Talk:LGB Alliance

NPOV dispute

Once again, I don't like where this is going. In three sentences, we have weasel words and we have pejorative terms coming from who knows where? Elizium23 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I opted for brevity because the variety of groups referring to LGB Alliance as transphobic is quite extensive. Pull quotes are included in the citations and all the sources are accessible to read. Please be specific about which phrases you think are weasel words. Battleofalma (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

'Failed verification'

Hi

Both here and in a previous draft of the article almost the entire text save for two sentences have been removed for 'failed verification'. It would be helpful to be able to progress to understand what the editors @Elizium23: and @Power~enwiki: who removed the content mean by this. Is this referring to:

1. Not being able to find the information included in the article in the references
2. The editors do not think the references used are reliable
3. Something else

Thanks

--Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources you have been using for this verify that the group is considered homophobic or biphobic. There have been many other examples of your use of sources that do not support the text as well as POV text and unreliable sources. This is evident at Draft talk:LGB Alliance and in the history of Draft:LGB Alliance. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That isn't strictly true of all sources for this article, however. The Independent and The Guardian both document that various commentators (including Woman's Place UK) consider the LGB Alliance to be transphobic or "trans-exclusionist". Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Crossroads:

Thanks, please could you expand on a couple of your points to help with the discussion

• Could you define what you mean by 'verify'? Several of the sources quote people and groups describing the group as transphobic, biphobic and/or homophobic e.g 1, 2, 3
• Please could you tell me which of the sources you consider to be unreliable?

Thanks very much

--Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, you appear not to have read my comment closely; I never denied that they've been called transphobic.

Trinkt, I just checked again and none of those three sources verify that this group has been called homophobic or biphobic. Persistently misrepresenting sources in a discretionary sanctions topic area will lead to a report at WP:AE. Considering how long you say you've been around, you know not to do that. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't read the edit closely enough. My bad. Newimpartial (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Crossroads:, these references which were included in the original draft say it explicitly Scottish National Party MP Mhairi Black tweeted: “It is absolutely homophobic to oppose LGBT+ people having the same legal rights as straight people.1, the LGB Alliance has been labelled homophobic and biphobic itself, 2. Thanks, --Trinkt der Bauer und fährt Traktor (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed Speedy-G10

I have removed the CSD-G10 tag. A newly created article that duplicates a draftified article does not meet the criterion, inconvenient as that may seem. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, are you an administrator? Elizium23 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The removal of speedy tags is not confined to administrators. Any editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. I did not create the page; in fact, removing the tag was my first edit to the article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Heading "opposing gender identity instruction on schools" ?

The issue at stake is, is using the language preferred by the subject of the article correct for the heading, or should the heading use the same language that the independent, reliable sources use in designating the policy in question. My own opinion is that WP:NPOV requires that the RS language be used, but obviously opinions differ, and consensus is required. Newimpartial (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You are deflecting from the point; the language preferred by the subject is not relevant either way, nor is what the policy as a whole has been called by irrelevant sources. That this group opposes "LGBTQ+" education is 100% unsourced and your WP:Original research. Stick to what sources say the LGB Alliance opposes. Saying "gender identity" isn't even POV; it is exactly what they oppose in education. Why obfuscate that? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I know that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a positive policy, but the usual practice on WP is to use the generally-held, NPOV designations for what pressure groups oppose rather than their own biased language; I will wait for others to weigh in on this before trying to fix it. In the mean time, I have tried to reduce the POV language within the section. Newimpartial (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Newimpartial here. We should follow the language used by the reliable sources. To adopt the preferred language of a pressure group into Wikipedia's own voice is to accept and tacitly endorse the ideological baggage that it carries. That is not a neutral approach. When we write about, say, white supremacist organisations, to pick a rather extreme example for the purpose of clear illustration, we do not credulously adopt their preferred terminology and euphemisms (e.g. "race realism", "white genocide", etc) when speaking in Wikipedia's own voice. Instead we explain that they use these terms, and what they actually mean, referenced to reliable sources. The same general approach should apply here. Getting the specifics right might be tricky but the principle here is not. Crossroads is right that we cannot say something like "opposes "LGBTQ+" education" without RS sources to support it but with valid sources we absolutely can. And, yes, if that is what the majority of reliable sources say then it can and should take precedence over the group's own claims to the contrary, although we should still note that they deny it or describe it differently. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree that much. I never argued to adopt the group's language for its own sake. The whole problem is that there is no source saying 'the LGB Alliance opposes LGBTQ+ education', so Wikipedia can't make that claim. Simple as that. And it's not correct to compare "gender identity" to false racist euphemisms. "Gender identity" is not a euphemism but a mainstream term and precisely identifies what they oppose. I see no reason to obfuscate this. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial and Crossroads: I am responding to a request at WP:RFP for full protection of this article due to the disagreement between the two of you. You haven't reached the level of actual edit warring yet, but you are both established editors and know better than this. I am glad to see you are discussing here; this is a gentle reminder to keep that up until consensus or compromise is reached, and not to revert each other in the meantime. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

References removed?

How do we feel about this edit? I was thinking about partially reverting it as it removes several references but I wasn't sure how much to restore or how best to do it. Maybe it was somewhat overcited before but the references seem valid and the removal seems overdone. Maybe we want some of those references back? Maybe they should be moved into the body and out of the intro? What do we think is best? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I made the edit; it was more than "somewhat overcited" before - it was in full Citation Overkill WP:OVERCITE. What's more, the overkill appeared to be a very clear example of what is described on that page under "In-article conflict" thusly: In controversial topics, sometimes editors will stack citations that do not add additional facts or really improve article reliability, in an attempt to "outweigh" an opposing view when the article covers multiple sides of an issue or there are competing claims. Putting six citations on the opinion that the group is transphobic after only one for the opposing opinion is stacking citations that add no additional facts to give that opinion undue weight. One citation would in fact be sufficient; I have left three.Lilipo25 (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

My own preference in such cases generally is to have abundant references in the body rather than the lede. The caveat I would offer in this case is that if most of the available RS agree with a certain characterization, then it would be UNDUE and FALSEBALANCE to exclude them as redundant, since it could affect the reader's perception of the available sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this promotes a false balance, but not only because of the perception issue. The notion that having six citations is "undue weight" when that is an accurate reflection of the reliable sources is bizarre. One would not be sufficient, and neither is three. My concern is especially that one of the sources removed was entirely unlike the others—a scholarly publication. If one reads further down on the page for WP:OVERCITE, they will come across WP:CITEMERGE, which seems like a reasonable solution rather than removal. Urve (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The sourced sentence specifically said that LGBT organizations called LGB Alliance transphobic. The "scholarly publication" did not in any way source that quote, as it was not from an LGBT organization and discussed census data from individual respondents. Citations must support the facts they are attached to. And there is nothing at all "bizarre" about adhering to the rules of Wikipedia editing, in this case Citation Overkill. Three sources saying the same thing are more than sufficient. The point of citations is not to show how many sources say a fact, but to show that it has been stated by a Reliable Source and can thus be included in the article.

Newimpartial is once again transparently skirting the One-Way I-Ban which forbids them from having any interaction with me (due to past HOUNDING and bullying) by jumping into my conversations with other editors to side against me, but indenting their responses to pretend they are in response to the person I am responding to. I would very much like this to stop. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

While you may now justify the removal of the sources in any way you wish, its original removal was not at all because of some qualm with it not being an "LGBT organization". If it were, you would have said so in the summary, or added "and scholars" to the article so that it could be properly attributed. Instead, you removed the source altogether, and are reverting anyone that adds it back "per talk page". The justification was obviously because of your interpretation of what constitutes balance.

Anyway. Citation overkill is not a rule. It is, as the page says, an WP:ESSAY that has basically zero prescriptive value. And I don't understand what your iban with someone else has to do with me or what I said. Urve (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That WAS the original reason for the removal of that particular source - I removed three, following the guidelines to keep the most relevant and reliable. That one had to go because it did not support the sentence it was attached to. This isn't really a debatable point: sources must say what the fact they are supporting says. It did not. At all. It therefore did not belong there, and you can be as snarky about it as you want. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Very well. This does not change the fact that the removal of the other sources was unnecessary, promotes a false balance, and that citation overkill is not a rule. Urve (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Purpose

In the infobox we currently give the group's self-described purpose: "Lesbian, gay, and bisexual advocacy".

However, several available sources indicate that they perceive the group's primary purpose to relate to transgender issues: "LGB Alliance, a group formed in 2019 to oppose changes to the GRA and stop trans-inclusive teaching in schools" (ABC), "anti-trans hate group LGB Alliance" (Pink News), "organisations campaigning against equality in Scotland ... Take for example the LGB Alliance" (The National).

I'm not saying we should take critics' word as gospel, but equally is it balanced to let the group's self-description sit in the infobox when multiple sources assert a different point of view?

Might it be best to take the position that any brief description is going to be controversial, so we should simply not list a purpose in the infobox and leave it to the lead to explain? TSP (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. This is tough one because the views of the group are not really within touching distance at all on the most fundamental nature of the group. It says it is one thing and its critics say that this is an entirely false description intended to hide what they think it really is. I think that removing the description from the infobox makes sense. If we have to have one then it should probably be something bland and uncontroversial like "Pressure group" or "Advocacy group" but that is so uninformative that this is probably no better than just omitting it completely. As you say, the intro can explain it better. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the best course may be to remove the "purpose" from the infobox. Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

My reading of the template documentation suggests that just "advocacy" is what the parameter calls for (but not more than that). I might be wrong though. If that reading's correct, I would be fine with that being included. Urve (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Lede wording

In this edit which removed my wording from the lede, [1], TSP wrote (in a very long edit note - please keep edit notes brief per WP guidelines and use the Talk Page for discussion): Try to make issues in second paragraph of lead clearer. I'm afraid as it was recently rewritten, it was a misrepresentation of the sources - the groups and people quoted don't say that the LGB Alliance is transphobic "for not including transgender people in its advocacy", but because it actively campaigns for causes they consider to oppose the interests of trans people.

This is what the first source (The Independent) says: A new lesbian, gay and bisexual alliance group has been heavily criticised for excluding the transgender community, prompting people to label it transphobic. So it does not in fact claim that LGB Alliance is transphobic for actively campaigning against the interests of trans people, but for excluding the trans community just as my edit said.

The second source (The Guardian) is mostly about a completely different group, Woman's Place UK, but mentions LGB Alliance briefly only once, in this sentence: The LCTR charter calls on signatories to “organise and fight against transphobic organisations such as Woman’s Place UK, LGB Alliance and other trans-exclusionist hate groups. That's all it says about it - no mention of it campaigning against the interests of trans people at all - just that it is "trans-exclusionist".

The final source (The Scotsman) also says nothing at all about LGB Alliance campaigning against the interests of trans people. It gives no specific reason at all for why it is considered a hate group. It merely says But several high-profile LGBT+ campaigners have labelled the LGB Alliance a hate group, and thousands of people signed a recent petition calling on broadcasters not to “uncritically platform” the group or its supporters. So it says it was labeled a hate group, but not why.

The sources do not in any way support TSP's new wording, nor the claims made in the edit note. I have therefore reverted to the wording used in my edit. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to TSP. There are issues with your representation of the sources. First, The Independent does in fact claim that LGB Alliance is transphobic for actively campaigning against the interests of trans people... through its attacks on our trans siblings and your alliance with the religious right and by being anti-T. That is not merely about not including. The Guardian is not particularly good, fine. The Scotsman explains why it is considered a hate group. The reason is that The group claims transgenderism is “pseudo-scientific” and “dangerous to children”, and has campaigned against proposed changes to the UK Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Urve (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I did ping TSP - I see I put the wrong brackets on it, though.

Anyway, you are misrepresenting what both sources say. The Independent quotes one unnamed twitter user who said what you claim, but nowhere in the article does the writer state that this twitter user's words make LGB Alliance transphobic, nor do they claim that comment was made by an "LGBT organization" as TSP's edit stated The article says ONLY that it has been criticized for excluding transgender people, prompting people to label it transphobic.

Likewise, the Scotsman doesn't say at all that those are characteristics which make it a hate group, and you are again misrepresenting what the article says. It says those are the LGB Alliance's beliefs, then in the next paragraph says "but several high-profile LGBT+ campaigners have labelled the LGB Alliance a hate group" - they clearly do not say those beliefs make it a hate group at all, or even that they are the reason LGBT campaigners have called it one. You can't extrapolate reasons that are not clearly stated in the articles. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No, The Independent does not quote one person, it quotes at least two, as evidence of its perceived anti-trans stance. Your reading of The Scotsman is totally bizarre. The "but" is referencing the two-paragraphs-earlier self-description; the rest of the sentence refers to the above paragraph. Whether TSP's proposed wording is accurate or not is not the point of my comment—just that yours definitely isn't. And, of course, it is quite convenient that the sources that you removed from the page support TSP's wording that you are now challenging, like this. Urve (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm growing weary of your snarky accusations. I removed three sources from a Citation Overkill according to Wikipedia guidelines to keep the most Reliable Sources. One of the three didn't say anything that was in the sentence being sourced, and the other two were Pink News, which has a caution placed on it. So yes, it's "quite convenient" that I know how to edit according to the actual rules and guidelines and can read and understand sources while you appear to know only how to bias articles with poor sourcing, bad formatting, and misreading of sources, and then follow that all up with rude insinuations. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That PinkNews piece certainly adds weight to Avery Edison's view that the LGB alliance is transphobic by commission and not simply by omission. On the other hand she is neither an organization nor a politician, AFAIK, so that source in itself doesn't support TSP's proposed language. Newimpartial (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, true - which is the part that I think should stay and am concerned with. Urve (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Without endorsing the rest of the content that has been changed in the intro, I am going to remove "for not including transgender people in its advocacy" as this is very obviously not an accurate representation of the objections to the group as described in the three references given for it. The claim is that they actively campaign against transgender people not that they merely decline to include them in their own advocacy. I know that they dispute this claim but that is the objection that they face and that is what we are describing here. I am not going to replace the removed text with anything while the intro is discussed but we can't have such blatant inaccuracies as this in the article, even for a short while pending discussion. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That is absolutely NOT what the sources say and the discussion is ongoing. Nowhere do any of the sources state that they are accused of being transphobic for actively campaigning against trans rights. The first source DOES say it is because they exclude trans people. You can't just claim sources say whatever you wish they said. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Well, my lead did not actually state why people call the group transphobic. It mentioned some actions the group had taken (sourced). In a separate sentence, it said that people have called the group transphobic and trans-exclusionary (sourced).

It's true that the Independent article says something a bit like what the lead currently asserts until recently asserted (though even then I think there is some spin - "excluding the transgender community" is not quite the same as "not including transgender people in its advocacy", and the link to "maintains that gender identity is a separate issue from sexual orientation" seems to be the editor's own).

However, the Independent article was written very shortly after the group was launched; I'm not sure it's reasonable to expand that to assume that all criticism of the group, after they have taken concrete actions, is still based on the same reasons, even though that reason is no longer mentioned in later articles.

But perhaps we just need better sources.

Ria Patel, co-chair of LGBTIQA+ Greens, in PinkNews: Their founders repeatedly make inflammatory and unpleasant remarks [against transgender people]

LGBT campaigner David Paisley, quoted in 'Scene': Paisley also condemned the LGB Alliance after finding evidence of it supporting trans-conversion therapy, which he described as a “form of torture”

Pink News again: The LGB Alliance launched in October 2019 and promptly faced a blistering backlash from the wider LGBT+ community for its position on trans rights. It strongly denies it is transphobic. [...] The group has also faced heavy criticism for refusing to denounce its neo-Nazi and homophobe supporters, for backing founder Malcom Clark’s view that schools should not have LGBT+ clubs because of “predatory gay teachers“, and for standing by founder Bev Jackson’s comments defending working with ultra-conservative anti-LGBT+ think-tank the Heritage Foundation.

I'm not convinced that the totality of sources back up an assertion, based on one sentence from the Independent before the group had actually done anything, that all criticism is for "not including transgender people in its advocacy". TSP (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Pink News and David Paisley, a well-known misogynist with a history of bigotry toward lesbians are your "better sources". Naturally. Lilipo25 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Weren't you just complaining about other people being snarky?

2. The thing citations are needed for is reasons people have given for criticising the LGB Alliance. Your personal opinion of a critic does not affect the fact of their criticism.

3. PinkNews has a green rating on the perennial sources list, and rated generally reliable for factual reporting. Caution has been noted because they have a "pro-gay stance"; which is a relevant concern for this page, but I don't see a reason to believe they made up the quote from the Green Party representative, nor really a reason they would be unreliable in reporting the views of groups who share their viewpoint. TSP (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

David Paisley's personal opinion has no bearing on this article whatsoever. If you want to start including personal opinions of LGB Alliance in the article, I can include those of a few dozen prominent feminists like Julie Bindel and Kathleen Stock and Jane Clare Jones and trans supporters like Debbie Hayton and male allies like Fred Sargeant, all of whom support the organization and its goals. We can fill the article with personal opinions. And if Paisley is acceptable, so are all of them.

Pink News has a caution because it's anti-feminist and anti-lesbian, not because it's pro-gay. While you and other editors seem to feel the reason for editing this article is only to depict the LGB Alliance in as negative a light as possible and Pink News certainly makes that possible, we should stick to neutral sources when available.

The lede misrepresented what the sources say - they don't all say that LGB Alliance is both "trans-exclusionary and transphobic" and it can't state that they do: specific quotes must be attributed to the specific sources which make them. I moved the placing of the sources to match the words used (and removed a source that referred to OFCOM, which is not an LGBT organization as claimed). Also, the second scholarly source doesn't mention LGB Alliance in the abstract - if it calls it either of those terms in the body of the paper (which is not open access), the full quote must be included in the reference itself. Otherwise, it will have to be removed. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The opinions of critics are relevant as the opinions of critics. The paragraph that describes what the group has been criticised for needs to reflect what critics have said they are criticising the group for. If anyone wants to add content about people who have supported or defended the group, that's fine, but not relevant to content about criticism of the group.

And you now seem to be confusing my edits with someone else's - I didn't add any scholars; and the phrasing "trans-exclusionary and transphobic" was the same in my draft as yours (except I substituted "trans-exclusionist" as it seemed more common in the sources). All I did there was add "politicians"; and regarding them, the phrasing was if anything mild - the charter signed by Labour leadership candidates described the organisation not only as "transphobic" but also as a "trans-exclusionist hate group". TSP (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Re Ofcom - sorry, I didn't spot that edit last night - I think you misunderstood the use of the source. It didn't say OFCOM was an LGBT group. The article, while overall relating to an Ofcom hearing, was being cited in that instance - as the quote parameter said - for the sentence "several high-profile LGBT+ campaigners have labelled the LGB Alliance a hate group". TSP (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC) PS. I didn't place the scholar articles, but as it happens I turned out to have access to them so I've added quotes as requested.

Indeed. Whether we want to add something to describe the objections in more detail in the intro is an open question. I just wanted to get that particular bit of blatantly misleading content out quickly. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes - though I actually think the other bit is about as bad. "The LGB Alliance maintains that gender identity is a separate issue from sexual orientation, and has been criticised by some LGBT organizations and scholars as trans-exclusionary and transphobic." The first bit doesn't seem to be sourced, and I think putting those in a single sentence implies a connection that I don't see in any of the sources. TSP (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is sourced in the body of the article, which is in fact where ALL of the sourcing is supposed to be, not the lede. A lede is not supposed to contain content that isn't anywhere else in the article, nor is the lede typically sourced. A lede is merely supposed to be a brief summary of the main points of the article. Those points are sourced where they are articulated in detail within the article body. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The only place I can spot it in the article, and connected to criticism as it is in the lead, is in a quote from an LGB Alliance founder. Are you arguing the opinion of someone being criticised is a reliable source on the motivations of their critics? That seems extremely questionable.

Re lead citation, WP:LEADCITE says either style is acceptable, but that controversial topics are more likely to need inline citations. The existence of this discussion suggests this falls into that category. TSP (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I point out that the lede isn't supposed to be content that isn't contained elsewhere in the article at all but is supposed to summarize it, and you read that as "the opinion of someone being criticised is a reliable source on the motivation of their critics"? It's like I said "the sky is blue" and you reply with "Surely you aren't implying rain falls from the moon?" Stop gaslighting. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No.... I said "[The connection between considering gender identity to be a separate issue to sexual orientation] doesn't seem to be sourced"; you replied "It is sourced in the body". I am asking where it is sourced in the body; because the only place in the body I can see anything similar to that is in a quote from one of the founders, which would not be an appropriate source. If you believe it is sourced somewhere else in the body, please could you point out where? TSP (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The LGB Alliance has campaigned on a number of transgender issues, including gender identity education in schools[4], pharmaceutical treatment of children for gender dysphoria[5] and gender recognition reform[6]

• This is the current wording as per User:Lilipo25

The LGB Alliance has campaigned on a number of transgender issues, including opposition to gender identity education in schools[4], to pharmaceutical treatment of children for gender dysphoria[5] and to gender recognition reform

• This was the previous wording.

My objection is that simply wording it "has campaigned on" provides no clarity as to whether they are campaigning for or against. The reality is they have actively opposed or, in the case of "pharmaceutical treatment", have "welcomed" the ban. It needs clarity, but User:Lilipo25 has reworded it on the bases of "grammatically incorrect" and "factually incorrect". What is the preferred wording? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is a copy and paste of your last wording: The LGB Alliance has campaigned on a number of transgender issues, including opposition to gender identity education in schools[4], against pharmaceutical treatment of children for gender dysphoria[5] and opposes gender recognition reform. The first part of the sentence states that these are the issues, but the second part lists their stance on those issues: the two need to match, one or the other.

In addition, there has been no campaign from them on the medicalization issue, so that is incorrect.

These are two different factually and grammatically correct sentence options:

The LGB Alliance has publicly weighed in on transgender issues including Scotland's Gender Recognition Act, pharmaceutical treatment for children with gender dysphoria and gender identity education in schools. Their views have led LGBT groups like....to label them "transphobic".

OR

The LGB Alliance has opposed reform of Scotland's Gender Recognition Act and voiced their disagreement with both gender identity education in schools and the pharmaceutical treatment of children with gender dysphoria. This has led to them being called "transphobic" by groups such as..." Lilipo25 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The second of these seems closest - I think we do need to say what the views in question are (you wouldn't say "the National Rifle Association is an organisation that has some opinions about guns"). I think "transgender" needs to be in there somewhere, though - someone unfamiliar with these issues might not recognise that as a unifying factor, at which point going on to talk about accusations of transphobia seems like a non-sequitur. I also think I think "opposition to" would be clearer than "disagreement with".

Not sure we have sourcing for the "this has led to..." phrasing - at least some critics seem to have given largely unrelated reasoning for criticism ("excluding the transgender community" was given as a reason before they took any of these actions, and some have given other reasons e.g. "Their founders repeatedly make inflammatory and unpleasant remarks [against transgender people]" - Ria Patel, LGBTQA+ Greens).

Incidentally, the organisation has opposed UK as well as Scottish Gender Recognition Act reform, that should probably be included.

I think I'd view "campaign" a bit more widely than you are perhaps doing - if an advocacy group makes public statements on an issue, submits statements on them to government committees, or writes articles on the subject for national newspapers I think I'd say that can reasonably be called campaigning? But it's possible they haven't done even that on all these topics. TSP (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Media coverage and criticism

I can see no point to the line about "scholars" calling LGB Alliance "trans-exclusionary' here. It is neither media coverage nor is it criticism. It simply means they exclude transgender from their advocacy. It's not the same thing as calling them transphobic, which some editors seem to think it is. It just reads awkwardly, both here and particularly in the lede, where the scholars are named despite neither of them being of any particular note (one is a student and part-time instructor at a local college and their paper is an opinion essay and not even a study). Lilipo25 (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It is criticism. While an overly literal reading of the term trans-exclusionary may support what you are saying, they are using it in a different way. (One of them says they endorse the oppression of trans people as a result. The other says "Counting queer lives in the census is an act of being seen and fight-back against campaign groups who call for the exclusion and erasure of particular queer identities." That is obviously criticism. That they excluse—and hence erase—certain people.) Neither of these are "opinion essays"; AFAICT, both Journal of Gender Studies and Metaphilosophy are peer reviewed. And even if they were opinion essays... they are academics, they are making their views known... this is no different than attributing to individual organizations or people.

Whether the individual researchers are notable or not has no bearing on whether it is due to provide what they say. It is probably preferable to attribute to individuals when it comes to controversial topics like these, and especially ones that concern living persons, rather than just leaving it at "scholars", because the latter suggests a uniform view that is unlikely to exist. Whether they should be named in the lead, or just referred to as "some scholars" there, I don't mind. Urve (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

If we don't name them in the lede, then I would say "two scholars" so it is known how many sources we have worked with here. They must be named somewhere per WP:WEASEL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It is probably the right thing to do to summarize and condense in the lede. My concern was that the assertions were only in the lede and not in the body at all; I don't get why people don't write the body first and then summarize it. Elizium23 (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"Some" is sufficient; the implication of "two" is obvious and not even accurate. Urve (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Addendum: It is not accurate because of books like The Politicization of Mumsnet which say the same; am putting in an ILL to get the full quote to add to the article soon. So "two" is false. Urve (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"Some scholars" is a WP:WEASEL phrase and won't be tolerated. Elizium23 (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you actually read WP:WEASEL? Because that's... not what it says. The examples above are not automatically weasel words. And since we are talking about the lead section... 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. Saying something does not make it true. Urve (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

First, you are inserting your own hyperbolic opinion into their words: "That they excluse - and hence erase - certain people" is highly inaccurate; a group not advocating for one demographic does not by any means constitute "erasing" them.

Secondly, I don't know where you have gotten this idea but it would be hard to find a less accurate understanding of what should be included in an encyclopaedia: Whether the individual researchers are notable or not has no bearing on whether it is due to provide what they say. It has every bearing on it. We do not include every opinion of a subject in Wikipedia articles; we included noted ones. Neither of these is. They shouldn't be in the article at all, but at the very least, they don't belong in the lede, where they lend undue weight. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

First, I am quoting one of the sources, so your accusation of bad faith is unneeded but unsurprising. Counting queer lives in the census--which they say that the LGB Alliance does not want to do--is an act of being seen and fight-back against campaign groups who call for the exclusion and erasure of particular queer identities.

Second, obviously we don't include every opinion. We include noted ones, which does not mean that the authors must be WP:N, which is what your comment was getting at. We use reliable sources, which are those that undergo fact checking, etc., which ... these do. Urve (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

How is it "quoting" when you use different words that say something else? That quotation does not say "they excluse - and hence erase - certain people". "Hence" means that excluding them from the group causes trans people to be erased. The actual quote implies that they are one of the organizations that calls for trans people to be both excluded and erased, but not that the former causes the latter.

The opinions are not notable, but okay. If we're going to start including any opinion published in a reliable source, this article is about to get a lot longer. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of what I said in your first point but, of course, it is blatantly unrelated to where this dispute began. a group not advocating for one demographic does not by any means constitute "erasing" them: This is false, because that is what the source says. Which is why I was quoting from the source. I interpret it differently from you re: "hence", but again, it doesn't matter.

Obviously there are concerns for whether something is due. And three scholarly publications--see above for where the third is--is enough; even two is enough, and one is probably enough because of the amount of peer review that is required in publication. Urve (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It isn't what the source says, but I've already explained that and pretty clearly so there's no point repeating it.

I'm going to have to disagree that there is a rigorous peer review involved in the publication of Metaphilosophy if "facts" that make it by them include the quote you used ("TERFs aren't feminists"), but sure. If we're going to include that astonishing bit of misogynist-slur-combined-with-misogynist-personal-opinion by a student teaching assistant, I imagine there are a great many more opinions that pass muster for inclusion far more easily. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Shortdesc

I have removed "anti-transgender" from the WP:SHORTDESC because WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies: we can say it in the article because we say who said it, but there is no good way to present it neutrally in the shortdesc. Keep it simple and stay disinterested. Elizium23 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Problem is that the other part of it - 'LGB' - is also disputed. e.g. PinkNews: "However, lesbian, gay and bisexual people were quick to call out the new group ... Many of them also pointed out that many members of the new group are straight, as are a lot of the people backing it online. ... Several lesbians and bisexual women told the new “LGB Alliance” that “you do not speak for me“."

In short there isn't very much about the group and its purposes that is agreed on between the organisation and its critics.

Just 'Campaigning organisation'? TSP (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I have offered something more specific that fits both self-dessriptions and RS descriptions of the group. In reviewing the RS, most dispute the assertion that the LGB Alliance represents LGB people - particularly lesbians. Newimpartial (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"Views" vs "Campaigns"

I've changed the "Views" section, recently renamed from "Campaigns", back to "Campaigns". This is an encyclopedia article about a campaigning group, not about an individual. For our encyclopedic purpose, I'd suggest that it is more relevant to report on the group's noteworthy actions; rather than try to provide an exhaustive run-down of everything they believe, which seems like it would end up producing an article that was a copy of the group's website. TSP (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree: organizations also have views, not just individuals. Their important viewpoints are very relevant to an article about any organization, and not all of them constitute campaigns.Lilipo25 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

In addition, not everything you are describing as "campaigns" has been one. For example, I see no evidence that they have campaigned in any way against pharmaceutical treatment of children. Bev Jackson stated that they welcomed the Keira Bell verdict, which is giving an opinion, but they didn't campaign for it or to change the law. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the Telegraph article, this view on Bell is only attributed to "the pair"--Jackson and Harris--not to the group. Regardless, views or campaigning are fine; views is probably more informative, and we should probably err on the side of including more information than less (which "views" would allow). Urve (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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: [2]. 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 [3] (or for the discussion with that Admin under "Important Notice" on your talk page where you kept saying it [4], 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)

Media coverage and criticism

This section is very poor. Half of it is dedicated to the contents of a single pro-LGB Alliance opinion piece from the Spectator. It both presents this (correctly) as the opinion of Brendan O'Neill, but also uses it as a facts-of-the-matter source for a number of claims in the first two paragraphs, which wikipedia should not be doing. With regards the third paragraph, is the fact that the BBC once quoted the founder of LGB Alliance notable? Obviously not. Obviously the view of an MP is important, but then we get the line "Rob Jessel and Helen White of the organisation Fair Cop responded with an article in The Critic". Who are these people? What is Fair Cop? What is The Critic? Wikipedia does not have articles on any of these things, because they are totally insignificant. I suspect this was added for neutrality, but it is no better than "my friend Paul reckons". The last paragraph contains views from scholarly articles, a Labour campaign group, and the former deputy leader of the Labour Party. These are of course all important, and it's absurd how they get crammed into two sentences in one paragraph at the end of the section, compared to the view of Brendan O'Neill which was afforded half of the entire section. Finally, I think this section should include the views of Ria Patel, co-chair of LGBTIQA+ Greens, who said "Their founders repeatedly make inflammatory and unpleasant remarks against transgender people", and the LGBT+ Lib Dems, who have said LGB Alliance is "pursuing a single-minded vendetta against trans people" which "presents a real and active danger to the mental and physical safety of trans people, which is vastly exacerbated when those in authority lend them credibility." If the addition of these views lead us to wanting more neutrality in the section, we should do so by finding notable individuals who have voiced support, not quoting just anybody, and not giving Brendan O'Neill's view a ridiculous amount of undue weight.Awoma (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

While you are correct that this section is all over the place in scope and needs editing, your characterization is very biased: "Half of it" is most definitely not taken up by the Spectator piece. And stating that published articles are the same as "my friend Paul reckons" is just absurd; you can't simply disqualify anything that isn't anti-Alliance.

Perhaps we need to separate out a section with politician's views on the Alliance, in which the comments you have suggested by Ria Patel, et. al., could be added to the ones already in there by Nicolson and others. Lilipo25 (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

What a strange response. As I look at the section, I see 19 lines of text, of which 9 are dedicated to Brendan O'Neill's piece in the Spectator. That's half. You call this biased but it's just basic mathematics. Further, I've not said to "disqualify anything that isn't anti-Alliance." I think we should disqualify "the BBC quoted one of the founders in an article" as being obviously unnotable, and I think we should disqualify the views of "Rob Jessel and Helen White of the organisation Fair Cop writing in The Critic" as these are two unnotable people from an unnotable organisation writing on an unnotable website. I could probably find hundreds of equivalent non-entities who have written anti-Alliance pieces, but they shouldn't be included either. Awoma (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I share some of Awoma's concerns here. I don't want to label any specific "organisations" as being fake, as I could be wrong in specific cases, but I don't think it is uncontroversial to say that there are quite a number of "organisations" that are at the very least astroturf adjacent operating in this ecosystem. Some of them seem to be little more than Twitter accounts. We should take care to focus on what has been written in Reliable Sources and avoid being swayed by plausible looking imitations. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The Critic is not a "website", it is a published magazine. And Fair Cop is, whether you like it or not, a legitimate organisation that was quoted extensively just yesterday in the Times and was covered in a number of other news media this week for a survey it carried out of reports of "hate crimes" taken by police. You are obfuscating facts to eliminate sources that aren't anti-Alliance. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that The Critic, or Fair Cop, were in any way "illegitimate". They're just unnotable. The idea that we should include Rob Jessel's opinion on LGB Alliance because he's a member of a group which has had a hate crime survey quoted in the Times is ridiculous. We should only include views when they're from notable people (like MPs), associated with notable groups (like Oxfam) or published in notable outlets (like the Times). "Rob Jessel and Helen White of the organisation Fair Cop writing in The Critic" is none of these. Finally, your repeated claim that I am trying to eliminate sources that aren't anti-Alliance is a failure to assume good faith. I am quite happy with views which aren't anti-Alliance, but they need to be notable and given due weight. Rob Jessel's view is not notable, and giving Brendan O'Neill's view half the section constitutes undue weight. I even mentioned that the effect of my changes will be that the section overall contains more negative views than positive, and so we may want to find additional sources of support, but we can't sacrifice standards to achieve that. Awoma (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense; they're only 'unnotable' to you because you disagree with their opinion. You claimed in the section above that a website that doesn't publish at all is a "reliable source" because it is negative toward the Alliance. So please don't try to paint this as a concern about "standards'. As for "good faith", it is difficult to assume it when you, frankly, have no other user contributions to Wikipedia except on this one topic, and all (or at least the great majority) of your edits are concerned with branding organizations and people you disagree with as anti-transgender.. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments like this are needless and abusive. I think the people, organisation and outlet mentioned in that sentence are unnotable because they have received basically zero significant independent coverage. Nobody knows who Rob Jessel is, he doesn't have a wikipedia article (and obviously will not be getting one) and if I try to search for articles mentioning him I get 3 results. It's the same story with "Fair Cop" and "The Critic." This is entirely a concern about standards - we should only include views which are notable. Instead of assuming good faith you seem to be actively trying to paint me in bad faith - the accusation is completely baseless and not relevant to the content of what I have argued above.Awoma (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "paint you in bad faith", Awoma. But do you deny that you are a single-purpose account (SPA) and your only Wikipedia edits are to articles about people and organizations related to transgender issues? Lilipo25 (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is awful. Surely there's a rule against immediately abusing and interrogating another editor's character instead of just focusing on the topic? I'm not a "single purpose account" here are a bunch of edits I made over the last couple of days that have nothing at all to do with transgender issues: [5][6][7][8] Can we please discuss the actual topic. Awoma (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

For future reference, there is indeed a Wikipedia conduct policy against that: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." TSP (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for the SPA question. And I'm happy to discuss the article, but we aren't going to agree on the Critic piece being unnotable or Fair Cop being an organization that can't be quoted. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Why exactly do you think The Critic is notable? It lacks a wikipedia article, and I'm struggling to find any substantial independent references to it at all. Awoma (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(Outdent because the conversation above is meandering.) Even though it's not relevant here, just for future reference, I will say that The Critic is a problematic source when it comes to stating facts. There are issues here like apparent false statements, Like most bad ideas, it comes from France, but also, The Critic's statement that Our writers will subscribe to no editorial line suggests there's no editorial oversight. But as for its use in this article, when The Critic is just a venue for Rob Jessel and Helen White's statements—even if they're not notable people—I think that is okay. So I largely agree with what Lilipo25 has said in defense of them. But the attribution here is just not sufficient, imo. Since they are not notable people, and we are directly attributing to them, it's probably helpful to give background. Rob Jessel and Helen White—a cofounder of the free speech organization Fair Cop and a gender critical activist respectively—called Nicolson's characterization of the LGB Alliance "lazy slander" is probably better. (And these characterizations are just ones I pulled from The Critic's bios here and here.) There's no need to state where they published, just what they said. Urve (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely you agree that it's wrong to include the views of just anyone. Whatever standard of notability you hold, I cannot see how Rob Jessel or Helen White could possibly meet that standard. Awoma (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the views of anyone on the group is probably not acceptable. But when it comes to political reactions to what a politician says about the group, I think that is fair game, especially when published in a magazine of general circulation and wide audience. (So: Probably not Medium posts from random people.) Urve (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. Adding a degree of separation (thus putting strain on the relevance requirement) shouldn't make our notability requirement more lenient. If anything it should go the other way. You say "not Medium posts from random people" but that's pretty much what this is. The people are random, in that they have no notability, and the outlet they are writing for also lacks notability. You say "wide audience" but apparent circulation is just below 20,000 [9]. I'm struggling to find anything with a smaller audience. Awoma (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please link to the notability requirement you think exists and is required. Urve (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking up the guidelines, I think the relevant one here is WP:DUE. If the views of Rob Jessel and Helen White were worthy of inclusion, then we would be able to find more prominent and noteworthy advocates for that viewpoint than Rob Jessel and Helen White. As it stands, including them is equivalent to "my friend Paul says" and is clearly unwarranted. Awoma (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so nothing to really do with notability. I fail to see why one sentence is undue; if it were a majority perspective, obviously there would be more people, but this is a significant minority response to the MP's statements. DUE calls for prominent adherents; they need not meet WP:N, just be generally prominent. And an opinion published in a paper with print circulation of approx 20k copies sounds sufficient. Urve (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please know that I am not fully familiar with the vast web of wikipedia guidelines so may use the incorrect terminology. Your first sentence here reads like a WP:BITE. You say this is a "significant minority response." Is it? DUE says that we should be able to find prominent adherents. Rob Jessel and Helen White clearly have no prominence at all. You say that a circulation of 20k is sufficient, but this is an incredibly small circulation. I couldn't even find a magazine with a smaller circulation, though they certainly exist. The Spectator, by comparison, has a circulation five times greater. Two nobodies writing in the Critic clearly is not a "significant minority response" to me. It is as insignificant as can be. Awoma (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason I took the time to say it is not related to notability is for clarity to those who read this discussion later; your (understandable) wish for commentators to have Wikipedia articles is part of the discussion below my comment, but as we both understand, that's not the crux of the issue anymore. So when someone else comes here, it's helpful for them to understand we're on the same page. Anyway, it's unlikely that we will agree on whether Jessel and White are DUE or prominent (I feel like we will both repeat ourselves over and over again, and I don't see the value in that). My reading of DUE is not that the individuals are prominent per se, but that they are prominent within their stance: among those that disagree with the MP, do they command a significant part of the attention? And yes, I think so, since this is a conservative magazine and has fine circulation. I will WP:AGF on your findings that 20k is not "wide", but it still feels substantial to me... about as substantial as a city's newspaper, which we typically have no qualms including. But again, we won't agree—understandably so; I don't even like the source—so I suppose we can wait for others' input. Urve (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not someone has bothered to make a Wikipedia article for it yet is irrelevant. Anyone can make an article about anything at any time on Wikipedia. I could throw up an article about the Critic today. It would not be more or less reliable then than it is now. It is a published magazine that has never been deemed a bad source by Wikipedia; it is very acceptable as a source.While I don't agree with Urve's characterization of it ("like most bad ideas it comes from France" did make me lol, though), I can live with his wording compromiseLilipo25 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't said it's an unreliable source. The fact that it doesn't have a wikipedia article was mentioned because this is an example of its lack of notability. It hasn't received any sustained or substantial coverage. I don't think someone's view should be included simply for appearing in "The Critic" when this outlet holds no notability. I do think that The Critic can be expected to reliably convey the views of those writing within it, so if someone notable were to write in the Critic we could absolutely include their views. However, in this case, the individuals are Rob Jessel and Helen White, who are not notable at all. Awoma (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

We simply aren't going to agree on whether or not they are notable enough to be included. I accept Urve's wording compromise. Will you? Lilipo25 (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that there can be no agreement! If you think Rob Jessel and Helen White are notable, then give an argument why you think that, and perhaps we can find some common ground. Why do you think these people (or their views) are notable? Awoma (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Awoma. This whole section seems to be driving towards expressing the opinions of newsblogs which are either perennial or don't pass WP:RS at all. Framing something as "media coverage and criticism" and not just "criticism" is a way of expanding latitude on sources are considered acceptable to put quotes from into a Wikipedia article, for if it is "media" it now counts. Suggest this section is purged and replaced with plain "criticism" adhering to WP:RS, as this article was initially. Battleofalma (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible issues to add coverage of

I am not going to add anything big myself, as I don't feel like wading into a minefield right now, but here are some matters that might possibly be suitable to be added to the article at some point.

• The LGB Alliance submitted an application for charitable status. As far as I can tell, this has yet to be either accepted or rejected, even after quite a long time. (I have no idea how long this normally takes.) There is a fairly large petition against it being granted and there is some coverage of this.[10]. I think this is a strong candidate for inclusion although probably just a couple of sentences.
• The LGB Alliance has been accused of biphobia.[11]. This does not seem to rise to the level off notability but may be worth keeping an eye out for if any RS sources cover it in the future.
• The LGB Alliance did a weird tweet in which they "bothsidesed" equal marriage before deleting the tweet. A deleted tweet is not notable in itself but their stance on equal marriage more generally might be worth covering if we can find multiple good sources covering it.[12]
• There is also the stuff about possible links to conservative and far-right groups. We need to be very careful with this one as there is quite a lot of noise obscuring the matter and I don't think anybody has demonstrated a direct link. The fact that the LGB Alliance has attracted support from people and organisations on the far-right does not intrinsically reflect on them if the support is unsolicited and not reciprocated. Some key individuals in the LGB Alliance seem to have worked with The Heritage Foundation in the past but not necessarily in their capacity as members of the LGB Alliance. Given the seriousness of associating an organisation with the far-right we would need multiple solid sources stating a direct link before we add anything to the article. We don't want it to be like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. In my view this is one to keep an eye on for now.[13]
• The LGB Alliance allegedly has an Irish branch but this has been accused of being operated out of London and basically just being a Twitter account.[14][15] There were also a load of Twitter accounts with names like "LGB Alliance $COUNTRYNAME" but, of course, nobody can know who actually made those or how serious they were. It might even have been somebody deliberately trying to make them look silly. A few more obvious parody accounts appeared after that and it is hard to know where the dividing line is. That said, the Australian organisation does seem to actually exist and even seems to be campaigning against a ban on conversion therapy which might be noteworthy.[16]

--DanielRigal (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

One I mentioned in another thread but will put in here too for convenience - they've opposed gender recognition act reform in the whole UK, not just in Scotland. (Actually in one of our existing sources). TSP (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a very disturbing section. If you have reliable sources for notable information and wish to add it to the article and face the scrutiny of other editors, that's appropriate editing. But merely making a list of negative hit pieces on the subject by the likes of Pink News, and adding things like "they allegedly have an Irish branch" (there is indeed an LGB Ireland) with no intention of putting any of it in the article yourself in an effort to egg other people into biasing the article for you so you don't have to "wade into a minefield" is not okay. This is an encyclopedia. It is not here for groups of activists to work together to attack organisations or people with opposing views.

This is as bad as the list of references from the deleted, bad-faith article that has already been put on this talk page. Neither is appropriate. Please stop. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no evidence that DanielRigal is trying to "egg other people into biasing the article"; and, again, Wikipedia's Perennial Sources list says that "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting"; i.e. the particular spin of their articles will reflect their editorial position, but they don't make events up out of thin air.

I don't see anything wrong with this section, nor any basis for your accusation that Daniel's motivations are not encyclopedic.

The Wikipedia behavioural guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith and policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks seem relevant here. TSP (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am more than a little tired of the same group of editors crying "Assume good faith!" repeatedly when they won't even attempt to look like they're acting in good faith. There is no legitimate reason at all to make a list of negative things to say about the organization and put it here with a note that "I don't want to wade into the minefield, but..." instead of editing the article appropriately with reliable sources, or to copy and paste in the list of references from the version of the article that was swiftly deleted for extreme violations of NPOV, except to get other people to slant the article while keeping your own hands clean. "Good faith" me all you want - that isn't, there's no way anyone actually thinks it is, and everyone ignoring it and pretending it is leaves this article to become another Pink News Wikipedia hit piece on women's rights organizations/advocates. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not trying to solicit people to edit on my behalf and I think you know that. I am concerned that you are trying to shut down discussion about how to improve this article while making unsupported and absolute statements like LGB Alliance absolutely does not "exist to oppose trans rights" (above) which suggest that you are entirely invested in one view of this controversial subject and completely unable or unwilling to even consider the alternative, more mainstream, viewpoints. Please consider your own behaviour as there seems to be at least an element of WP:OWN going on here.

Back on-topic, I think that we should add a couple of sentences about the application for charitable status and leave the rest of the issues to see how they develop. I'm wary of doing this myself but I might give it a try if nobody objects. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There are, I believe, a total of three editors left on Wikipedia who have not been bullied off by the Pink News mob and are still attempting to make articles on feminists and women's sex-based rights and lesbian rights from being sandbagged as 'hate groups' and 'transphobic' bigots to suit a particular political agenda. No matter how hard we try to keep any article about a figure who has questioned gender identity or group that has stood up for women's sex-based rights balanced, the articles are continually made more and more negatively slanted by the much-larger group of mostly-male editors who consider Pink News hit pieces on women and lesbians and their allies to be the height of reliability.

Please spare me the lectures about how that is the correct, 'mainstream' view. It is the view with the larger group of activists with Wikipedia editing accounts behind it, surely. When we have to stand against multiple accounts on each of these pages that exist for no other reason than to insert the word 'transphobia' into every article on women's rights they can find (don't bother accusing me of personal attacks, I'm not naming anyone, but anyone can look at the contributions of people on this page and see that at least two of the accounts here have done nothing but that since their recent creations), it is wearying to be told that we are the ones "entirely invested in one view." There are many dozens of studies and news articles on Wikipedia's anti-woman bias and the bullying/dismissal of female editors, if you'd like to look. Lilipo25 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making your position absolutely clear. Now that this discussion has gone completely off-topic, and devolved into incoherent allegations of wider conspiracies against Wikipedia more generally, I feel that this is becoming disruptive and don't propose to indulge it further. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Founded by "Former members of Stonewall"?

The assertion that the organisation was founded by former members of Stonewall keeps recurring, and is now in the opening sentence.

This is implied - though not as far as I can see explicitly stated - by some early reports which describe the formation as a split from Stonewall (e.g. the Times "Transgender dispute splits Stonewall"); however at least the framing of those stories was disputed by Stonewall (Independent - 'Stonewall’s interim CEO said: “There is no truth to reports of Stonewall ‘splitting’, so please ignore the alarmist headlines. These stories don’t refer to any current Stonewall staff or trustees."').

Even if we're talking about only the two founders, while Harris describes herself as "one-time Stonewall volunteer fundraiser", I can't find anything saying Jackson has ever had any connection to Stonewall at all. In terms of the letter, which this description is also applied to (based on a report from the New York Daily News), three of the signatories of the letter assert past connections with Stonewall - "founder", "former trustee", and "former supporter"; but the letter doesn't make any assertion about the group as a whole.

I'm not convinced this framing is undisputed/helpful enough to appear as fact in the opening sentence; however, there are sources that at least suggest it, and none that specifically disprove it, so I've left it in for now.

Any thoughts? Any better sources one way or the other? TSP (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The alleged "split" is explicitly disputed by Stonewall so either we cover the claim and the counter-claim or we don't cover either. Lets just note the individual associations where they demonstrably exist and are significant and relevant. Where a senior person in the LGB Alliance held an official position in Stonewall such as being a trustee, or is recognised as a founder, then that is worthy of mention. Regular supporters or volunteers generally do not fall into this category. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Kate Harris was not a Stonewall volunteer in the sense that she was coming in on Saturdays and stuffing envelopes. The Vice President of American Express, she was described by the Times as a Stonewall "major fundraiser" [17]. She spent years raising much of the corporate money that ran the organisation and is certainly worthy of mention as being part of it. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to repeatedly argue that we cannot accept LGB Alliance's statements on what they stand for as truthful because that's "self-reported", you can't also argue that we must accept Stonewall's statements that there was no split of its organisation as truthful when Reliable Sources very clearly say otherwise. You can't have it both ways; Stonewall's statement is self-reporting, too. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. And when we have conflicting views, we report the conflict; we don't report one side as fact. TSP (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I was saying. Either we report it as "A says, B says" or we leave it out. Either is acceptable but, as the alleged "split" does not seem to be a major plank of the LGB Alliance's ongoing self-description, I suggest we leave it out and just note that certain individuals were formerly associated with Stonewall where those associations are verifiable and non-trivial. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I would favour leaving this out entirely. However, if there is a general mood for inclusion, it should clearly be with equal weight to both sides. It is inappropriate for us to be presenting disputed information in wikipedia's voice. Awoma (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying 'Stonewall' in lead

I think if we're going to have their opposition to Stonewall in the opening sentence, we're going to have to add something brief that explains what Stonewall IS. Most casual readers won't know, nor will anyone outside of the British Isles; to most of the world, "Stonewall" generally brings to mind the 1969 Stonewall riots and not a UK charity group. A Wikilink is all well and good, but that's a supplement and can't take the place of clarity in the sentence itself.Lilipo25 (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this makes sense. "LGBT rights charity Stonewall"? Awoma (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:20, 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 [18] 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 [19] 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 [20] 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.[21]. 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)

Founders

The article mentions two founders. There are four founders, and this information should be in the article. Here is a reliable secondary source: the Companies House information about the registered company. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12338881/officers You can see that the list includes Ann Sinnott. LGBA are trying to distance themselves from Sinnott since she resigned from LGBA. But this wikipedia article shouldn't be used for corporate PR, it should reflect the truth available in reliable sources.

Just wanted to amplify this point raised by 79.76.93.11. After checking on Autumnking2012's talk page, the user who removed Ann Sinnott's name from the article, they have been previously been noticed for editing articles disruptively to minimise allegations of transphobia. I suspect that their edits in revision 1027220839 to this article were similarly motivated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd make this edit myself, but the article is currently semi-protected and my account hasn't been confirmed yet. The LGB Alliance's incorporation filing with Companies House lists four founders; Beverley Jackson, Ann Sinnott, Katharine Harris, and Malcolm Clark. The current revision of the article only lists two of those founders, where ideally it should list all four. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This looks like digging into WP:PRIMARY sources to emphasize things editors want to emphasize, which is a form of WP:OR. You should not be making WP:ASPERSIONS against AutumnKing here. Talk page complaint can be made by anyone and are accusations. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If the Companies House document is considered WP:PRIMARY then surely tweets by the organisation would also be considered a primary source, as they would be "accounts written by people who are directly involved" and not an independent source. If you would prefer, I can also cite several other sources , which when used in this context would be consideredWP:SECONDARY as in other articles on Wikipedia they are considered a Reliable Source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th Please refrain from WP:UNCIVIL personal attacks on talk pages. I can assure you that in my 7 years editing this site, I have never received a single discretionary sanction. A few recent WP:POV motivated accusations on my Talk page are irrelevant, as is your opinion of my editing. Quite frankly, these types of bad faith accusations are growing pretty tiresome. Focus on the content not the editors. The Companies House document lists four Officers at the time of its registration. That does not necessarily make them all founders - an entity is inevitably founded prior to registration. The LGB Alliance cite that it was founded solely by Harris and Jackson [[22]], and we have no reliable source that states otherwise. Sinnott is rightly noted, and sourced, in the article as a former director. That does reflect the truth available in reliable sources. AutumnKing (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

AutumnKing I apologise for the personal attack. I disagree however with your assertion that there are no Reliable Sources. A tweet by the organisation, which is currently attempting to distance themselves from Ann Sinnott should be considered as WP:PRIMARY and borderline unreliable as it is not from an independent source. In my other reply above, I have listed three sources that could be considered as WP:SECONDARY in the context being discussed, all of which list Ann Sinnott as a founding member of the organisation at the time of her resignation.

Apology accepted. As to the secondary sources, the HSJ piece doesn't qualify as it is an opinion piece. Conversely to the other two sources you listed, we have secondary sources here [23] and here [24] claiming Barrister Allison Bailey is also a co-founder. Should we also include her? My answer would be no on both accounts. The problem is that this is such a new organisation that there is not enough sound sourcing on their foundation. Having a quick look at other organisations, there is a tendency for the founding to be sourced either to the organisation themselves, which the Stonewall (charity) article does for example, or to a historical retrospective, as the ACLU article is an example of. The latter is clearly not applicable at this time, hence unless we have consistent agreement from multiple RS, we have to rely on the former. As already stated, the article is explicit in naming Sinnott as a former Director. Your suggested reasoning that the LGBA are trying to distance themselves from Sinnott constitutes WP:OR and is not relevant to considering what should be included in the article. AutumnKing (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

For Allison Bailey, you are correct that those two sources list her as a co-founder. An argument for including her could be justified, as the judgement of Bailey v Stonewall makes reference to her involvement in the launch of the organisation. In addition, as a primary source, Allison tweeted at the time that she was involved in the launch which would also lend credence to her being a co-founder. I would however say that including or not including Allison is a separate discussion on whether we should or should not include Ann Sinnott as a founder and one I would be happy to contribute to.

For Ann Sinnott, as the secondary sources Gscene and PinkNews articles are reflected in the Companies House filing I would continue to maintain that she should be listed as a founder. I would query as to what point you consider an organisation old enough to rely solely on historical perspectives. While the LGB Alliance was only formed in 2019, there have been a number of articles in the media listing several co-founders, several of which are backed by the initial filings of the organisation with Companies House. Although an argument could also be made for listing Ann separately as a Founding Director, and perhaps in a style similar to how the Stonewall article lists the former directors of the organisation, I believe the merits of founder versus founding director terminology to be largely semantic. In the case of Stonewall article however, three of the founding members; Michael Cashman, Ian McKellen, and Lisa Power, are additionally cited in the list of founders through secondary sources. While the Stonewall website does list them as founders and does not dispute that, their website would be considered a primary source, and those three names are correctly cited through secondary sources.

I do also appreciate the difficulty in making sure this is accurate. Per the Spectator piece on the first meeting as a primary source, there was a degree of confidentiality and anonymity over who was present, and it is possible that everyone who was present may never be published. In the lack of other primary or secondary sources of that meeting however, we should not rely on a sole tweet from the organisation as the definitive answer as to who was or was not a founder. Especially as another tweet from the organisation states that Ann had a "vital role in getting us started". As such I believe we should defer to the secondary sources I have previously cited that Ann was a co-founder. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that too much of this reasoning falls into WP:OR. There is a danger of extrapolation by pulling together differing sources to prove a point. The fact that multiple people were involved in the early stages of an organisation's set-up does not necessarily make them founders of said organisation. As Bev Jackson states here [25] she and Kate Harris founded the organisation in October 2019, the same month the launch was held. It was not registered [] until November. We don't know the mechanics of how this all came about, Taking the Stonewall example, I have actually gone back and edited that article, because the source itself doesn't call all those on that list founders. My recollections is that a number of those people were at that original meeting in 1988, and founded the organisation that became Stonewall, and that others were bought on board. Hence the wording. With the LGBA, from interviews I have heard, it appears Jackson and Harris decided together to form a new organisation, and then worked with others to launch and build upon that. All of this is largely irrelevant, as it is not Wikipedia's job to cobble together the back story here. The organisation refers to its founders as Jackson and Harris. In addition to the two examples for Allison Bailey above, Pink News also refers to Malcolm Clark [26] as a co-founder. This article [27] originally named Gary Powell as a founder (shows up on the Google search, but has since been amended). As well as Bailey, this article [28] still refers to Powell as a co-founder. Do we include all of these based on these few sources? WP:BLP is a factor here, both in terms of the individuals and the organisation itself. We would need a greater number of reliable, and preferably more balanced, sources that stated anyone other than Harris or Jackson were founders. Personal opinions on the motives of the LGB Alliance with regard to Sinnott is all OR. Again, as stated, she is and will continue to be, present in this article, rightly named as a former Director. Nobody here is trying to erase that association. AutumnKing (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

References

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)