable other sources are still going to say my charity isn't actually a charity despite it being registered as one. Although realistically if I am a despot's child, it won't be me working at McDonald's to get payments for my charity. It will be McDonald's who finds they have no choice but to put money into my charity and probably even people who actually work for a salary who find they are forced to. And yeah, it's entirely reasonable that sources are going to disagree that McDonald's and these workers are actually making charitable contributions and instead call them other things like bribery and a limited form of modern day slavery. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

My argument is nothing to do with what I respect or whether I agree LGB Alliance is a charity or not. My point is quite simple. Our common meaning of the word charity is as supported by a dictionary e.g. "an organization for helping people in need". Or for those living in the UK ,you can go read Charities Act 2011. You can read the sub-sections Meaning of "Charity" and Meaning of "Charitable Purpose". Those are the terms we in the UK agree to unless the government changes them. Those rules do not refer to the Charities Commission. Instead, the Charities Commission refers to those rules. That's why I say you've got it backwards. And if Mermaids did have standing, the court could have determined whether LGB Alliance is a charity, according to the 2011 Act, and the Charities Commission would, I assume, have to abide by that decision, and revoke their registration. That's the flow. -- Colin°^Talk 09:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)