Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Lead opening

The current lead opening reads

The LGB Alliance is an advocacy group in the United Kingdom which was founded in 2019. The group describes their aims as to advance LGB (lesbian, gay, and bisexual) rights, to counter public confusion between sex and gender and to assert "the rights of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men to define themselves as same-sex attracted."

I think this is a poor opening as it is driven by self-description rather than what reliable sources say, and it strikes me as mealy-mouthed apology as a result. Importantly, it seems to tiptoe around the fact that LGB Alliance exists to oppose transgender rights, which the reader should absolutely be told at the top of the article. The times article is good to follow, but I would support replacing the other two sources with this open democracy article: [1]. The lead would then be changed to something like

The LGB Alliance is a lobby group in the United Kingdom which was founded in 2019 in opposition to Stonewall’s inclusivity of trans rights. They describe their mission as "asserting the right of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men to define themselves as same-sex attracted", and claim this right is threatened by "attempts to introduce confusion between biological sex and the notion of gender". Awoma (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

LGB Alliance absolutely does not "exist to oppose trans rights" That's a highly biased take and invalidates the rest of your statements. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The reliable source says the group was founded "in opposition to Stonewall's inclusivity of trans rights." We should follow what they say, surely. Awoma (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Your "reliable source" is a political opinion website - not even a journal or newspaper or magazine. We have quotes from the Times - an actual "Reliable Source" according to Wikipedia - which say otherwise. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The Times says the exact same thing. It says LGB Alliance "split from Stonewall in protest over its transgender stance." If you are happy to engage with the proposal I would much rather see discussion of that though. This seems like a needless distraction. Awoma (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

How about "in opposition to Stonewall’s stance on trans rights"? That takes "inclusivity" out and is closer to what The Times says. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The article says that' it split from Stonewall over not being permitted to disagree with a transgender policy which they believed was "harming gay people and undermining women's rights", not that it "exists to oppose trans rights". In fact, the same article goes on to say that the group's mission is defending the right of lesbians and gays to define themselves as same-sex attracted". Lilipo25 (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

OK. If you could respond to the actual content of my argument that would be far preferred! I was not suggesting that "exists to oppose trans rights" should be included anywhere in the lead. Awoma (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Huh? You wrote exactly that above. Here is your quote, copied and pasted: LGB Alliance exists to oppose transgender rights, which the reader should absolutely be told at the top of the article. It's exactly what you said that we have been discussing. Why say now that you were not suggesting it should be included in the lead? And then yell at me to "respond to [your] actual comment? Lilipo25 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I wrote my suggested version of the lead in the first post. It did not contain the line "exists to oppose trans rights". That is my view, but not what I think should be written in wikipedia's voice. Please discuss the actual proposal, giving arguments for or against it. Awoma (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake, I WAS discussing your proposal! If you want me to discuss Daniel's proposal, I would suggest "split from Stonewall in 2019 in a dispute over the latter organization's transgender policy".Lilipo25 (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

My proposal doesn't say "exists to oppose trans rights". If you have a view on the proposal, then please give that. Daniel's proposal, importantly, only relates to a small portion of mine, so if you are only commenting on that bit it would seem to imply that you are happy with the rest of my wording, which I doubt you would be. Awoma (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I am happy with this as a compromise, though I prefer the wording from the Open Democracy article as it is clearer. It seems odd to me that we might say something like "opposition to Stonewall's stance" without clarifying what exactly that stance is, being one of inclusivity. Awoma (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

You are exhausting and I give up. Whatever you think your proposal was, I oppose it and support keeping the lead as is. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a real shame that posts like this containing further needless insults are treated as fine on wikipedia. We can do better! My proposal was given clearly in the first post. Blanket opposing it simply because you don't like the editor proposing it is awful, uncivil, and prevents possible work towards compromise. Awoma (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I haven't disagreed with you because I dislike you, I disagreed because the lede is fine as is and better than your biased proposals. If you think I dislike you because of that time you called me a transphobe and an admin had to redact it [2] (or for the discussion with that Admin under "Important Notice" on your talk page where you kept saying it [3], I don't. But I do find it rather silly for you to act deeply offended that I said I find your arguing "exhausting" after all of those genuine personal attacks. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please focus on the topic. Comments like this are needless. Awoma (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You literally just said that I am being "awful and uncivil" because I dislike you. The only reason I would have for disliking you is your previous personal attack and I am telling you that I don't. If you didn't want me to respond, you shouldn't have made the "you don't like me" comment. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I called blanket opposition awful and uncivil, which it is. Willingness to work with other editors, regardless of your view of them, to improve wikipedia, is key. Please, comment on the proposal. Give arguments for or against it. Personal abuse, insults, interrogation and blanket opposition to anything I try to achieve is not helpful or pleasant. Awoma (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

And yet again, I am telling you that I don't have a blanket opposition to anything you try to achieve. I am not abusing you. I do not agree with your suggestions. I believe the lead to be well worded as is and I think it should stay that way. I offered a compromise lead some time back, but you ignored it and yelled at me that I was responding wrong, so I vote keep it the way it is. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Whatever you think your proposal was, I oppose it" is blanket opposition. What about the suggestion do you disagree with? Awoma (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

They did not split from Stonewall because Stonewall included trans people; they split because they felt Stonewall's trans policy was harming gays and lesbians and women's rights and because Stonewall refused their request to foster an atmosphere of respectful discussion on the topic. The rest of your wording has a negative connotation ("They claim this right is threatened."). The current wording is neutral and accurate. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources say LGB Alliance was "founded in 2019 in opposition to Stonewall’s inclusivity of trans rights" and "in protest over Stonewall's transgender stance". I think wikipedia should follow this wording as closely as possible, as what you have written there just seems like original research. I am open to using a different word to "claim" if you feel this has a negative connotation. I personally read this neutrally - people can claim things which are correct, or claim things which are incorrect - but if I'm in a minority on that neutral reading I am happy to use another word like "state" or "believe". Awoma (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not original research, it's what the letter they sent to the Times, and which the Times and many other sources already used in this article reported on, said were their reasons for leaving. You are cherrypicking not just the source, but the quotes from the source to support a more negative view. And I'm sorry, but I am genuinely exhausted from this conversation. I feel we've both said all there could possibly be to say on the topic and I don't wish to participate further in this section. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my opening comment, this suggestion has the aim of moving away from a leave which is driven by self-description, which characterises your position. We should be describing LGB Alliance how reliable sources (such as the Times) describe them. Not as letters they themselves have written describe them. The Times summarises their foundation as being "in protest over Stonewall's transgender stance" and Open Democracy summarises it as "in opposition to Stonewall's inclusivity of trans rights". These are both clear, and should be there in the lead, as my suggestion has attempted to do. Awoma (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Awoma, in general. Every source we have other than the LGB Alliance itself - even Feminist Currents - seems pretty clear that transgender issues were fundamental to the formation of the group and remain a core part of its actions. As Awoma says, we should be driven by the view of the topic given by third-party reliable sources, not a group or person's self-descriptions. TSP (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. We are required to note that they deny this, and to keep a straight face while doing so, but we are not obliged to give their denials parity of esteem with pretty much every independent body which has commented on them. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A comment in support for my changes was made but has since been removed? Awoma (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Self-deletion by the author, at an admin's instruction (violated an I-ban). Lilipo25 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Following on from the above, in which 3 editors agreed with my suggestions and one offered unhelpful blanket opposition, I changed the paragraph, taking account as best I could the points of disagreement from Lilipo25. Subsequently, Lilipo25 has simply been editing the material back. This approach of being combative on the article and abusive on the talk page needs to stop. It's seen in relation to another editor's suggestions below and many others above too, and is likely to have a chilling effect. Awoma (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Awoma, this is a patently false characterisation of the edit I made and you know this. Please be civil. You and I discussed (at great length) in this section whether or not to include the accusation that LGB Alliance was formed to oppose Stonewall's trans policy in the lead sentence, or put it later in the article and stick with LGB Alliance's statement of their mission in the lead sentence. You felt the lead sentence must include Stonewall's trans policy and two (not three) other editors are on record as agreeing, with one making a sarcastic comment to the effect that "we have to keep a straight face while including their denial", demonstrating bias against the subject of the article.

You then used a website with no record as a Reliable Source to make the change; Open Democracy's content is also at least partially user-generated (they call for readers to submit articles on their site), which deems it unreliable by Wikipedia standards. I changed the source to an established RS, the Times, that also mentions their formation in regard to Stonewall's trans policy as you wanted and the other two editors agreed and followed their wording as required. I did not remove the information about Stonewall or their trans policy, and I left it in the lead sentence.

For you to make the wholly false claim here that using an established reliable source is "combative and abusive" or that it is against what was agreed upon by you and two other editors here is a personal attack. The source you are using is poor; when there is a better source available that Wikipedia has deemed Reliable, the rules make it clear that is what should be used. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Four editors supporting the changes, and one offering blanket opposition, is a clear consensus. I even adapted the wording to account for your unhappiness with the word "claim", but still you have decided to edit to your preferred version. This is not reasonable. The argument that the Open Democracy source should be replaced by the The Times source is irrelevant as my wording contained both sources. Open Democracy's content is not user generated as claimed, nor have I said that using The Times is combative or abusive. Your edits are distinctly against what has been agreed above, and look a lot like WP:OWNERSHIP. Awoma (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, it was three editors, and I don't know why you're arguing that it was a consensus when I'm already agreeing with you that it was? I didn't change the content, just the source and minor wording to match that source.

Open Democracy IS at least partially user-generated (legitimate journalistic outlets don't ask readers to submit their own content as articles) and lbr, that article looks like it was written by a ten-year-old. Every fifth word is in quotations.

It makes no sense at all that you are acting as if a minor wording change (from "opposition to Stonewall's position on trans rights" to "opposition to Stonewall's policies on transgender issues") is in any way the same thing as removing the entire sentence and sticking with LGB Alliance's statement on their reason for existing in the opening sentence, which is what I wanted and argued for. You not only got the content you wanted in the lead sentence, it now has a proper source attached that will keep it from being deleted by a future editor, which will likely happen if the Open Democracy source is left in. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I am happy for the wording to read "opposition to Stonewall's policies on transgender issues". I am glad you agree that consensus was clear. I will revert to my version with your suggested wording of "opposition to Stonewall's policies on transgender issues". If you have further changes which you would like to make to this wording, suggest them here and build consensus, rather than just implementing. Awoma (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

So if you don't object to the wording, your objection is to the source? But why would you want a poor source with no Wikipedia Reliability rating on it when there's a highly-rated WP:RS source available that says the same thing? A RS makes it harder for future editors to justify removing it. With the poor source on it, anyone can easily take it out and say the source was no good. Sorry, Awoma, but you aren't making any sense here. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Both sources are fine. Awoma (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I now have no clue what this entire "combative and abusive" claim was about, as you say you disagree with neither the wording nor the sourcing and as far as I can tell, that was everything. But per your agreement here that it is "fine", I will now put back the WP:RS (the Times) as the source on your wording. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"I will now change it back." No. You won't. If you want to make any changes, build a consensus. You have accepted that there was consensus around my version, and I have been more than reasonable in making adjustments and compromises for various things you were unhappy about. Build consensus. You do not own the article. Awoma (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You literally just said the Times source was "fine"! I'm not changing your wording back, Awoma, just the SOURCE, which you just said was "fine".

Do you now instead want to make a case that a partially user-generated-content website is a MORE Reliable Source than the London Times, a newspaper of record which is listed on the Reliable Sources page of Wikipedia as a Reliable Source? Then by all means, make that case and I'll listen. If you are not arguing that, then what are you doing not only refusing to allow a more reliable source that doesn't change content at all, but sending me Disruptive Editing notices over it? Lilipo25 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The user is now edit-warring, and I'm not sure how to handle this, because I've attempted to be as reasonable as possible in the discussion above and requested that Lilipo use the discussion channels, but they just aren't doing so. I'm not going to keep reverting their edits, so if another editor can help or advise what to do that would be very welcome. Awoma (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Awoma, you agreed on my Talk page, where you are sending me the Disruptive Editing and Edit Warring notices, to seek the intervention of an admin in this matter. You said you would 'welcome' it. I have done so, but now we will both have to be patient and wait for the admin to have a chance to see the request and look over the dispute and then respond. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Since it was unilaterally archived only a day after the latest reply, the references at Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 1#Some available references may be of use. Also possibly this statement and this interview. Still waiting on my library for fulfilling my request for the Mumsnet book. Cross-reference with WP:RSP where applicable (haven't checked myself). Urve (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Hate group"?

I think the content stating that LGB Alliance has been called a "hate group" should be brought back in some form but I do agree that there are problems with it as previously written so I'm not going to just reinstate it as it was. Lets take a look at the whole paragraph as it was before:

The group has been described by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights group, in a statement signed by a number of candidates for the Labour leadership including successful deputy leadership candidate Angela Rayner MP, and by John Nicolson MP, as transphobic, and by articles in two scholarly journals as trans-exclusionary and a hate group.

So, yeah. That is not great.

1. It is not clear who is saying what.
2. It very much makes it sound like the two scholarly sources might be the ones calling it a "hate group".
3. We have coverage of the allegation in the intro but not in the body. We have a rebuttal in the body but not the intro.

I think that we need to separate the larger group of people calling it "transphobic" and the smaller group specifically calling it a "hate group". I also think that we should cover the allegations and the rebuttals together. We don't want stuff in the intro that is not covered in the body, and there is no point in just saying the same thing twice, so I think we should leave it out of the intro and instead add something in the body immediately before the coverage of the rebuttal. Does this sound OK so far?

I'm going to tentatively propose that we add something like this just before "The Spectator published a defence...":

The group has been described as a hate group by Pride in London, SNP MP John Nicolson, the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats and the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights.

This could be referenced to the Pink News article, which has links to the claims being made except in the case of Labour. This might be a suitable additional reference to cover Labour. Does this sound OK?

Finally, I'd like to very tentatively suggest that maybe we should think about splitting the media coverage and the criticism into separate sections. I'm not 100% sure if that is worthwhile but I feel that the criticism and defences by organisations are getting a bit lost mixed in with the coverage of the media coverage (metacoverage?). --DanielRigal (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I was just about to start this section. We have a slightly ridiculous situation where we have arguments for inclusion of Brendan O'Neill's piece in the Spectator on NPOV grounds despite it being at best a perennial source, which specifically refers to LGB Alliance as a "hate group", but other parts of the article are not allowed to repeat these claims. Personally I don't think a Spectator opinion piece belongs largely on WP:RS and the "Media Coverage and Criticism" is a very bad format as it allows for a slew of quotes from perennial sources purely on the grounds that they are "media". I would support a "Criticism" section with the criticism and rebuttals found in reliable sources, because is not most criticism in the media anyway? Battleofalma (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Separate from other claims, Owen Jones has also described LGB Alliance as a "hate group". Battleofalma (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis are among the supporters of the LGB Alliance. Why can't we include that?

I recently added the following paragraph under "Media coverage and criticism":

In April 2020, the LGBT online newspaper PinkNews published an article providing evidence taken from the alt-right message board "Spinster" to suggest that homophobes and neo-Nazis are among the supporters of the LGB Alliance. While the article did not claim that the Alliance welcomed these groups as supporters, when asked by the newspaper to denounce neo-Nazis, the LGB Alliance refused.

References

User:力 quickly removed the addition, saying that "You'll need better than 'refused to make a statement to a media outlet they clearly dislike' to claim they support neo-Nazis." (I did not. Neither did the article. In fact, the paragraph said explicitly that "the article did not claim that the Alliance welcomed these groups as supporters".) I repeated the edit saying I did not claim that, and User:Crossroads reverted it saying it was WP:UNDUE (but Boyz retweeting them is due?), saying PinkNews is not considered reliable under WP:RSP, which I would have accepted if there wasn't another source claiming links to Neo-Nazis, and to top it off, quoted User:力, as if not reading the paragraph or my response.
The Alliance is considered by many to be a hate group. Their alleged link to neo-Nazis is significant in that light, significant enough to be mentioned in the British Parliament. I would more than support adding an article disputing these claims to the paragraph, only there is none. But that does not mean it should not be added. YuvalNehemia (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Bring a better source than PinkNews, and then people might take you seriously. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

What Emir of Wikipedia says. You aren't going to add a statement trying to do guilt-by-association to "neo-Nazis" based solely on PinkNews, which isn't a neutral and independent source here. The Alliance is considered by many to be a hate group - sources for that please, from somewhere other than PinkNews. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the frustration but I'm going to have to agree with the content removal too.

The problem is not with the source. The problem is that merely having some dodgy people as supporters does not reflect on an organisation directly. These are not dots that we can join without indulging in WP:OR. An analogy: Many football clubs have a racist contingent among their supporters but this only reflects negatively on the clubs themselves if they indulge in it, excuse it or pander to it themselves. Furthermore, we only cover it when there are reliable sources for it. Declining to denounce neo-Nazis also mirrors scandals where some American political figures have taken flack for refusing to denounce endorsements from the Klan. Its certainly "not a good look" but it's not proof of Klan membership in itself.

If this blows up into a genuine scandal then it could become noteworthy but them merely refusing to talk to Pink News about it is not enough. So... I'm going to stand by what I said about this a while back (and further up this page). This is an issue to keep an eye on. If any genuine and substantial links to the far-right emerge then we can and should cover them but we should not be trying to forge the links ourselves. People are looking into it. We have to wait and see what, if anything, that they find. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Modern neo-Nazis have made it a tactic of theirs to associate with various groups or symbols in order to stir trouble, so I don't think finding neo-Nazi supporters of a group is in itself enough to make it notable; If we start seeing organizations known for profiling hate groups taking a look at the LGB Alliance we'll have a clearer picture on whether that's a legitimately notable component of their support base. And I know it's beside the point a bit, but Spinster is not an alt-right website. They are federated with (meaning if you sign up for one you will see posts on the site from the other) Gab (a website that actually is dominated by alt-right discussion) and one of their admins has a curiously amiable relationship with Gab, but that's not quite the same deal. PinkNews doesn't claim Spinster as an alt right site, either. Though apparently the creators of Spinster did use Gab to organize their creation of Spinster. They both use code from Mastodon (whose creators don't like either of them very much). But to my knowledge the LGB Alliance isn't directly affiliated with the Spinster admins anyway (?). I hope this bit of background info tells you more about why this isn't really due to include in the article though. --Chillabit (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Relevance of Malcolm Clark?

Let's talk about the content removed here as it has been in and out a few times and there is no point in continuing to add and remove it. Some of the reasons to remove it seem arguable (although I very much don't think that a mere dislike of Pink News as a source is one of them!) so, while I'm going to argue for inclusion, I'm happy that we leave it out pending discussion.

As I see it, the questions are all about relevance. What is Clark to the LGB Alliance? Was he speaking for them when he said what he said? We don't do guilt by vague association. If he said that stuff while speaking for them, or if they endorsed it afterwards, then it is definitely relevant. If he was just spouting his own opinions on his own time then that is plausibly relevant if he holds or held a senior leadership position with them. If he is just a supporter then his views are not relevant here.

So, what is Clark to the LGB Alliance? If you look at the home page of their website (https://lgballiance.org.uk/), you will see him listed a one of only four people under the large headline "Meet the Team". From this we can conclude that he is one of the top 4 people at the LGB Alliance. More than a year after he made those remarks the LGB Alliance is happy to associate itself with him and to put his name front and centre in their brand. But what is his actual role there? He is, according to the latest filing, an active Director of the company: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/zZAsn7lNFn6t2xkgynHfrVZtRXE/appointments. He also owned 25-50% of the shares in the company, although presumably that is moot now that it is registered as a charity: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12338881/persons-with-significant-control.

I think that this is quite enough to demonstrate relevance and to justify limited coverage of the matter. I feel that the removed content is basically OK although it could be worded a little better and should say "director" instead of "co-founder". --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Elsewhere, Clark has been listed as a Director - I think the question of whether or not he was a founder - a highly subjective term - is irrelevant to both the question of PinkNews's accuracy in reporting this and also whether it is DUE to mention his views - it clearly is, as he is one of the public faces of the organization. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whilst you are correct that Clark is a director of the LGB Alliance, nowhere is he called a founder, as the edits were claiming. The only source for his views on this matter are a screenshot of a Facebook post, featured as a 'news' article in Pink News. WP:RSP advises caution when using Pink News as a source, and this is particularly important in this context when Pink News has a demonstrably combative relationship with the LGB Alliance and anyone involved with it. The content falls under WP:BLP given it concerns an individual, which means the standards of sourcing are higher, and this fails to meet them. The wording in this edit [4] fails any standards of WP:NPOV given that it removes any context of the comments. Finally, the passing comments of one individual do not make them views of an organisation that they work for, particularly when given as an individual and not in a professional context. There is no WP:DUE reason to include this particular content in this article. 2A00:23C8:2C8D:7E01:2801:7ED8:F46E:91D5 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The comments were picked up in the Scottish Sun and Christian Concern in the context of the Alliance, so I wouldn't say they are necessarily regarded as the passing comments of one individual. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The issue with the context of the comments is unrelated to the source reporting them. They were factually the passing comments of one individual, on a personal Facebook account. Not a policy, not an interview given or article written on behalf of the organisation, not a comment published in response to a question to the organisation. It would be WP:UNDUE to imply that these are the views of the organisation. Every other view represented in that sections comes directly from the organisations own literature, or was expressed by a member in an official capacity, as a representative of the organisation. 2A00:23C8:2C8D:7E01:5D4D:E6FA:2F3:BB54 (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this material might fit better in the "Media coverage and criticism" section - since it may not reflect the official positions of the Alliance - but I have seen no policy-based argument that inclusion is UNDUE in the article as a whole. The fact inclusion of the passing comments of one individual, on a personal Facebook account can certainly be DUE when reported in RS, and I believe them to be in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for repetition, but as I replied below, the Sun is a depreciated source, and Christian Concern appears to be an advocacy group rather than a professional news outlet. Given the caution that should rightly be exercised with regard to Pink News coverage of the LGB Alliance, there simply aren't enough WP:RS for this to justify its inclusion. 2A00:23C8:2C8D:7E01:5D4D:E6FA:2F3:BB54 (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with dropping "founder" or "co-founder" for "director". I think we are all OK with that, right?

The issue of speaking in a personal capacity when a member of an organisation can be a bit of a grey area although I don't think it is in this case. If the director of, say, an IT company has loud personal opinions about, say, fish quotas then nobody is going to think that they are speaking for their employer but if a person who works in a senior, public facing, role at, say, a fish canning company, loudly expresses controversial "personal opinions" about fish quotas then people are going to link that to their employer. (Well, they will if they care about fish quotas, anyway.) If somebody is the public face of an organisation then they have to expect that their personal behaviour can reflect on an organisation when it is relevant to the organisation's activities. (This is why you will never see Gary Lineker walking down the street eating a packet of Golder Wonder crisps for as long as he advertises Walkers.) Of course, it is not for us to make the link, but if that link has been made by others, and it has, then we can cover it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:21, 21 April 202

Again, this is being proposed in the Views section of the article, which is for the organisations views, not individuals personal opinions. If it were to be included, it should be in Media Coverage and Criticism (and vastly reworded). However, even here, it still does not have enough reliable coverage to justify it. As stated, Pink News should be used with caution on this page. Of the additional sources, the Sun is a depreciated source, and Christian Concern seems to be an advocacy group as opposed to a professional news outlet. There is simply not enough to justify inclusion, on the basis of WP:BLP and WP:DUE. 2A00:23C8:2C8D:7E01:5D4D:E6FA:2F3:BB54 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you are reading the RSN discussion of PinkNews correctly, to be honest. The current disagreement here concerns a factual issue, and the factual accuracy of PinkNews stories (apart from hyperbole and headline choices, which are often the same thing) is not really in question, according to the discussions so far.

And if we were to start pruning this article based on DUE concerns, the first thing to go should be the Alliance's own self-serving statements, IMO, not factual reporting by independent RS. Newimpartial (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

From the conclusion of the RFC PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used. Several editors mentioned clickbait and opinion content, and suggested that editorial discretion has to be used when citing this source. There is a clear adversarial relationship between Pink News and the LGB Alliance, hence why that caution should be used here. Additionally, the previous addition Malcolm Clark, an LGB Alliance co-founder says there shouldn’t be LGBT clubs in schools because of ‘predatory gay teachers’ does not offer any context or explanation of why Clark expressed this opinion, completely omitting his references to his own experience of a predatory teacher. I see no justification for its inclusion, as there are simply not enough reliable sources, and most certainly not worded in such a non- WP:NPOV way. 2A00:23C8:2C8D:7E01:5D4D:E6FA:2F3:BB54 (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

What are the independent, RS that refer to his own experience of a predatory teacher? That is the relevant criterion, and is also the piece of information to which BLP considerations most obviously apply, in this context.

As far as the clear adversarial relationship you allege, this is not covered by the provisio concerning click bait and opinion content, since the story in question is neither. Your objection does not seem to be supported by WP policy or RSN considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The source which refers to his own experience of a predatory teacher is the one you are arguing for, the Pink News source. Which remains the only RS on this item. Putting aside the fact that the Pink News article could well be classified as clickbait, my objection is supported by the RFC conclusion that additional considerations may apply and caution should be used, with the additional consideration being the adversarial relationship between these two organisations, and the caution being that further supporting sources are therefore needed. 2A00:23C8:2C8D:7E01:8C59:9F25:8BF3:9661 (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just read through the PinkNews piece again, and see no reference to his own experience, only things that happened at his school. Please advise.

Also, the RSN discussion had plenty of opportunities to note an adversarial relationship between PinkNews and "gender critical" figures, but this was not part of the resulting consensus or the close. So you seem to be something into the listing that was not intended. Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

his own experience is his own school experience, clearly discussed in the Facebook post, reprinted in the Pink News article, providing context that was omitted in the edit to this article, which it would be obtuse to dismiss. The RFC on Pink News concluded that it was reliable, but caution should be used. This is not a discussion about Pink News' relationship with gender critical figures, but about it relationship with this organisation. It is a simple fact, demonstrated by a cursory search of Pink News of the term 'lgb alliance', that the publication has a negative editorial position on this organisation. That doesn't preclude them as a source for this article, but it does mean that caution should be exercised. If other publications had considered this a newsworthy story, then there would be justification for inclusion. No other reliable sources have been provided. Quite frankly, this is going round in circles. As I have stated, this content in no way belongs in the Views section of this article, and whilst it could be appropriate in the Media Coverage and Criticism section, at present there are not enough reliable sources to justify it as WP:DUE, and if there were, it would still need to be reworded to reflect WP:NPOV 2A00:23C8:2C8D:7E01:E9A3:DACA:ADB3:534A (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Number of members

When I see organizations like this they usually mention how many members they have. But for some reason this isn’t mentioned. CycoMa (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If you've got a source I'm sure we've got nothing against adding that, I haven't seen one indicating their membership anywhere though. --Chillabit (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a registered as a charity and, as such, it doesn't really have members in the way that say, a bowls club, might. It has donors who will vary from people supporting the organisation with substantial regular donations to people who casually chucked 50p in a collection bucket one time. Perhaps the better questions to ask are: Who is on its board of trustees? How many, if any, employees does it have? What is its income? What does it spend that money on? All these questions, and more, will be answered when it files its accounts with the Charity Commision, which it is required to do now that it is registered as a charity. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Charities can have members. They don't have to, but many do - the National Trust, for example, is a charity and has members. I don't know if the LGB Alliance does, but the fact that it's now registered as a charity doesn't mean it can't.

The initial accounts will indeed be interesting and useful for this article. TSP (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Engagement on Twitter

Should it be mentioned that this group started as a twitter account? And that they now started to open accounts for different other countries trying to export their anti trans agenda? The content about trans people exeeds the LGB content by a large percentage. Excerpt from today (20.05.2021) and yesterday: - several tweets about anti trans propaganda to influence german and spain law proposals for better trans legislation - several tweets about partying when those law proposals where rejected by the conservative majorities in the said parliaments - a tweet about something about Stonewall - a tweet about something with the hashtag #sexnotGender, a hashtag only used by transphobes - usually with scare stories about trans people - a tweet about “If you are LGB, why do you write so much about trans-related issues?” - a tweet with a link to a psychiatric article about trans children - followed by two posts quoting sentences of that article that support their scare stories (without providing the context of the article)

It is also important to notice that on every day of public action for trans people like "trans day of visibility" or "trans day of rememberance" there are negative and hateful tweets from the LGB Alliance. - example "trans day of rememberance" 2020: tweeted that death trans people are in the wrong countries; tweeted that "In the UK there are currently more convicted killers who identify as trans than there have been trans people killed"; tweeted that most killed trans people are brazilian prostitutes; tweets that suicide statistics of trans people are wrong Yes they posted that on the very day trans people remember their dead friends. I think that is important for the assessment of their goals/agenda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Füchsin1984 (talk • contribs)

I do sympathise but I'm not sure what is actionable for us here. It is not for Wikipedia to get involved in investigative journalism as that is original research which is not allowed. If any of these matters has already been covered by reliable sources then maybe we can expand our coverage in line with that but we can't go mining their tweets one by one and making our own decisions about what is worthy of mention. I know this is frustrating, particularly when "obvious thing is obvious", but we have to wait for the sources to catch up with it. That said, if you have any new sources that you think we can use, please suggest them here. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Removing Allegations of right-wing links sections

I have removed the section titled Allegations of right-wing links for the following reasons: -

• - There have been several allegations of links between the Alliance and right-wing evangelical and far-right groups The several appears to be the two groups quoted. Of those, the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain [5] source states The LGBA has been called a “hate group” by members of the LGBTQ+ community, and many leading LGBTQ+ organisations. It’s co-founder has also worked with the US anti-LGBT Heritage Foundation. The second claim is false, and the first is hearsay. However, I have moved the IWGB up to the list of orgs that considers the group a hate group. The Trades Union Congress [6] states of the LGBA In the UK, anti-trans campaigners are deliberately stoking dissention between LGB and T sections of our communities, including the founding of the anti-trans LGB Alliance.. It does state that the ‘Alliance Defending Freedom’ are supported by powerful Evangelical and other conservative Christian institutions but that is a different group altogether. Therefore the statement is not supported by the sources. EDIT: I have now re-added the TUC to the paragraph describing LGBA as trans exclusionary. AutumnKing (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• - Gary Powell, an active member and speaker for the group, has been claimed to have also spoken at events organised by the Heritage Foundation.. Powell is neither a founder, according to the groups records and this Wikipedia article, nor is he a member or speaker for them, as confirmed in 2020 by on of the group's active directors.[7]. Personally, I believe this fails WP:DUE, but I have moved to body of criticsim sections, reworded, and added a second source.
• - In April 2019, Alliance co-founder Bev Jackson tweeted that "working with the Heritage Foundation is sometimes the only possible course of action. This is a tweet from prior to the formation of the group. More importantly, it is removed from context, Jackson was not talking about personal experience, but linking to an article about the actions of people in the US. The leftwing silence on gender in the US is even worse than in the UK. This story explains why working with the Heritage Foundation is sometimes the only possible course of action. https://thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/04/50959/ The framing of this is such that it fails WP:NPOV, besides which, it does not relate to the activities of the LGBA and therefore fails WP:DUE. Unless there is a sourced link between Jackson's tweet and the LGBA, inclusion is implying such, and therefore is WP:OR. AutumnKing (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021

Request that Ann Sinnott be added back as one of the founder members of LGB Alliance as stated at the time of there formation. 185.168.132.243 (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See above section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

What is quotation and what is not?

I am concerned about this diff in which @Mattymmoo: reverted an edit by @Amekyras: because it apparently changed a quote. The problem here is that is is not clear to me that the edit actually changes the quote at all as the only part changed is not inside the quotation marks. The parts which are within quotation marks are not affected by this edit. Obviously, we can't go changing Jackson's actual words but it is not clear to me that this edit was doing that. The change is from "transitioning children" to "allowing children to transition", which would obviously be a correct thing to change if we were speaking in Wikipedia's own voice as "transitioning children" is a highly loaded dogwhistle phrase that is deeply POV because it implies a conspiracy to affect children independent of their own actual needs. It is also a deeply weird phrase that would require explanation if we were to use it. "Allowing children to transition" is a much more neutral and readily understood phrase. I don't have access to the source as it is behind a paywall. So... Does this phrase appear in a quotation in the source or not? If Jackson actually said it then we can use it but it needs to be made clear that it is part of the quotation and that it is not being said in Wikipedia's own voice. That would prevent anybody changing it again without realising that it is a direct quotation. Maybe this is just a matter of moving the quotation marks to encompass the whole phrase being quoted? I can't tell without seeing the source. OTOH, if the phrase does not appear in a direct quotation in the source then that is Wikipedia speaking in its own voice and, in that case, Amekyras's edit (or something very like it) needs to be reinstated to achieve NPOV. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this, I checked to ensure that I wasn't changing anything quoted in the article beforehand, so I'm puzzled as to why my edit's been reverted. Amekyras (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I cannot find any focus in children within the source at all. The part being summarized in this quote merely says The LGB Alliance’s mission statement refers to clinicians concerned about a culture of “transing out the gay” at the Tavistock Clinic in London, which specialises in offering gender identity development services (GIDS). The only mention of "children" anywhere in the piece is at the very end, saying Having raised concerns about the exponential rise of children seeking to change sex, the pair have welcomed the recent High Court ruling in the Keira Bell case, which said trans children should not receive puberty blockers unless they understand the “long-term risks and consequences”. The bit talking about the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust of "transitioning children" is not only not a quote but doesn't seem to be from that source at all. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "transing out the gay" appears in an article verbatim from The Telgraph , the text of which can be accessed here if you can't get past the paywall. The article does not make it clear, at least by my reading, whether that quote is from Jackson or the organisation. I cannot find any other articles at this time that use that quote, but I've not done an exhaustive search. The Telegraph article however does not contain the terms transitioning children or allowing children to transition, so I'm not sure where that came from. The paywall for the Sunday Times article can be bypassed here.Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The whole of the original sentence appeared to be attributed to Jackson, despite the confusing placement of quotation marks, and that is the sense in which I reverted. Thank you to Aquillion for resolving the quote, is a non paywalled version available? However, 'transitioning children' and 'allowing children to transition' are both POV. A distinction may be drawn between social process of transition : Gender_transitioning and medical procedures : Sex_reassignment_therapy. The Tavistock Clinic, under discussion here, provides the the latter, so the relevant phrase would be 'transitioning children', as it is not a passive process. Mattymmoo (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree. If we are talking about surgery in Wikipedia's own voice then we should be specific about that and use the correct phrase rather than an obfuscatory dogwhistle. Something that implies a conspiracy, as "transitioning children" does, is never going to be appropriate for use in Wikipedia's voice although it would have been fine in a quotation, if the quotation had been accurate. Our objective in this section is to document the LGB Alliance's line. We need to make sure that we quote them accurately and in a way that is clearly identified as a quote. Whether the quote makes any sense is on them, not us. When paraphrasing we need to take care to retain the meaning of their claims and not to make their line sound either more or less credible than they do themselves. That's a tricky task and letting quotations do that work for us is a good approach. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References