Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Opening sentence POV

There are two issues with the opening sentence: should it mention that the Alliance currently has charitable status, and should it mention that the Alliance is a controversial group?

MOS:BEGIN states that The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, while MOS:FIRST enjoins, Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. So what is the main thing the Alliance is notable for, and what is the appropriate, NPOV language to use to communicate that to our readers? Newimpartial (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:WEASELly stating the group is "controversial" is not a neutral point of view. The rest of the short lead explains this. And removing the "charity" bit is removing a plain fact, which is POV, and was reverted by Mattymmoo, Sweet6970, and me. A law may be controversial and challenged in court, but that doesn't make it not a law while in effect. The long-standing lead sentence here sticks to the basic facts and is neutral, including mentioning their founding due to disagreement with Stonewall over transgender issues. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Am I to understand from this that you feel you have a right to make up to 3 reverts? And all 4 of your edits concern the term "charity", either removing it or calling it "controversial". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

What part of Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject is it that you feel does not apply here - assuming, that is, that charitable status is even a notable fact in this instance (yes, it is reliably sourced, but not nearly as prominent in the RS as the controversial nature of the group).

You appear to be arguing that charitable status is a basic fact about the Alliance that should be mentioned in the first sentence, but noting that it is controversial is not basic and should not; do you have any evidence to support this (rather remarkable) assertion?

Also, controversial modifies group, not charity in my proposal. All of my edits to the first sentence aim to arrive more nearly at a policy-compliant, WP:NPOV first sentence. No sense of right or entitlement is implied. Newimpartial (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: Just a question what’s your definition of charity? Because I’m not sure how a group calling themselves a charity is controversial. I mean charity organizations like The Salvation Army are uncontroversially a charity organization but they have done some controversial things.CycoMa (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not questioning that the Alliance currently has the status of a charity in the UK. I am questioning whether this information, devoid of context, is a DUE and NPOV inclusion for the first sentence, given WP:BEGIN and WP:FIRST as quoted above. Newimpartial (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: maybe we should say they are currently recognized as a charity organization.CycoMa (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the lead section covers the issue nicely, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: not to be rude or anything. But, that comment in a way does come off as WP:NOTFORUM. But, right I will get onto you for that right now. Can you explain to me why it covers the issue better?CycoMa (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are referring to WP:FORUM in relation to my previous comment, but anyway: the last paragraph of the lead section provides the necessary context around the Alliance's charitable status; charity and advocacy group in the first sentence creates POV problems IMO because it is devoid of the required context. Newimpartial (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Being a charity and advocacy group is a fact. It only needs "context" if one thinks that their being so is some sort of mistake or illegitimate. Perhaps it is, but we are not to right great wrongs. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Our job is to present the reliably-sourced facts and allow the reader to form their own opinion. Your preferred version of the lead sentence makes this more difficult, in my view. Newimpartial (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That they are a charity is a reliably sourced fact. And calling them "controversial" is tilting the reader toward the opinion of their opponents. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Not all reliably sourced facts are to be included in the first sentence, per policy. And I don't think "controversial" tilts anything; I think it follows the balance of the RS material on the Alliance. But clearly other voices need to be heard here. Newimpartial (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course it should say that the organisation is a charity – this is a basic fact, and it would mislead our readers if this is not stated. It is not POV to state this. And saying it is controversial in the first sentence is not appropriate. If having opponents makes an organisation controversial, then all political organisations are controversial (It’s late where I am, and I am going to bed. Hope this is sorted by the morning.) Sweet6970 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If your scan of the media environment tells you that the Allianxe is only controversial in the sense in which all political organisations are controversial, then I question what universe of discourse you are basic thar judgment on. Bizarro World, maybe? Sure, there are other organizations with similarly controversial mandates, but I suspect that most of these articles have "controversial" or equivalent language in their first sentences.

And I wonder if you could elaborate on what basis the Alliance's charitable status is a basic fact? I haven't done the survey, but I doubt very much that the term features in the first sentence of all articles for UK advocacy groups with charitable status. (Nobody is proposing that this fact be excluded from the article, or even from the lead, just from the first sentence.) Newimpartial (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

LGB Alliance legal status is charitable. I conducted a straw poll of a number of pages on uk charities, & all had their charitable status in the first sentence. LGBA charitable status is a basic fact which was in the article for some time with no problem, until PBZE twice removed it without explanation. Mattymmoo (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you let me know what you included in your straw poll? Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism mentions charitable status in the second sentence, and that is an organisation without a high-profile court case to have its charitable status revoked (unlike the Alliance). Mention of the charitable status of the Scottish Council on Archives is also confined to the second sentence, and is also equally uncontroversial.

Also, the article for Dacorum Heritage Trust (also categorised as an advocacy organisation) doesn't mention its charitable status in the lead section at all, only in the infobox. And the charitable arm of Global Justice Now isn't mentioned in the lead at all. So I am starting to question your "straw poll" methodology. :)Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Core Issues Trust, the gay conversion therapy lobby group in the UK, apparently has or had charitable status - however, that isn't a very good article so I wouldn't hold up the absence of clarity on that point in the lead as a positive example. Similarly (though in a much better article) the charitable status of Parity (charity) - which changed over time - isn't mentioned in the lead section at all, only in History. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I looked at 10-15 well known charities. Digging out a handful of counter examples is hardly a methodology. The first sentence ofForum Against Islamophobia and Racism is drowning in descriptors, several of your other examples could actually be improved by stating charitable status, as it does not appear that you are seriously proposing that all Wikipedia articles on charities remove this info from first sentences where present. Mattymmoo (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you specify exactly how the LGB Alliance's controversialness differs from that of other advocacy groups? If it is the topic that makes the difference, than that is special pleading. If it is the degree, then the argument for labeling them - that their degree of controversy is special - appears to be WP:Original research. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

My rule of thumb would be that when the RS coverage of the controversies the group engages in exceeds the coverage of the group itself, the group is controversial. The principle here is WP:PROPORTION, which specifies that we should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. As WP:LEAD further specifies, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Placing decontextualized, contested assertions about the article's subject in the first sentence of the lead seem to me to violate this policy in a rather obvious way; no WP:OR is required. Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That the LGB Alliance is a charity is a legal fact. Nobody is contesting the fact that they are legally registered as a charity; they are contesting that registration itself. Unless and until that registration is reversed, it belongs in the definitional first sentence. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You know, I've spent quite some time now, looking for other cases where the charitable status of a group has been challenged in the courts, and so far have found none at all where the article's lead sentence is written the way you are proposing here (as part of the "definitional first sentence"). None. Do you see any? Newimpartial (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

How many other groups are there where their charitable registration is the subject of a current court appeal? I don't know of any. Besides, other articles are often poor precedents since most of Wikipedia is underscrutinized and affected by whoever happened to last sweep through. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

True, but you are appealing to a "one right way" of handling this situation, which AFAICT is unsupported outside the confined of your own mind. Newimpartial (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

How many charities have had their charity registration challenged in the UK courts by four other charities (Mermaids, Consortium.LGBT, Gendered Intelligence, LGBT Foundation for those keeping count)? Only the LGB Alliance that I'm aware of. How many charities have had their charity registration challenged in the UK courts at all? Also only the LGB Alliance that I'm aware of.

Sticking with the two questions at hand. Is the LGB Alliance a charity at present? Yes. Unquestionably and verifiably so. Is the LGB Alliance controversial? Also yes. Sky News, The Independent, i News, The Scotsman, indy100 and ITV have all called them controversial recently. The Telegraph, and PinkNews have called them controversial in the recent past. In fact the only mainstream UK media sources that haven't called them controversial as far as I can find are the BBC, The Times, and The Guardian.

Given that almost all of the major reliable UK media sources have called them controversial, it seems to me that it should be included in the lead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll chuck in my 2p worth here. I don't object to the intro saying that they are a registered charity, because they are, for the time being at least. (My thoughts on how that happened are... very much for another forum.) I also feel that there is limited value in explicitly saying that they are "controversial". It's certainly not inaccurate, and I don't object to its inclusion, but anybody reading the intro will get that impression anyway. I think that it is more worthwhile to say what the controversies are than to merely apply "controversial" as a label, but I don't see it as a POV problem to use the word. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's my opinion. The legal definition of "charity" is different from the common one. It is legally classified as a charity, yes, but in reality, the common meaning of the term is a group that primarily helps others. The LGB Alliance's actions are primarily related to taking away the rights of trans people, so this seems demonstrably false. Calling it a "charity" in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributing that classification to the legal system would imply the common meaning of the term and is thus non-neutral. If enough reliable sources call it a "charity" in their own voice (as opposed to saying it is legally classified as one) then I might change my mind. PBZE (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly all of the recent sources I linked above in response to adding the word "controversial" call them a charity, in light of their registration being granted. While I understand the thrust of this argument, and do agree that their actions or lack thereof do not meet the spirit of the word charity, they certainly at this time meet the legal definition of one. Whether they will after the tribunal, and any subsequent appeals is a discussion point for the future. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This page is not the place for discussing personal interpretations of what the meaning or definition of a charity is. See WP:NOTFORUM. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th Out of the six sources you linked, the first four only use the word "charity" for the LGB Alliance in the context of "the legal system made it/recognized it as a charity" which to be honest does not cut it in my opinion. The second-to-last one, indy100, says "as a charity" followed by a statement from the Charity Commission, implying that it is the Charity Commission's view that the LGB Alliance is a charity, not necessarily the source itself. Only the last one, ITV, uncritically and directly calls the LGB Alliance a charity. In contrast, several of the sources directly, in their own voice, refer to other organizations such as Mermaids as charities. PBZE (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah. If we're talking about putting it in the first sentence of the lead, the question is not whether they meet some legal definition of a charity, but whether that is a significant part of their reputation and history. I think that that's clearly not the case; we can mention the dispute over their charitable status further down, but it doesn't make sense to include it in the lead, since it's not part of the primary way that sources define the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence is extremely biased. Charity is defined by our article as "a non-profit organization whose primary objectives are philanthropy and social well-being of persons". LGB Alliance is pretty much universally (i.e. by everyone except the far-right fringe) regarded as a hate group exclusively dedicated to anti-trans bigotry. Describing anti-trans activism as "philanthropy" and "social well-being of persons", even in the first word of the lead, is obscene and factually wrong. Its legal status can be mentioned further down in a more precise manner instead. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Amanda A. Brant: look I understand what you are saying when you call LGB alliance a hate group. I also personally agree with you that LGB alliance is indeed a hate group. But a charity group is defined as an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.

I feel like y’all think charity groups mean all good without controversy. Keep in mind the The Salvation Army is a charity group but they have been criticized for being anti-LGBT. It sounds like you are saying the Salvation Army is not a charity group because they have bigoted views.

Also your comment in general comes off as non-neutral.CycoMa (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

While I don't want to speak on behalf of or over Amanda, I do have a question. Yes the Salvation Army have been criticised for their anti-LGBT stance, but aside from that they do unquestionably carry out charitable campaigns. Aside from their advocacy work, have the LGB Alliance done any charitable campaigns either before or post registration? I'm certainly unaware of any after a brief look at their social media, and of the six "campaigns" listed on their website, five are advocacy related and one is merely bringing attention to a legal fund set up by and on behalf of Allison Bailey with regards to her employment tribunal case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I haven’t seen any cases of them doing charity work either to be honest. But, I can’t saying beyond that because I might go against WP:NOTFORUM.CycoMa (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

First: Their legal status is not really the most important descriptor of what kind of group they are. It gives a misleading impression when presented without any kind of context, as the first word, because of the general meaning of the word. It's fine to mention that they hold the status of "charity" further down. Secondly, I don't think they are comparable to the Salvation Army at all. The Salvation Army isn't a group dedicated solely to fighting a vulnerable minority, and they do actual work to help people, regardless of whether they hold some religious views that some might object to. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand the points that PBZE, Aquillion, and Amanda A. Brant are all making and I do agree with them completely. I'm certainly unaware of them preforming any of the typical roles a charity in the UK would ordinarily do, I'm just concerned that by removing the word charity from the first sentence it would be a WP:NPOV violation while their legal status as a charity is subject to review by a first tier tribunal. Conversely I also wonder if adding the word "controversial" like so The LGB Alliance is a controversial British charity and advocacy group founded in 2019 into the lead given that both their actions and their charity registration are controversial as reflected in both the "Charitable status" and "Media coverage and criticism" sections would solve this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with that suggestion, but I only get one !vote.Newimpartial (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You know that could actually be a good idea. But, I’m gonna wait and see what other people say on the matter.CycoMa (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No, putting "controversial" in the first sentence like that is WP:WEASEL and poisoning-the-well tactics. We've been over this already. Perhaps an acceptable compromise would be to put "registered charity", which emphasizes the legal nature of it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not editors here agree with the charitable status of the LGB Alliance is wholly irrelevant. The first sentence should define what the article subject is. The LGB Alliance is a charity. That's currently a legal fact and part of defining what it is. Whether or not this status is deemed controversial is not relevant to defining what it is - that aspect (the controversiality) can be outlined subsequently (as indeed it is - in fact a significant part of the lead currently covers this). All the talk above about the LGB Alliance not meeting editors' or Wikipedia's definitions of a charity are WP:SYNTHy arguments and should be discarded. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

In researching this over the last couple of days, besides the POV issues evident here there is also an underlying ENGVAR issue. UK English uses the noun "charity" for a whole raft of organizations that in North American English would typically be "NGOs", "foundations", etc. (just as UK English makes "campaigners" of people who in North America would be "activists"). Meanwhile, charitable status in NA English is more commonly indicated as an adjective rather than a noun.

Now this is a UK organisation, so it probably seems evident to some editors that there is a similar indicative usage of "charity" to be followed here. However, most of the sources used in the article, including UK sources, do not do this - rather than simply calling the Alliance a charity, as this article currently does, they note that it has received charitable status but that this status is contested. It seems to me that we are required to do what resources do, rather than engaging in OR that being a charity defines what the subject is - this is an exceptional, not a typical case, and resources recognize it as such. E.g., if the Alliance loses charitable status early next year, will that affect its operations in any way? I doubt it.

Also note that I have looked for other UK organizations whose charitable status has been contested in the courts, had haven't found any presented in the lead sentence of WP articles simply as a "charity" (or "registered charity"). WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that, but for those editors stating that "charity" is obviously definitive of the subject in this case, I would appreciate seeing at least one small iota of evidence in support of that position, rather than the repeated rhetorical flourishes of Crossroads and others. Newimpartial (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree completely that using "controversial" in this manner is MOS:WEASEL given that the term accurately represents what reliable sources are saying about the organisation as a whole. From WEASEL "The examples [in MOS:WEASEL] are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." The article body clearly demonstrates the controversial nature of the organisation and its registration as a charity, and as MOS:WEASEL plainly supports use of words like this when supported by reliable sources, it should be allowed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You might not have understood that for Crossroads, words - even WP policy links - mean whatever Crossroads says that they mean. WP:BLUESKY apparently applies. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This is still a personal attack, even in small text. WP:BLUESKY is an essay which I counter with WP:DOCITEBLUE. Citing BLUESKY is the rhetorical equivalent of 'it just is, okay!?'.

"Controversial" as an unattributed term in the lead sentence is disallowed per WP:LABEL. And I recall a certain editor making much of other articles not saying "charity" in the lead sentence, but nobody has pointed to the precedent of articles defining their subject as "X is a controversial Y". It is unencyclopedic opinionated writing. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you've read WP:LABEL incorrectly and left out an important distinction. "[labels] may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Reliable sources widely describe the LGB Alliance as controversial. They also describe its charity registration as controversial. These sources are already in the body text. Where reliable sources do describe the subject in that manner we are to use in-text attribution. This objection to WP:LABEL nor MOS:WEASEL is not valid. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

As you alluded to, that sentence you quoted then ends with, in which case use in-text attribution.. An opening sentence of the form "X is a controversial Y" does not contain WP:In-text attribution. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It does not contain an in-text attribution yet. There are many from which we could chose within the sources of the article, and perhaps one could be suggested. When I proposed the text earlier today, WP:LABEL complaints had not been made. Now that they have, I have proposed a solution which is to take the existing proposal and add a citation inline for it. The positioning of that citation is largely stylistic choice, as it could easily fit in after any of the following words; "controversial", "charity", "group", or "2019". Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, not only are you citing MOS:LABEL as though it were policy (it isn't; it's a guideline), you are also claiming that "controversial" represents unencyclopedic opinionated writing. That just isn't the case, and many article lead sections, including The Birth of a Nation, the Stanford prison experiment and Blurred Lines all feature "controversial" - without attribution - somewhere in the article lead, among many, many others.

Also, if you have any editor has forgotten the many occasions on which you have cited as BLUESKY claims which are not only contested but are in fact devoid of substantial support - well, the diffs are available but are not really relevant to this discussion. To point out that, on many occasions, you have not felt the need to cite supporting evidence for your opinions is indeed BLUESKY and not in any way a personal attack, though again, diffs would not be difficult to find. Newimpartial (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Clarification by Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You are casting WP:ASPERSIONS and violating WP:NPA#WHATIS. I do not recall having cited BLUESKY in a long time - perhaps when I was a newer editor I did - but I do not agree with that essay nowadays.

The other articles you link are making my point for me - none of them define their subject as controversial in the first sentence, as was being pushed for here. Which is good. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you really aged so much since last year? And you have still been using bluesky argumentation - though without the wikilink - this month, making a highly controversial claim as though it were obviously valid and refusing to provide evidence for it when asked. Looks BLUESKY to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Autism Speaks is a fantastic and direct comparator here. Like the LGB Alliance, it is an advocacy organisation and is 501(c)(3) registered making it broadly the equivalent of a UK charity. Like the LGB Alliance, it is a controversial organisation due to its views and stances about vulnerable individuals. The first sentence of the lead for that article reads "Autism Speaks Inc. (AS) is a controversial autism advocacy organization and the largest autism research organization in the United States." And possibly to address MOS:LABEL the end of the sentence has three in-line citations. I believe this one page addresses all of the concerns raised? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I can also cite three other articles that do the same; Happy Science, Burzynski Clinic, and Richard Lynn. While not as directly comparable as Autism Speaks, at least one of those three meets WP:BLP criteria while maintaining "controversial" in the first sentence of the lead. That said I stated earlier on the discussion around adding the missing co-founders why I do not believe WP:BLP applies to this page, I'm merely mentioning it because it is a stricter standard that some articles are held to. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

collapsed discussion on collapsing

I feel like I might have to collapse a few comments. Some of this is going nowhere, also this discussion might become disruptive.CycoMa (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure that would be appropriate, as you have been WP:INVOLVED earlier in this discussion, and in broader discussions between the involved parties here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Maybe a vote might be a good idea.CycoMa (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Maybe take a look at WP:TPG and other relevant guidelines before you think about doing any such thing. Collapsing comments is not something to do on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC) @Newimpartial: you keep linking me to IDONTLIKEIT, can you please stop. At this point this is coming off as spam. Also I have read through the discussion and listen to y’all’s arguments. The arguments are kinda repetitive at this point. Also I’m concerned this discussion is becoming uncivil because I saw @Crossroads: mention something about personal attacks.CycoMa (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Is there something in the WP:TPG that calls for editors to volunteer as an umpire? I thought we just had pitchers and catchers. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Saw this on the noticeboard. I do not see why mentioning the basic fact that it is a charity cannot be included in the lead sentence. "Charities" can be used to avocate for many whether 'controversial' or not. As for stating it is controversial in the lead sentence, I do not think that is helpful here considering it is not without context towards the rationale of said alliance. Also I am not sure why we give so much weight towards the Labour Party in the lead, I mean there are other political parties in the UK [1]. (Do not ping me).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

In the UK, when an organisation has charity status, that has particular implications for how the organisation conducts its affairs in terms of organisational structure, finances and legal obligations. For example, it needs to be governed by a board of trustees who are volunteers and usually unpaid. It must not be party political. All its assets must be used to further its stated charitable causes, which need to be outlined to the Charity Commission and then reported on yearly. It also will benefit from certain financial privileges e.g. exemptions from certain taxes. These differences in how a charitable organisation conducts itself compared to one without such status, are why it is part of defining it and should therefore be part of the first sentence in the article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, a NPOV tag shouldn't be removed while discussions are active unless there is a consensus they have been resolved - obviously it can't be removed for "no consensus" reasons; if we did that it would never apply at all, since its very existence implies a dispute and therefore a lack of consensus. Clearly this dispute is still ongoing and has failed to reach a consensus yet. Anyway, my take is still what I described above, but if we remain at an impasse I would suggest surveying coverage of the source to see how it is generally described - specifically whether it is widely described as a charity, and whether it is widely described as controversial - and then proceeding to RFCs on both "charitable organization" and "controversial" if that doesn't resolve the issue. (Separate RFCs, I would think, since the two issues are really separate, though similar - though tying them together to an extent while investigating how sources generally use the terms keeps us honest because I think it's reasonably clear that at a bare minimum we can't use a less common descriptor in the lead while leaving out a more common one.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Due to practical difficulties in real life, I have not participated in this discussion since my post of 10 October 23:26. There are 2 points which I think have not been made:

1. An important reason for stating prominently in the lead that the LGB Alliance is a charity is that you can complain to the regulator – the Charity Commission for England and Wales - if you think that a charity is engaging in improper behaviour, or that it is misusing charitable funds. This is significant information for readers.

2. I am puzzled by Newimpartial’s comment at 23:25 on 10 October And I wonder if you could elaborate on what basis the Alliance's charitable status is a basic fact? I haven't done the survey, but I doubt very much that the term features in the first sentence of all articles for UK advocacy groups with charitable status. The first sentence of the article on Stonewall (charity) is: Stonewall (officially Stonewall Equality Limited) is a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights charity in the United Kingdom. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

So, I don't believe there is a problem with referring to them as a 'charity' in the lead sentence. See for instance Institute of Economic Affairs which is another UK charity that gets a lot of criticism for being a right-wing lobby organisation disguised as a charity; we have it there. The dispute is very adequately covered in the lead and the article. I would prefer to stick to the simple and straightforward 'charity' rather than 'registered charity' or some longer version, but that's just for clarity. I would be happy to include "controversial" as it's one of the defining features of the organisation and is in all kinds of sources. The Land (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just changed this back to "registered charity", with a wiklink. That's the term of art in English law and, whether we personally agree with the charitable status of LGBA or the IEA or not is irrelevant — that's their legal status. They can be both criticised for being "lobby organisations disguised as charities" as well as being legally recognised as such by the Charity Commission, after all. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies)

I believe there's consensus here for "charity" or "registered charity" in the lead. I prefer @OwenBlacker:'s wording, as he rightly points out that it has a specific meaning in English/UK law, and is objectively true pending the outcome of the tribunal and any subsequent appeals next year. That the organisation seems not to undertake any charitable campaigns is largely a matter for that appeal, and perhaps if an RS can be found elsewhere in the article body.

If we're in consensus about the word "charity", that just leaves the word "controversial". I've stated above about the parallels between the LGB Alliance and Autism Speaks. Both are charities, both have a significant amount of controversy around them, and the Autism Speaks article uses "controversial" in the first sentence of the lead. I'd be interested to hear other editor's opinions on this, particularly @Crossroads: given his objections on the word previously. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: @CycoMa: just restating what Aquillion said previously; "a NPOV tag shouldn't be removed while discussions are active unless there is a consensus they have been resolved". We still have outstanding consensus issues surrounding the lead that should be resolved before removal of that tag again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The organisation is currently on the register of charities that is maintained by the Charity Commission for England and Wales, so I fail to see how can describing it as "a registered charity" can be in any way questionable or challenged for being in violation of NPOV. Unless and until that changes, surely this is a perfectly natural description that succinctly characterises the organisation's nature and function and so belongs in the opening sentence. As to whether "controversial" belongs in that same sentence, I see that this has been a highly contested description fought over for a considerable time and so is one that I will steer clear of for now. JezGrove (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It does, however, appear that other registered charities, where their charitable status has been challenged in the courts, are not described as "charities" or "registered charities" in the lead sentences of their WP articles. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion - and especially inclusion in the lead sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned some very obscure charities above, but all the ones that I can think of off the top of my head (e.g. National Trust, Samaritans, Royal National Institute of Blind People, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, etc. have their charitable status mentioned in the first sentence of their WP articles. The court challenge is surely irrelevant as of now, although I suppose it might arguably contribute towards the inclusion of "controversial". JezGrove (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You are comparing the subject of this article - whose charitable status was never any less controversial than its other activities - with other charities whose activities and charitable status are largely or entirely uncontroversial. It seems to me that the evidence you offer rather makes my own point for me, as per WP:DUE WP should treat like cases alike and different cases differently. Newimpartial (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It might come as a surprise to the National Trust to learn that they are not controversial. From just yesterday: The National Trust has needlessly provoked an ‘anti-woke’ campaign. I can remember the RSPCA getting criticised for its opposition to fox hunting, too, a while ago: RSPCA spent ‘staggering’ £330,000 on Heythrop hunt fox hunting case . JezGrove (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a salient difference between a charity that is occasionally embroiled in controversy, and an activist group with charitable status that never engages in anything except controversial advocacy. Newimpartial (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that WP:Consensus is not unanimity, it looks to me like a consensus - a clear majority of the size that, say, would lead to a deletion closure at an AfD - has formed that "registered charity" is an appropriate description, especially from editors familiar with UK terminology. That there may be one or two holdouts does not mean that the tag stays, per WP:FILIBUSTER. The tag should be removed.

As for the idea of adding "controversial" to the first sentence, I endorse the points made against that above. I certainly see no consensus in favor of it there, and I see no need to discuss it endlessly in circles with the same few editors insisting we should add it. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Injecting "controversial" would just be a viewpoint-pushing exercise. However, Newimpartial's "has received charitable status but ... this status is contested" appears to be accurate and to indicate controversy (which the article will later get into) without WP editorializing with weaselwords. "Has registered charity status but this status has been contested" would be better wording for the actual article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Slight disagreement: LGBA’s charitable status is a legal fact unless and until it is lost. It is not ‘contested’, which implies there is some doubt about whether it currently has this status. Its charitable status is subject to a legal challenge. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, and support the replacement of "contested" in SMcCandish's proposal with "challenged". Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: could you elaborate please upon how you feel "controversial" is not warranted? I previously pointed out that all but three of the major UK media organisations have used the word controversial to describe the organisation recently. I've also pointed out that another charity, which is similarly controversial (Autism Speaks) has that word as a descriptor in the lead. I have not seen you, or any editor for that matter address these points. I have only seen them be dismissed without comment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I think we can take more than 5 days for new eyes to find this discussion before deciding that the tag should be removed. Is that your updated version of Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam, maybe? Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Numerous other articles on controversial groups do not have the label in the first sentence, as shown above. You can't cherry pick one that does and use it for justification. And that label at Autism Speaks was only added a few months ago after two editors decided on it towards the end of this discussion. And it was challenged by another editor who was reverted (see the "+49" and "-49" edits here). Not much of a consensus there, and it would very much be a LOCAL one; WP:LABEL does not allow such uses. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither you nor anyone else has offered any examples of the other case, where the group or its charitable status are controversial but where "charity" appears in the first sentence without qualification. So the difference appears to be between some justification and ... none?

By the way, your use of MOS:LABEL as though (1) it were policy rather than guideline and (2) it did not allow of exceptions on its own terms, is successfully irritating, albeit misleading. So, well done.Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Sideswipe9th re ‘controversial’: You have, yourself, helpfully pointed out that the BBC, the Times, and the Guardian have not called the LGB Alliance ‘controversial’. So – the 3 most serious and reliable British news sources do not call the LGBA ‘controversial’. That’s a good argument against Wikipedia referring to the LGBA as ‘controversial’. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

A relevant discussion of the BBC's "platforming" of the Alliance - which is what got them in trouble with Ofcom - is here. The record of The Times on this issue has been discussed extensively on this page, and it isn't pretty either. The only discussion I see of the Alliance in The Guardian reads, LGB Alliance was formed two years ago by a group unhappy at the pro-trans rights positions taken by Stonewall, the LGBT+ charity. The alliance campaigns for rights “based on sexual orientation not gender identity” and denies it is transphobic. Not only do they not imply that the group is uncontroversial: in the story's lead, The Guardian refers to the Alliance as an activist group accused of anti-trans campaigning and never describes it as a "charity". I don't see how you could cite the Guardian against describing the Alliance as "contoversial" or for describing it simply as a charity, at least not based on the article I found. [2] Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

As Newimpartial said previously, we should be following the balance of what the reliable sources say. And on that balance, more are calling them controversial than not. I'd also point out that the UK edition of The Guardian are also subject to protests at present for uncritically platforming transphobia, and editorialising interviews written on behalf of their US editorial team. Given the contentious nature of this topic area, not all ordinarily reliable sources will necessarily be reliable. For a historical context, look at how homosexuality was covered in the UK press in the late 1980s, especially around the time of the AIDS crisis. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there's been a number of reliable sources and notable individuals calling out the three UK news sources in general, though primarily the BBC, for their purposeful anti-trans coverage. They should be noted as particularly biased sources on this subject matter. Silverseren^C 00:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This is taking partisan sources as the only legitimate ones and using them to delegitimize mainstream media sources, based on personal POV. Mainstream media biased, but PinkNews unbiased - um, no. None of that is how Wikipedia works. Partisans in these debates sling vague moralistic words like "transphobia" around easily. It's like saying all these sources are bad because of their 'pro-capitalism and therefore anti-worker coverage' - as some people would say. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR comparisons that gender identity questions will follow exactly the same course as homosexuality are not relevant. The fact that the mainstream media does not refer to the group as "controversial" first of all is very significant. And there is clearly not a consensus to do that as WP:ONUS requires. WP:IDHT is starting to apply. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no uniform mainstream media treatment of the Alliance. The Guardian does not use the same language as The Times and The Telegraph, and in the case of the BBC we have Ofcom's statement about how their relationship with the group was not OK. The Independent et al. take still different approaches. If you have read the Guardian story I linked, and still think the Guardian is not treating the Alliance as controversial (their lead is, an activist group accused of anti-trans campaigning, and they never refer to it a charity in their reporting) then I wonder if a minimum level of media literacy ought to be required when editing controversial topics. Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

What exactly was this statement by Ofcom that you refer to? And when you state "I wonder if a minimum level of media literacy ought to be required when editing controversial topics", does this mean that you are proposing a new Wikipedia policy, or just making a casual personal attack against the user Crossroads? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The statement is in the testimony referred to here. John Nicholson said “I notice that the BBC seems to be under the impression that it needs to ‘balance’ all its reports about trans issues now, by calling in transphobic groups like the so-called LGB Alliance to give a counter argument." And the Ofcom chief essentially agreed, saying “I think that is a very good point, and actually a very good example of something that we’ve been talking to Stonewall about actually - about how can the broadcasters, when they do feel they need to bring balance into a debate, do it in an appropriate way, rather than in the way you just described, which would be extremely inappropriate....I don’t think there is a lack of will here by the BBC or others,” Dame Dawes continued, “but I do think we can do more to give people the information they need to be able to make the judgements in some areas which can be quite contentious.”

And Wikipedia already has such a policy in principle, WP:CIR, but in my experience it is honoured more in the breach than the observance. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you or are you not saying that you believe that Crossroads has insufficient competence to be editing this article or contributing to this talkpage? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I am raising a question that can be assessed for each editor on the basis of their track record. Newimpartial (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If you think that any editor here is insufficiently competent to be contributing, then the correct thing to do is to raise your concerns at an appropriate noticeboard. As I'm sure you are aware, it is not appropriate to comment on other contributors here. If you do not raise any concerns at an appropriate noticeboard, it can be taken as given that you thus believe that all editors here are sufficiently competent to be contributing. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the Ofcom statement is all that significant, for several reasons. For a start, it isn't actually an official statement, but rather part of a dialogue. More particularly, it isn't in any way a criticism of the BBC in its general approach - witness the line "I don’t think there is a lack of will here by the BBC or others". It also isn't possible to be entirely certain exactly what Dame Melanie Dawes was referring or responding to when she used the phrase "which would be extremely inappropriate", because the use of would is expressing a conditional (i.e. a hypothetical), and not referring to an actual occurrence; if she were referring directly to something that had occurred, she would instead have said, "which was extremely inappropriate". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the salient point in whether to describe them as a "charity" is what we mean by that term. If, for example, we say that Die Basis is a "political party", that could be interpreted two different ways 1) that they are legally classified as a political party by the relevant authorities in their respective jurisdiction (which would then, however, raise the question of what to call parties who were deemed to "not have party status" in authoritarian systems) and 2) it can mean that by the value judgement of "the man in the Clapham junction bus" or some such, the word that comes to mind describing them is "political party". Now, while I think there is no argument as to the truth of 1) in both cases, I think there can be legitimate debate as to the truth of 2) in both cases. Legally speaking "Die Basis" may be classified as a political party, but the average man (or woman) on the Berlin subway might be more prone to calling them "a bunch of lunatics" or "a scam to get money just like 'Querdenken' was" or even "an attempt to undermine the constitutional order". However, while 1) is to a pretty large extent based in objective, testable fact, 2) is to a large extent not. The question then is, whether "what type of thing is this" in the sense of 1) belongs in the lede even if there is considerable controversy due to the way it could "color" 2) Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I do think actual application matters in regards to calling something a charity, not just the technicality of it being listed as one. For example, the Trump Foundation was listed as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, but was not described as such in our article even prior to its dissolution or even announcement of intent to dissolve. Because it didn't do any actions that would relate to being a charitable non-profit organization. I feel that the same holds true in this case, as there is no evidence that the LGBA has been acting as a charity regardless of the technicality of its listing. Silverseren^C 17:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

if it isn't a "charity" as in ("type of organization") then what is it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Prior to their being granted registered charity status, they self-described as an advocacy group (para. 12), though that was quickly disputed on social media and blogs. Currently, I've already made my points about how I feel we should describe the Alliance, referring to what the majority of reliable source media in the UK calls them; a controversial charity and advocacy group. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The present language 'registered charity' was added after discussion ( ^^^ somewhere ) on the grounds that it was clearly factual and describing a specific legal status. It also seems fairly clear there isn't really a consensus about whether the word 'charity' on its own would be naturally read to mean that specific legal status, or a broader meaning about the nature of its activities; the former not being disputed, the latter being disputed. The third option (not mentioning anything to do with charity at all) also has its opponents. So I don't see a need to change anything, but since the discussion keeps bubbling, possibly we need an RFC on this precise bit of wording to establish whether to delete the words 'registered', 'charity', or both. The Land (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd support having an RfC and settling the question. I think you're right about the available options. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, an RfC with those three wordings, or perhaps what the full sentence would look like with those three wordings would break this circular deadlock. We may also need one for the separate hate group addition above as well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

New Statesman piece

An interesting article by The New Statesman covers the LGB Alliance, Stonewall, the LGBT+ Conservatives and the broader Tory position on trans rights in some detail. Worth a mention here and maybe at a couple of other articles. — Bilorv (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

LGB Alliance was founded by Kate Harris and Bev Jackson only. This should be reflected in the page and others mentioned removed. 146.198.148.63 (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Not done. Please see the following discussions in Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 4: Founders, Add Malcolm Clark as founder in article, Add Gary Powell as founder, and Add Alison Bailey as founder in article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

References