Talk:LGB Alliance

RFC on opening sentence

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This four-part RFC sought consensus for the opening sentence on the subject. The first part found clear consensus on describing the subject as an "advocacy group" in the opening sentence as a neutral term. Some editors suggested an alternate, "pressure group", which found some support, but concerns were raised with regards to "pressure group" as being seen as pejorative outside The United Kingdom.

The second part also found clear consensus against describing the subject as a "hate group" in the opening sentence. Editors commented that it would lack context, and should not be said in Wikipedia's voice, but there was rough consensus that the topic should be featured later in the lede, with proper attributions and respecting due weight.

The last two parts are directly connected. The third question asked editors how the subject should be addressed when it came to its charitable status, if at all. Only two of four options were really considered by editors (B and D), with consensus for D (not feature that information in the opening sentence). Some editors considered that, since this is not a defining characteristic, it should not feature in the opening sentence, as it would go against WP:NPOV. The fourth part was dependant on the third. Since the opening sentence should not contain information about charity status, it should also not contain information about the challenges of its status, but editors agree that the information about its charitable status (and challenges to it) should appear later in the lede. (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 20:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

---

This RFC attempts to gain consensus on the wording of the first half of the opening sentence, which at time of writing reads: "The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group and registered charity[neutrality is disputed] founded in 2019". A number of other forms of words have been proposed on this talk page. Some of these forms of words are not mutually exclusive (e.g. one could say it was an advocacy group, a hate group, a registered charity AND something else as well). For further context, please see extensive discussion above. Many thanks, The Land (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Q1. Advocacy Group

Should the opening sentence refer to the LGB Alliance as an advocacy group?

• Support Using this alone, for now, seems like the most neutral option. As I noted in the discussion above as an example, "the Trump Foundation was listed as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, but was not described as such in our article even prior to its dissolution or even announcement of intent to dissolve. Because it didn't do any actions that would relate to being a charitable non-profit organization." Depending on the country, it is relatively easy to be listed as a charity without your organization ever doing anything that defines a charitable organization. Making the registered listing rather irrelevant to the importance or relevance of the subject organization. Since there is conflict specifically over the LGB being registered as such in the reliable sources, what with the appeal to its registry going on and such, it's fine to note that in the lede since it's covered in the body. But noting that in the lede is far different from actually defining the group as a charity in the opening sentence, which seems inappropriate to do even more so in this instance because of that conflict going on IRL. Silverseren^C 18:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I was originally considering something along the lines of “registered charity” + position/controversy mention, but with the Trump precedent this more neutral option seems much better. —Artoria2e5 🌉 18:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support advocating for particular positions, and against others is obviously its primary purpose. Advancing fairly rapidly to what LGBA's positions and oppositions are (as largely happens at present) is clear and NPOV intro. Pincrete (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. "Advocacy group" is a neutral description that passes no implicit or explicit judgement over whether what they advocate for is good or bad. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I see some support for "pressure group" as an alternative in discussion below. I'd be perfectly OK with that but I don't think that it is a big deal either way. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support per what the others have said. It fits the organisations status prior to the charity registration, and their activities since. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Provisional support I support this provided that the organisation is also referred to as a registered charity in the first sentence. The reference to Trump and American law is irrelevant – this is a British organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - "pressure group" (which is the same thing) would probably be more commonly used for a UK group, no? Tewdar (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how common that is in the UK, but to my eyes, it seems POV. Other groups are not generally described as such, and "pressure" seems to imply unscrupulous tactics IMO. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Except it's considered the same thing here on Wikipedia as well. Pressure group redirects to advocacy group and we have articles like List of pressure groups in the United Kingdom. Your personal opinion on the word pressure is rather irrelevant. Also, your claim that other groups aren't described as such is blatantly false. See Backlash (pressure group), Critical Mass (pressure group), and N-56 (pressure group) as just some of many usages of the term on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 19:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support, a clearly neutral and supported description with no real dispute. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Question: what is the most commonly used similar description to this? Is it advocacy group, pressure group, campaign group, or something else? Also are there other similar organisations on Wikipedia and what are they described as? John Cummings (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Alternative: Pressure group: 'advocacy' implies support within the group they claim to be advocating for which does not describe how a large number of LGBT individuals and groups see the organisation (e.g 50 LGBT groups publicly condemned them getting charitable status). I think pressure group would be more accurate. John Cummings (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. "Advocacy group" is descriptive, and as said above, does not imply that they are either good or bad, but "pressure group" is pejorative. If they are described by multiple WP:RS as a pressure group, that can be mentioned further down the article. -- The Anome (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

In the UK, "pressure group" is the more common term and is generally not considered pejorative. To me, as a British reader, the two terms are very close to being entirely equivalent both in tone and meaning. If readers from elsewhere are likely to see it differently then that probably does tip the balance back towards "Advocacy group" but we should not assume that there was any intention to introduce non-neutral language in suggesting it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. I was writing on the basis that Wikipedia's readership is global, and many (most?) non-British English speakers would not be aware of the British usage of "pressure group". -- The Anome (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - either advocacy group or pressure group is fine. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support They are a group that advocates, seems fair enough to say. BSMRD (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - They're a group & they're advocating for something, so... GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This best describes the group in terms of what is notable about them, namely, that they advocate a position. I would not be opposed to the BrE use of "pressure group" as an alternative. Fieari (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• OK (i.e. support, though I suspect that campaigning group or campaign group would be simpler and understood by more readers - not everyone knows what "advocacy" means). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Q2. Hate Group

Should the opening sentence refer to the LGB Alliance as a hate group?

• Definitely not. Even the present 'hate group' claims appear overstated: "The LGBA has been called a “hate group” by members of the LGBTQ+ community, and many leading LGBTQ+ organisations." In fact the sources have The IWGB Charity Workers Branch committee say "The LGBA has been called a “hate group” by members of the LGBTQ+ community, and many leading LGBTQ+ organisations.". Elsewhere the Scotsman says "The LGBA has been called a “hate group” by members of the LGBTQ+ community, and many leading LGBTQ+ organisations." So these sources are merely repeating that some (unnamed) orgs and individuals use 'hate group' to describe them. Other sources used for this claim express individuals strongly disagreeing with LGBA's views, but don't mention 'hate group' at all. The IWGB source is also used to support the claim that: "The LGB Alliance has been described as a hate group by Pride in London, Pride in Surrey, the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights, the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain," From that list, only a single branch committee of the IWBG has condemned LGBA according to the source used at present, and even that branch committee merely says that others have used 'hate group'. So, overall the idea that 'hate group' should be in WPVOICE or in the opening sentence frankly is for the birds. It isn't even clear at present who thinks they are a 'hate group'. That some other advocates disagree with them strongly is obvious, but that is fairly standard for the topic area. Pincrete (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hello Pincrete - still forming my own view on this, but not sure if you've seen the sources listed at Talk:LGB_Alliance#Should_the_group_be_described_as_a_hate_group_in_the_lede? or whether they affect your position. The Land (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Those aren't the sources currently used, which is ultimately all one can go on, and I misread 'LGBT+ Liberal Democrats' as being 'Liberal Democrats', but basically it's a rag-bag of individuals and small - highly partisan and in some cases, relatively marginal - groups using the label. Others notable figures offer some endorsement of LGBA, so no, my overall position doesn't change both that WP:VOICE and first para should definitely be excluded and that the current lead text overstates and oversimplifies the sources. Is 'the IWGB Charity Workers Branch committee' really a 'leading LGBTQ+ organisation'? Not to my knowledge. Pincrete (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Pincrete, for pointing this out. Do you have a suggestion for how to reword or fix this so the attribution is accurate and NPOV is followed? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It actually isn't AS overstated as I first thought, but the additional refs should go in and "many leading LGBTQ+ organisations" become and "several LGBTQ+ organisations" or just name the principal 'hate-callers', who I imagine would be the 'Pride' orgs. Pincrete (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• No but this is not the right question. First up, we can't call them a "hate group" in Wikipedia's own voice because their status as a hate group is contested. (As time goes on this may well change but we can't assume this.) For the same reason, we should not raise this matter in the opening sentence as we need to establish some context for the readers first. However, I do support mentioning that they have been called a hate group elsewhere in the introduction. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• No, to the narrow question posed of mentioning it in the opening of the first para. However I believe it's important, as things stand, to retain the present mention of it in the 2nd para of the lede (or somewhere similar). The Land (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• No, the first para of this article should read the same as the first para of pages for anti-LGBT organizations such as Family Research Council do. It would be inconsistent to apply a stricter standard to this group and it seems very likely that describing it as a hate group in the opening para would be challenged.Cretaceousa (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm still forming my opinion on this with regards to the narrow question though I am seeing some convincing arguments. Can the question of an RfC be changed after it has been opened? As there may be consensus for it somewhere else in the lead but not in the first sentence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Probably too late to change the questions as written, but there is no reason not to make a Question 2b or something if it's linked but slightly different. That could be helpful! The Land (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• No We should definitely not say this in wikivoice – it is only an allegation, and it’s not clear who alleges it. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Something like, "Groups like ABC, DEF, and GHI have described LGB Alliance as a hate group" would be alright I suppose. Tewdar (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• No, absolutely not in the opening sentence. Opening paragraph is also too slanted. This claim is only an allegation, and is only by some. And the current mention should be fixed to be accurate per Pincrete. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment What do the sources say? What are the quality of the sources? Don't put it in Wikipedia voice.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Although "hate group" is too nonspecific, I think the current introduction inadequately summarizes the LGB Alliance's general stance and actions. Right now, the introduction only states that the LGB Alliance was founded in opposition to Stonewall's stances on trans issues, followed by their own words on their own stances, which is pushing POV in my opinion, and then specific policy positions. I think adding "anti-trans"/"anti-transgender" somewhere in the first sentence or introductory paragraph would best fix this issue. PBZE (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Not in opening sentence but yes to it being in the lede, perhaps in first paragraph. It has been called a hate group and anti trans by many organisations, I don't think its unreasonable to say it is a common description of the group, especially by LGBT groups. John Cummings (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• No. It belongs in the article, but definitely not in the lede sentence; it is an allegation, and needs the NPOV treatment to make this clear. -- The Anome (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• No. Not in the lead. And including an allegation in the body of the article that it is a "hate group" also needs to be balanced 50/50 — 50% that say it is and 50% that say it is not. This organization was accused of being a hate organization the moment its formation was announced and before it even took its second breath. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment -- I completely agree with Pyxis Solitary. -- Alarics (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, not in the opening sentence in wiki-voice, but yes, in the lead with attribution, even if vague. This is a clear case of MOS:INTRO. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, of course not. Also, we should be careful not to imply that all liberal or progressive or gay opinion necessarily supports the Stonewall line on transgender issues, even if a majority of LGBT groups do. We don't know how representative these bodies are of gay people generally. See e.g. Matthew Parris, one of the co-founders of Stonewall, who has left the organisation over this issue. -- Alarics (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• No - Not in Wikivoice and not in the opening sentence. Yes - It should be included later in the lead, attributed. Fieari (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. This is just the opinion of certain groups and individuals, not an unquestionable fact. The first sentence should establish what an article subject is, not what it is alleged to be by selected sources. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Q3. Charity, Registered Charity, or Neither

Should the opening sentence refer to the LGB Alliance as:

A) a charity

B) a registered charity

C) a charitable organisation

D) None of the above - no reference should be made to its charitable status

• D There is no need or value to mentioning the charitable status. Most similar advocacy orgs have charitable status, so mention of legal status is irrelevant in the opening para. Possibly in the body or late in the lead, the fact that the status has been legally challenged could be mentioned, but the named orgs challenging don't appear to me to be especially noteworthy (to my untutored eyes) and the basis of the legal challenge extremely unlikely to succeed, since it boils down to disagreeing with LGBA about what SHOULD BE advocated. Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• D, but following that B. It's not particularly important to mention charitable status in the very opening. But if we do, then let's be as specific as possible. The Land (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• D or B. We do not want to say anything that endorses their activities as actually charitable but we also can't hide that they are, currently, registered as a charity. C is by far the worst option here as that credulously accepts that their activities are actually charitable. All the others are not too bad but I think that "registered charity" is better than just "charity" for extra clarity. I'm inclined more towards D as I don't think it needs to be in the opening sentence but it does need to be in the introduction somewhere. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• B or D. While I agree they don't meet the broader definition of a charity thanks to a lack of charitable campaigns, the term registered charity has a specific meaning in UK law through the regulatory body Charity Commission that at the present time the LGB Alliance meets. I'd also be happy with D though if that's the way this falls. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• B The legal status of this organisation is that it is a registered charity. As I have said in the previous discussion on this, an important reason for stating prominently in the lead that the LGB Alliance is a charity is that you can complain to the regulator – the Charity Commission for England and Wales - if you think that a charity is engaging in improper behaviour, or that it is misusing charitable funds. This is significant information for readers. It also primes them for the information that its charitable status is subject to a legal challenge, which may not make sense to them if they have not been told that it is currently registered. I can’t see any justification for omitting this simple factual information from the opening sentence. I see that the first sentence of the article on Stonewall is: Stonewall (officially Stonewall Equality Limited) is a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights charity in the United Kingdom. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd just note here that adding a charity's 'official' name (ie the one on their company registration documents) is relatively unusual. Plenty of charities are incorporated under different names than their trading names, we don't normally remark on that... The Land (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Having just had a read through of the Stonewall article's history, I can tell it was added on 31 May 2015, but the edit summary gives no hint as to why it's there. I suspect, outside of some vandalism attempts recently, it has been unchallenged since that date. I agree though that it is quite unusual. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• D - Even the Save the Children article doesn't have this in the lede, and nor should this one. It should be in the infobox, however. Tewdar (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• D - I think the current reference to being a registered charity and its disputed status at the end of the lede works just fine. There's no reason to put it in the opening sentence. Silverseren^C 18:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• B per Sweet6970. It is simply a factual description of legal status at present. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• D followed by B - I do not think that its legal status as a charity is significant enough to be included in the very first sentence, so I would not support option B. But B is at least neutral, while the other two options uncritically call it a charity in Wikipedia's voice and push POV. PBZE (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Update, I no longer think calling it a "registered charity" is necessarily neutral. It is only neutral if the dispute is mentioned as well, since not doing so would imply respectability and legitimacy as John Cummings said. PBZE (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• D, not something that is usually mentioned in the sources discussing it outside of ones directly referencing the dispute over the legal designation. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Question: what is the norm for organisations if they are charities? Being a registered charity in the UK implies respectability and legitamacy so is not a neutral statement if this is not the norm. John Cummings (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Charity status in the UK is largely a legal, rather than a moral status. It simply means the org's primary purpose is not profit. Registered status really doesn't imply much 'respectability' or 'legitimacy' - except in the literal sense of 'legality'. Some charities defend private education, benefitting only the few who can afford it - mainly the rich, for example. Since what is in the public good is often a matter of opinion, orgs advocating polar opposite viewpoints can often both enjoy charity status. I think it very unlikely that the challenge to the status will succeed, since LGBA will argue that they are defending the rights of certain groups, rather than opposing the increase in the rights of others. Pincrete (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the missunderstanding, what I want to ask is is it normal within articles of organisations to say they are registered charities in the first sentence? John Cummings (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s any particular norm in this respect, but the obvious comparison is Stonewall. The first sentence of Stonewall's article is: Stonewall (officially Stonewall Equality Limited) is a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights charity in the United Kingdom. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't actually come with respectability/legitimacy, but it connotes it, both within the UK (the average person can't tell you the law on "registered charity", but they can tell you it has positive connotations) and outside it. — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• D. It's an advocacy group first and foremost. Its status as a registered charity should be mentioned further down the article, where it can be put in context as to what this means, and the relevance of the controversy over it to this. -- The Anome (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• D - the controversy over the Alliance's charitable status can be discussed later in the lead section, and also in the body of course. Newimpartial (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• D - "registered charity" is a minor tax/legal/regulatory detail, rarely mentioned in sources and not worth highlighting in the lead. "Charity" is much more widely-covered, though in a way that requires some explanation, and it therefore is best saved for later in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• B -- "Registered charity" is the normal UK usage. It means you are allowed to call yourself a charity. "Advocacy group" sounds American to me. -- Alarics (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• D -- this doesn't seem like first-sentence material. In particular, "registered charity" is a legal term of art; throwing those around without elaboration is a good way to sow confusion and misconceptions among a general readership, and an opening sentence is a poor place to fit nuances and clarifications. XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding term of art and elaboration: I would change the link for 'registered charity' to link to Charity Commission for England and Wales, which I think is more explanatory than the current link. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• D: Firefangledfeathers gets it right. Technical regulatory status is not a significant detail here, so the main thing achieved by including the phrase is giving non-neutral (positive) connotations. We don't really care about legal status in the lead, except where it's been the subject of significant attention (here it has, but over whether it should be a registered charity, even less of a reason to state it as uncontested fact in the first sentence). What we care about is what the group actually does. — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• D - It's not relevant to identifying who / what they are, and is clearly only included at the moment to suggest respectability. Fieari (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• B (preferably) or A. In the UK, having the status of registered charity has implications for an organisation's finances, bureaucratic structure and legal responsibilities - i.e. the nature of what the organisation is. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Q4. If charity is mentioned should challenge to charitable status be mentioned

If mention is made of 'charity' or similar option in Q3, should the opening sentence refer to the ongoing controversy over, or challenges to, the charitable status? If so how? The Land (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• per above. No not status nor challenge in the opening sentence, but challenge could go in the body or possibly late in the lead, briefly. Pincrete (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, but this is a good illustration of why we don't want to get into this stuff in the opening sentence. This is why I prefer D to B above. We need to establish a bit of context first otherwise we will confuse readers who are not already familiar with the topic. We do need to get into it later on though. It definitely does belong in the introduction but not in the first sentence. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes though I agree with DanielRigal that it doesn't need to be in the first sentence. Lead follows body, and both the charitable status and its appeal is mentioned in the body. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• No, not in the opening sentence, but it should be mentioned shortly afterwards, in the opening paragraph. It is unusual for an organisation’s charitable status to be challenged, and so this is significant information for readers. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - this is about the only time sources bother to mention the "registered charity" status. But I'd just leave it out, unless they actually lose this status, which would then probably be worth mentioning. Tewdar (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• No, not in the opening sentence. It would be impossible to add there without reading weirdly and POV. Mentioning this later in the lead is fine. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes if we're going to mention it at all. The dispute over their designation is the only thing that makes it noteworthy and therefore the only context in which it could be mentioned in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, calling it a charity without this context is non-neutral because it would imply that this organization's charity status is broadly respected or agreed-upon when it is not. PBZE (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes mentioning charitable status immediately makes the challenge relevant. -- The Anome (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Suggestion: Since the charitible status is being challenged in court it makes sense to me to exclude the charitable status from the first sentence and have the fact they have charitible status, the reaction from LGBT groups and the challenge to the status together in a later sentence in the lede. John Cummings (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, since its status as a charity is controversial. Wherever "charity" is first mentioned, something similar to "charity" belongs. It would be best to address this later in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, or at least not in the lead. The challenge will of course become more worthy of mention if and when the court upholds it. We should not appear to be pre-empting the court's decision. -- Alarics (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - But I still argue against the inclusion regardless. Fieari (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Not in opening sentence, which should establish what an article subject is, and not get bogged down in what it might become (which can be outlined elsewhere in the lead). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The Land thanks for starting this RFC, it seems as though there is broad consensus on the questions you've asked. What are the next steps? John Cummings (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the next step is for someone to close the discussion - given the topic, it's probably worth waiting another couple of weeks (RfCs are meant to run for 30 days, and we are still getting comments at the moment), and then probably worth dropping a line at WP:CR to get someone uninvolved to close it. Then we can move on to the RfC on the contents of the second sentence of the article. The Land (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The 30 days are now over, and I've listed this discussion for closure at WP:CR. Firefangledfeathers 18:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

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

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

References

Founders

Hi,

There were only two founders of LGBA. How can I fix this? Bev Jackson and Kate Harris are the two founders. The others mentioned were founding members. How do I go about fixing this issue so that it isn't misrepresented in the future? Would an official letter from LGBA fix this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcowie (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see the following discussions in Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 4 where this was discussed previously: Founders, Add Malcolm Clark as founder in article, Add Gary Powell as founder, and Add Alison Bailey as founder in article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The information provided in those discussion is factually incorrect, respectfully. Would an official letter from LGB Alliance, stating their founders, fix this? (Samcowie (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC))

You would need some reliable secondary sources. A letter, blog post, or social media post from the LGB Alliance would be a primary source. That said, I'm not sure why you think all of the reliable sources in those discussions are incorrect? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll get onto that ASAP. Thank you for your advice. (Samcowie (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC))

I'm not sure what all this is really about. If it is part of some infighting, in which the various "founders" and/or "founding members" (which I am not even sure is a meaningful distinction) have fallen out, then it is not for Wikipedia to weigh in on that beyond reporting what, if anything, reliable secondary sources say about it.

In the meantime, I note that you seem to be suggesting that you are in a position to arrange for the LGBA to issue a statement. If that is correct then, depending on the level of your involvement with them, you may have a conflict of interests that you might need to declare. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No conflict of interests issues here but thank you for highlighting the need for this, it's really important! People are being described as founders who aren't founders. In the interest of providing readers with accurate information, I think it's important to highlight this. (Samcowie (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC))

That brings us back to the question I asked earlier. Why do you think multiple reliable sources on this are incorrect? If this is the case, then The Times has made this mistake twice; once in January 2020 for Malcolm Clark, and more recently in June 2021 when they said Allison Bailey was one of the co-founders. And PinkNews has made it at least once in June 2021 when they said Ann Sinnott was one of the founders. While I could accept one of them being incorrect, and I recognise it is not impossible however I find it somewhat unlikely multiple sources are wrong on this especially with recent sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The Times article mentioned doesn't actually say that Malcolm was a founder. It says, 'The LGB Alliance’s founders have rejected the accusation that their group threatens the transgender community. Malcolm Clark, who helped to organise Saturday’s event, said: “It’s a pity that Oran Mor have felt the need to reassure people that they are inclusive. We too are inclusive. We have many trans supporters whom we value and respect, and there were many at the event.” Malcolm helped organise a specific event. I can see the confusion, I think the two sentences right beside each other leads to a misleading paragraph. The article by Debbie Hayton in The Spectator is also, in my opinion, further proof of my point. It states, ' Its founders Bev Jackson and Kate Harris were veteran lesbian campaigners. They were joined by filmmaker Malcolm Clark and barrister Allison Bailey, and supported by Simon Fanshawe, a founding member of Stonewall UK thirty years earlier.' In my opinion, this clearly marks the difference between Bev and Kate being founders and being joined later by others as members. The Pink News article I have no rebuttal for currently other than to say I don't think using a source from them is ideal given that they describe the LGB Alliance as a hate-group with no real evidence. I don't think there's impartiality there, but I may be wrong. I'd like to make clear though that my only intention in proposing these edits are that readers are provided with the truth and I hope I've been respectful! these are just my concerns around naming Malcolm as a founder but I'll post my concerns about the others in due course. I'd like to offer some articles that may help my case if possible: states that Bev Jackson and Kate Harris were the founders. this again states that both were the founders. again this states that both were the founders. Hope this is helpful. (Samcowie (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC))

The article by Debbie Hayton is an opinion piece and not reliable for statements of fact. It also does not disprove that there were founders beyond Kate and Bev, as the following sentence in context links both Malcolm and Allison as founders. Filia is a conference and podcast, and that link is a blogpost about their podcast. It is not as far as I can tell a reliable source. Lesbian and Gay News is an unreliable source and cannot be used for sourcing.

With respect to The Times on Malcolm Clark, that is one way to read the sentence but it is not the only way. The first sentence implies that the subject of the next sentence is a founder. In any event, we could easily substitute that for either PinkNews or Spiked.

As for The Times piece you provided, it is not at all uncommon for sources to non-exhaustively list important or notable people in relation to an organisation when they are not relevant to the context. In the context of that piece, where they are contributors because of being "cancelled", it does not make sense for the Times to list all of the founders, as the other three are not relevant to the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You have used The Spectator piece as evidence to support your argument of adding Malcolm Clark to a list of supposed founders. That's actually where I got it from. The link provided re Lesbian and Gay news is a discussion that happened in the week of its launch, if I'm not getting my dates mixed up. Can I ask how it was decided that they were not a reliable source so early on? It's the first time I've come across something like that and it looks really quite shifty to me. I'll pop back with some sources that you'll hopefully find agreeable ASAP. Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. (Samcowie (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC))

For Lesbian and Gay News, I'd suggest reading all of the comments in detail, but in summary it seems they have no track record for fact checking, and take a very WP:FRINGE position on this subject area. As for how it was established so quickly, I won't comment as I didn't partake in that discussion, though the opinions of each editor should be clear from their comments. If you feel that is unfair, I'd recommend opening a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, but personally I've not seen anything from them in the time since that discussion to disprove the consensus established there.

Thanks for pointing out that we're using the Spectator piece in the article, I'll make a change to that shortly and substitute in a better source. Misread what you said about The Spectator, sorry. You're correct that I suggested it earlier as one of the supporting pieces in favour of Malcolm Clark, however it wasn't used as a source for adding him, and there were three other sources that also stated. If other editors at the time had commented I suspect the RSOPINION issue would have been highlighted sooner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC) stricken incorrect reading and reworded Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add another article by Spiked that clearly states the LGB Alliance was co-founded by Kate Harris and Bev Jackson. It doesn't suggest that there are another other founders other than the two I have named. (Samcowie (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC))

Apologies for adding another straight away but I'd just remembered I had it. Article by Attitude magazine. (Samcowie (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC))

Article by Gay Times clearly stating both Bev Jackson and Kate Harris are the only founders. An article from Vice clearly states that both Bev Jackson and Kate Harris founded LGB Alliance in 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcowie (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

None of those sources are exclusionary to there being founders beyond Bev and Kate. The podcast transcript in Spiked is on their role in setting up the organisation, but does not mention at all any contributions or lack of contributions from other people in the founding of the organisation. The two pieces in Attitude and Gay Times relating to the letter from Boris Johnson only mention Bev and Kate because they were who the letter was addressed to. The Vice piece lists Bev and Kate as co-founders, and additionally that Kate is a director but it is not exclusionary on there being other founders or directors.

To show why it is important to note that these sources are not exclusionary of there being other founders or directors, I'd direct you to check the organisations initial filing on Companies House, at the time of its registration it listed four directors; Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott. Ann has since resigned as director, but Malcolm is still active. If we were to go on the Vice piece alone, we could (hypothetically) only list Kate as a director, despite there being four directors at the time of its first filing.

As I said previously, it is not unusual for media sources to only name people that are relevant in an article, and typically do so in a way that is not exclusionary of there being other people with the same role. And in light of that, I would find it somewhat unusual that multiple reliable sources (PinkNews, GScene, HSJ, The Times, iNews) as well as the judge (pg 15) in Allison Bailey's employment tribunal case, have consistently and repeatedly over time got this wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the connection between directors of an organisation and the founders. They are completely separate things. There is only mention of directors when it comes to Ann Sinnott. As for the employment tribunal, it says that Allison Bailey helped launch LGB Alliance, it does not say she founded it. You'd mentioned previously that there was more than one way of interpreting something. What we know so far, is that Kate and Bev were founders. The others people mentioned have articles saying they are and articles saying they are not or were founding members. I think it's important to distinguish between founders and founding members. From a speech recently given by Allison Bailey, from around 8 minutes in, she states there were 70 people at the launch of LGB Alliance. Invited by Kate Harris and Bev Jackson. Why are the other people who were invited not on the founders list in this article? I think it's clearly because everyone who was invited to this were invited as guests. Why would Allison and Malcolm be invited to an event, by Kate and Bev, if they were also founders? I'll come back ASAP with reliable sources that clearly state Bev and Kate were the only founders. (Samcowie (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC))

The GScene article you mentioned has been changed and states Ann Sinnott was a founding member. All this took was an email asking them to reflect the truth in their article. They thanked me for pointing out this error. I'm expecting more of these publications to follow and will update the page as and when they reply to me. (Samcowie (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC))

I must say that I am concerned by the level of involvement that you are showing here. It seems that you are reaching out to the publishers of sources and inducing them to change what they say in order to affect what we say here on Wikipedia. Are they really doing this on your uncorroborated say-so as an uninvolved person? Is there some evidence that you have shown them that you have not shown us? If so, what is it, how do you have it and why have you not shown us? Do you have some standing within the LGB Alliance that might make them consider your claims about them authoritative? Is there anything that you would like to declare? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I share the same concerns as DanielRigal. It's one thing to say "Source A got it wrong, source B & C shows that", it's another entirely to say "Source A got it wrong, I've contacted them and they've made a retraction". That GScene changed their article, some six+ months after it was published, either means you have some very convincing evidence that you provided to them, or that they have a very low barrier for corrections. The former implies a WP:COI, the later casts doubt on that source's reliability in general. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Samcowie. If Samcowie has a COI they should absolutely declare it, but any private citizen can contact any outlet and ask for correction, just as anyone can edit Wikipedia. If an outlet does make a correction, that is their editorial prerogative. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

True, but I'm not entirely sure that it's above board to dispute the content of a Wiki article, have it pointed out that the sources disagree, and then convince the same sources to change what they say. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing to declare. I'm happy to show the email I sent to GScene. I don't know if that is possible here but in the interest of full disclosure, I'd be happy to do so. I have said multiple times that I am interested in providing readers with the truth. I personally don't feel that enough scrutiny was given when selecting the 'founders' and I'm currently challenging that in a polite and respectful manner without trying to cast doubts over anyone intentions. Isn't scrutiny allowed when editing a page? As for the concerns of the level of involvement, that could be said about any number of people who have edited/contributed to this page many times. It feels, and I hope I'm wrong, that there's been a challenge to the current content of this article and instead of accepting that a publication made an editorial mistake and apologised, it is instead focusing on my intentions and credibility. As I've said, I'm interested in providing user of this site with accurate information. That is all. (Samcowie (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC))

I should say that the email I sent to GScene contained two sentences. It didn't contain anything that hasn't been used here, in this forum, and the reply was also short and sweet. A thank you for pointing out an error and a notice that it had been changed. (Samcowie (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC))

@Samcowie: While I do agree that it would have been good if more people had contributed to the discussions in archive 4 at the time they were here, that is not what I'm concerned about. I said before, it is one thing to say "I think this source got it wrong, here's why", and another entirely to contact the source and get them to change what they say in favour of the version you are disputing. The former is fine, and a part of scrutinising sources. The latter, at least in my opinion, is not. I'm happy to discuss the former, especially if you are able to bring evidence of other sources definitively stating that the only founders were Kate and Bev, as changing the sources we do or do not use in an article is encouraged. But I hope you can understand my concern about changing what the sources themselves actually say in favour of a particular outcome. At that point you've left the realm of editing an encyclopedia, and entered into WP:OR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I didn't change what a source said. I highlighted that I thought the information they provided was inaccurate and they agreed. I have a right to do this. I did not tell them what to write. I have no power to do so. That is down to their editorial team and is not something I have any control over.

The issue I'm having is that I have provided you with articles that state the co-founders are Bev Jackson and Kate Harris. You have replied to these saying it is normal for publications not to include all of the founders, which I don't agree with. You have presented articles that Malcolm Clarke is a founder or Allison Bailey etc and some that don't say this. It clear, at least to me, that there are only two founders. In my opinion, we should start with Kate Harris and Bev Jackson as founders and then contributors can prove there are more. I don't think that's been done, at any point. This should've been through a discussion on this forum which I completely accept that you tried to do which is great! It just seems no one added to that discussion and for that I apologise. Had I known that discussion was underway, I'd have happily discussed this with you then.

I also don't think it's unreasonable to assume that publications make errors. It happens all the time. I also don't think there's anything wrong with challenging that. It aids discussion to have factual errors or mistakes rectified. From the beginning of this discussion, there have been comments posted that seem, at least to me, to suggest or allude to the fact that I have some kind of nefarious motive here. My 'level of involvement' has been questioned despite other users having spent far more time editing this page. It does feel that difference of opinion on the topic of the founders isn't welcomed and is potentially scrutinised more than opinion in favour the current page. I'm only highlighting this to potentially give you insight into why I feel quite strongly about this and to hopefully help you better understand my thinking. I hope we can continue to discuss this matter in good faith and that the credibility of myself isn't the main focus of our discussions. (Samcowie (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC))

@Samcowie: that's semantics. You may not have directly edited the source yourself, but your actions did result in the source being changed. And the change that the source made is somewhat in favour of the version you are disputing towards. That is concerning.

As for the the assumptions of good faith, while I don't want to speak on @DanielRigal:'s behalf, when you asked Would an official letter from LGB Alliance, stating their founders, fix this? that does imply a level of involvement with the organisation, and given the policy points on conflicts of interest the question was a fair one. As I've said before, it is one thing to dispute a source by saying source A has it wrong, have you considered source b or c? and something else entirely to say source A has it wrong, I've contacted them and they've made a change to that article. The former is fine, and encouraged. The later is concerning, especially when the change that was made to the source is in favour of the version you are disputing. That's not neutral.

As for sources not citing all the relevant names, I'll give a current example as I was editing pages related to this last night. The jury for Sines v. Kessler made a determination yesterday. If you're not aware, that case stemmed from the violence in Charlottesville back in 2017. In that case there were 14 individual and 10 organisations as defendants. The only source to name all of the defendants outside of the court transcripts was Daily Progress. Every other source, starting from AP News and Reuters, down to local US affiliate news stations only mentioned a subset of the individuals. Most sources only mentioned the two or three most prominent names.

Or another example that's maybe more relevant to the LGB Alliance, here's an article on Stonewall relating to comments made separately by Matthew Parris, and Simon Fanshawe. Both Fanshawe and Parris were, according to Stonewall's website, each one of the fourteen founders of the organisation. The PinkNews piece mentions five of those fourteen by name; Parris, Fanshawe, Ian McKellen, Lisa Power, and Michael Cashman. The other nine are not mentioned by name because they are not relevant to the article content. Similarly, if you read the comments by Fanshawe that Stonewall's CEO is responding to, you'll see that that interview only mentions one other founder, Ian McKellen. Again because the other twelve are not relevant. I'd also draw your attention to the somewhat meaningless distinction between founder and founding member there. Stonewall's website lists the fourteen names as founding members and/or trustees, whereas both PinkNews and Holyrood lists those named in their respective articles as founders.

This sort of thing, of only mentioning relevant names to a piece, is normal in journalism.

In my opinion, we should start with Kate Harris and Bev Jackson as founders and then contributors can prove there are more. That has already happened, at least for Allison Bailey. See Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 4#Founders. I'd also disagree with removing the other founders, as I do believe calling them as such is supported by the sources. The current text on the founders has been stable and unchallenged for some months, reverting away from it to a version that does not have consensus makes no sense to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

All the sources in this list confirm that Kate Harris and Bev Jackson were the sole founders. The refusal to reach consensus on this change is what makes no sense. Getting bond wrong (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I haven't responded as I've been unwell. The past few messages have focused solely on me and my intentions. Despite me telling you I have no conflict of interests, while I agree that the question was valid the first time the level of focus on this after my telling you I didn't have any is also concerning.. This should have ended when I said that. The level of scrutiny of myself, after pointing out what I see as errors, is more concerning to me. If I was to make a wild assumption, like the ones made about me, I'd suggest that there's a lack of impartiality. In reference to you being concerned re my contact with a source. I have done nothing wrong and have checked this with Wikipedias policies. I'm not doing anything to fit my narrative, I only seek the truth. Bev and Kate Harris are clearly the only founders and everyone else are clearly founding members. Theres a huge difference between these and its concerning that no one sees that. I hope we can move this discussion on in good faith and leave assumptions and accusations at the door. (Samcowie (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC))

References

Stonewall ‘charity’

As a result of the RfC, the first sentence of this article no longer refers to the LGB Alliance as a charity. However, the first sentence refers to Stonewall as a charity. This has the effect of implying that LGBA is not a charity, and you have to get to the end of the lead to find out that LGBA is also a charity. So I propose that either (1) the words ‘LGBT rights charity’ be deleted from the first sentence, or (2) that the word ‘charity’ be replaced by the word ‘organisation’. Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any implication in the current lead sentence that the Alliance is or is not a charity. Also, AFAIK Stonewall (charity) is uncontroversially a charity, so I am unsure why anyone would try to create FUD using a false parallel between the two- the reasoning that prevailed in the recent RfC here does not apply to Stonewall. Newimpartial (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: What’s an FUD? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Try FUD. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

We had a whole RfC about what to put in this article that ended only a couple of days ago. We had a good number of participants and there was a pretty good consensus. We will not be reopening this can of worms again for at least a while.

Kvetching about the Stonewall article is completely off off-topic here. As Newimpartial says, it is argument from a false parallel. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

To Newimpartial: Ah. Thank you – I had thought an FUD might be some sub-variety of RfC. Or that the FU part might stand for a well-known phrase. But I don’t see how my proposal could be regarded as disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear.

To Daniel Rigal – I am not complaining about the Stonewall article – I am pointing out a problem with this article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You have drawn a false parallel between the two organizations. "Fear" might not really apply, but "uncertainty" and "doubt" are quite relevant in this instance. There is no actual uncertainty or doubt that the two cases - and the sourcing behind them - are very different, but here you are suggesting (without evidence) that maybe they should be treated the same... Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to gently point out @Sweet6970: that you're kinda re-litigating the RfC that closed only yesterday, making very similar points as you did for question 3. I'd also point out that the last sentence of the lead currently contains information about the charity registration, the controversial nature of it, and the legal challenge against it. I suppose an argument could be made for bringing that paragraph earlier in the lead, perhaps as the second sentence however. But we should otherwise stick with the consensus established in the RfC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

(reply delayed by edit conflict) To Newimpartial: I don’t want to be rude and ignore your post, but I think that if I answered it, we would be drifting off into WP:NOTFORUM territory. I have got the message that you and DanielRigal do not agree with my proposal. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Category ‘Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom’

@PBZE: It does not make sense to have a category whose description contradicts its meaning. And there is no ‘precedent’. All the articles in this category had this category added today, by the same editor.

There is a category for organizations that oppose transgender rights which is already applied to this article. But if you say that an organisation is opposed to LGBT rights that means they are opposed to rights for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, as well as trans people. For instance, this would mean that the organisations are opposed to legislation banning discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, and are opposed to same-sex marriage.

Adding this category to this article (and others) falsifies the information provided by Wikipdedia. You should self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It gives completely the wrong impression to readers. I've removed the newly-created category. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not moved to reinstate it at the moment but there definitely are open questions around the wider anti-LGBT mood music emanating from the LGBA. I have seen them accused of biphobia and bi erasure. I have seen them accused of opposing the proposed ban on "conversion therapy" in the UK. People involved with it have seemingly opposed gay marriage. Of course, we can't be getting into original research here but if there are genuinely reliable sources to corroborate this then maybe the category could be shown to be valid at some point. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding conversion therapy, IIRC there is some concern that the law is worded in such a way that it bans normal gender-exploratory therapy with children. Touching on this matter, two experts wrote in the Washington Post, "But comprehensive assessment and gender-exploratory therapy is the most critical part of the transition process....There are several reasons the process can move too quickly and hurtle toward medical treatment....Slowing down the process and encouraging deeper, thoughtful exploration is considered, many tell us, unnecessary and unaffirming. Providers may also be afraid of being cast as transphobic bigots by their local colleagues and referral sources if they engage in gender exploring therapy with patients, as some have equated this with conversion therapy. We’ve personally experienced this backlash at professional conferences." Crossroads ^-talk- 08:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't check the category history before making that edit. I probably should have. Although I disagree with the narrow definition of being opposed to LGBT rights. We say people and groups opposed specifically to lesbians or gay men are anti-LGBT even if they have only been only vocally opposed to one group. Categories on Wikipedia are catch-alls and people browsing "Anti-LGBT groups" expect to find a list of organizations which contribute to overall anti-LGBT activity, even if just a component. Also, I agree with DanielRigal that transphobic rhetoric and anti-LGB rhetoric may not be entirely separated from each other. PBZE (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• The article is already categorized under a trans-related category, so adding this is saying they oppose LGB rights too. This fails WP:CATV. Crossroads ^-talk- 08:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article which supports the idea that LGB Alliance, an advocacy group for LGB people, is opposed to rights for LGB people, which is what the category says. So it is a nonsense to have this category applied to this article. And it should be deleted, since there is no consensus to add it. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Is there anything in the article, other than WP:MANDY statements, supporting your contention that LGB Alliance is an advocacy group for LGB people? It is an anti-transgender pressure group, period. It doesn't do anything else. Newimpartial (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Your statement that LGB Alliance does nothing but oppose transgender rights is your opinion, not supported by any sources. To say that an organisation whose stated purpose is as an advocacy group for LGB rights is, in fact, opposed to LGB rights is an extraordinary statement which requires wide-ranging and watertight evidence. No evidence at all has been provided. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • LGB Alliance is widely described by sources as a hate group that primarily opposes the rights of transgender people. Whether they claim to do anything else, and whether they weaponise their own idea of "gay rights" in their anti-transgender crusade, is immaterial. They can be both at the same time. Any organisation that actively campaigns against any LGBT rights is an anti-LGBT group. They don't have to focus on every single letter of the alphabet; for example bisexuals aren't mentioned that often by anti-LGBT groups, but using that as a reason to exclude them from a discussion of anti-LGBT groups, or such categories, would just be ridiculous. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually, Sweet, reliable sources back me up on this one. Alliance activists have opposed gay marriage and harassed gay (not trans) MPs who espouse mainstream LGBT political positions. This isn't really in question - it's an anti-trans pressure group. Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Even PinkNews says "anti-trans" and not "anti-LGBT", hmm, wonder why? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Perhaps because the two are not mutually exclusive? And because the Alliance certainly puts more effort into fighting against trans rights than it does undermining gay or bi people. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We should leave the category out, as Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights is a parent category. This is not an exception to WP:CATSPECIFIC. Firefangledfeathers 13:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I was wrong about CATSPECIFIC, as Amanda A. Brant notes below. Firefangledfeathers 15:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights is a sub category of the broader Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights. The latter category also has country-specific sub categories such as Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States.

In other words the tree looks roughly like this:

• Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights (main parent category) [created in 2012]
  • (geographical sub categories:)
    • Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States [well-populated category created in 2016]
    • Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom
  • (thematic sub categories:)
    • Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights

LGB Alliance is both an "Organization that opposes LGBT rights in the United Kingdom" and an "Organization that opposes transgender rights". Both are the most specific categories within their parts of the tree. The two sub categories complement each other, one is a more narrow thematic category (anti-transgender) and one is a geographical sub category within the broader parent category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights that all of these articles/categories already belong to.

If there were hundreds of anti-transgender and other anti-LGBT groups in the UK, we would make a Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom as a sub category of Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom. But there aren't that many articles yet, and the U.S. category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States with its about 80 articles doesn't include any such sub category. Since there are probably between half a dozen and a dozen notable anti-LGBT groups in the UK combined, there is no reason to make the category tree more complicated than the one used for the United States.

Obviously the inclusion in a decade-old category hierarchy (and its specific country sub category) is correct and based on how the category is currently being used. Claims that the articles were added to the category by its "creator" are bizarre and ridiculous. Creating a new country-specific subcategory within a decade-old established category and based on the model of identical country categories (such as the U.S. category) is routine maintenance of the category system, nothing else, and the creator of the sub category is only a creator in a very limited, technical sense, who has only moved a few articles around that were already included in that category hierarchy. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to remove the category. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this category is fine here. While the thrust of the LGB Alliance's campaigning has been anti-transgender rights, there have been a number of occasions where they have opposed gay and lesbian rights though they did roll back on that one later, opposed a ban on conversion therapy in the UK, linked the + part of LGBT+ to bestiality, co-ordinated homophobic abuse against a gay MP, engaged in erasure of sexualities other than gay, lesbian, and bi. And these are examples taken from just our article. I'd also note that I've opposed the deletion of this category as it seems premature given that it was only created a little over a day ago over on Categories for discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

To Sideswipe9th: I think you are misinterpreting the sources here. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, we don't really have any access to your thinking, but the sources support what Sideswipe9th has said. The Alliance has placed more emphasis on undermining gay rights than it has in promoting any LGB causes: all in service of its anti-trans stance, which was after all its founding raison d'etre. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: could you elaborate please? That's a broad criticism to make across the selection I cited, taken from the main article page and paraphrased into my own words. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: You are the one putting forward the statements. It is up to you to show that your sources support your statements. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: I'd suggest you read the sources if you haven't already, or re-read the sources in light of what I've said here and just a little further down this discussion. The sources are self explanatory in the context of this discussion. Your objection to them however is not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: The sources do not support your statements. I suggest you read them again. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Obviously we are significantly differing in our reading of those sources. As much as I'd love me some super powers, I am not a mind reader, so I cannot address your potential misunderstandings or misconceptions without know what it is exactly that you're objecting to. The sources do not support your statements is an extremely broad statement. What part of what I've said is not backed up by the source? How is it not backed up by the source? What do you think the source says as that is clearly different from how I read it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: We are going round in circles, and you have just cut yourself with Hitchens’s razor. You have provided no evidence in support of your statements – so I don’t have to refute them. In your post of 21:04 this evening addressed to Crossroads, you asked 5 questions. The answers to the first 4 are: no, no, no, and no. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Is anyone going to present a single source that directly supports the claim that this group opposes "LGBT" rights? Or are they going to keep pointing to sources that say other things and claiming that their personal synthesis of that material can be treated as fact? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • If you see going to object to "they oppose transgender rights, while being indifferent to LGB rights, so therefore they oppose LGBT rights" as SYNTH, I think I will lose my lunch. The point is that they oppose the rights of LGBT people, not that they oppose the rights of "LGBT" people - thr sources don't have to use the acronym. I'm sure there are organizations in the equivalent US category that don't even know what bi people are, or who ceased operating before the "T" was consistently added to "LGBT". They still count. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Taking sources that apply to a subset and applying them to the whole set is SYNTH, yes. Those organizations in the US category oppose the rights of same-sex/gender attracted people regardless of knowledge of identity differences among such people. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • There is no requirement that any anti-LGBT group has to oppose "all the letters". Plenty of lobbies have taken on gay men or lesbians without attacking the other, historically, and lots of anti-LGBT activism doesn't even know what the B is. Your interpretation of "anti-LGBT" as opposing the rights of same-sex/gender attracted people is a nicely executed piece of trans-marginalization all for itself - the idea that "LGBT" really means "sams sex/gender attracted people" sounds like a highly dubious personal opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Don't read nonsense into my words. I was responding to the claim that some of the organizations already in anti-LGBT categories don't oppose the B, which is ridiculous. They oppose "homosexuality" as an attraction or behavior, which is something that clearlynunites 3 of the 4 letters. And organizations that oppose that also oppose transgender identity as part of that worldview. I do not think there exists a single organization that opposes homosexuality but not transgender identity, let alone opposes the G and not the L, as you imply. The point is, as I said, that taking sources that clearly apply specifically to a subset and applying them to the whole set is SYNTH. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Crossroads: The T+ part of LGBT+ the LGB Alliance likened to bestiality in a tweet which ended, and I quote Wake up policy makers isn't opposition to LGBT rights by calling on policy makers to restrict T+ in some way? The opposition to a ban on conversion therapy isn't opposition to LGBT rights, despite LGBT people being historically and currently targeted by such practices on account of who they are? Their rollbacked tweet on homosexual marriage wasn't an attack on LGBT rights before they removed it by saying that opposition to gay marriage was not homophobic? Their erasure of sexualities other than gay, lesbian, and bi isn't an attack on LGBT rights by restriction of self identity in sexuality? Or do you consider each of these synth because somehow LGBT is not LGBT+? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Again, none of this "directly supports" the claim you want to add. "LGBT" would mean they oppose the rights of same-sex/gender attracted people and trans people. A deleted tweet is just that - deleted. As for the conversion therapy matter, that source says they expressed concern that "the current push to ban conversion therapy... is being used as political cover to promote an affirmation-only approach to gender identity". The same sort of concern expressed by some WPATH clinicians, as I explained. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • "LGBT" would mean they oppose the rights of same-sex/gender attracted people and trans people So pansexual, asexual, queer, intersex are somehow not part of the + part then? If the T+ part of the original tweet referred to transgender, what did the + part refer to? What meaning does Wake up policy makers have in relation to this if it is not calling for the restriction of rights against those parts of the LGBT umbrella?

  A deleted tweet is still a statement they made, and the fact that it reached media sources shows how widespread an audience saw it. And one of those deleted tweets drew the attention of the Charity Commission.

  Re: conversion therapy. It can be both things at once. It can be both an attack on LGBT rights, as evidenced by the reactions to it, and in the opinion of those two psychologists a political smoke screen. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and depending on the wider views of those psychologists could be interrelated.

  It really seems as though your primary objection is that because the sources don't explicitly use LGBT and instead talk about constituent parts of LGBT+ it is synth, however I'd point out that WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition, WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not primarily point-by-point WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH and WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not a policy. Perhaps you could clarify upon this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd mainly be repeating myself at this point. It is clear that regardless of the arguing in circles, there is no consensus to add this category. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like shooting a notification off to Wikiproject LGBT and Politics then would be in order to break this deadlock. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I'm happy with the status quo. But if you must pursue this further and think those who agree with me will be disagreed with by the broader community, I think the course to take would be a neutrally worded RfC so that we eventually get a definite closure, and to notify at minimum all four of the WikiProjects listed at the top. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there precedent for an RfC for adding or not adding a category to a page? That seems like a rather heavy process, for which there surely are alternatives? Not that I'm opposed to making an RfC, I just wonder if that's the only choice available here to resolve this dispute. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Also forgot to say this last night, thanks for pointing out that there are four WikiProjects attached to this page. For some reason I thought WikiProject Organizations was a category/oversight board for WikiProjects. I didn't realise it was it's own project. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue of conversion therapy is a red herring because it isn't a question about rights (unless people are coerced into it, in which case it is the coercion which is the transgression of rights, not the existence of the therapy in itself). The reason why conversion therapy should be outlawed is because it makes fraudulent claims. Fraudulent activities cause harm, which is why good governments outlaw them, but it isn't any person's right to live in a world without fraud (desirable though that may be). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion, but is certainly not the only objection to conversion therapy documented in reliable sources, some of which are based precisely in rights violations unrelated to fraudulent claims. Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Which are these sources? Do they explicitly state that the LGB Alliance is opposed to LGBT rights? Do any sources explicitly state that the LGB Alliance is opposed to LGBT rights? If not, then neither should Wikipedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Earlier today, I edited the article's lead to describe it as being opposed to transgender rights. However, I have been informed that certain editors object to this description entirely. I suspect that this may be relevant to our discussion here, as I believe we should be internally consistent on the set of facts we use when making decisions here on Wikipedia. PBZE (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is an inflammatory category and should be removed. The category was created and applied on the same day as this comment claiming this category is "unopposed". Without a definition of what constitutes "transgender rights" or what "opposition" means, this category only serves to advance a single POV and give the false impression of those tagged as being wholly in opposition to transgender rights. The Charity Commission said: "A purpose of promoting the equality and human rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people is not inherently discriminatory and does not necessarily have the effect of inhibiting the rights of transgender people." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lgb-alliance/lgb-alliance-full-decision Getting bond wrong (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Getting bond wrong: I've moved your comment to this subsection, as this one is talking about the categories more specifically and the other is on a slight reformulation of the lead sentence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Additionally, the tree makes no sense - the LGB Alliance specifically campaigns for LGB rights as they understand them and as reflected in the 2010 Equality Act, yet has been placed in a subcategory of the category "Organizations that oppose LGBT rights". Again, this is advancing the POV that LGB and LGBT rights are inseparable and/or never in opposition, as well as placing an LGB rights charity in the same category tree as the BNP. The whole basis of their existence is that there is a disagreement in how best to advance LGB rights, as described by Gendered Intelligence on October 24th 2019 https://genderedintelligence.wordpress.com/2019/10/24/gis-take-on-the-lgb-alliance-they-will-not-divide-us/ Getting bond wrong (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any independent, reliable sources supporting your claim that the LGB Alliance specifically campaigns for LGB rights? That blog wouldn't be one, even if it supported your claim. Newimpartial (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This is specifically stated in their charitable objects, as verified and accepted by the Charity Commission. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lgb-alliance/lgb-alliance-full-decision The point of the statement by Gendered Intelligence is not to demonstrate the purpose of LGB Alliance, but to demonstrate GI's objections to the LGB Alliance as representative of the root of this dispute - ie, that this amounts to a difference of opinion in how to further LGB rights. Given that GI is one of the charities currently trying to challenge LGB Alliance's charitable status, this is a relevant opinion. Given also that they made this statement on October 24th 2019, it further demonstrates that this has always been an ideological difference, not rooted in any particular actions. This makes categorising LGB Alliance as opposed to LGBT rights untenable, when their purpose is specifically to advance LGB rights alone, and that is specifically what their detractors criticised them for at their inception. Getting bond wrong (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The Charity Commission's decision - which is under appeal at the moment - would not offer reliable sourcing that the Alliance specifically campaigns for LGB rights, even if it is upheld. That is well beyond the mandate of the commission. So far, no reliable source has been presented that the Alliance actually "campaigns for LGB rights", only that they claim to do so (and Gendered Intelligence is not RS on this, however one interprets the blog). Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"41.There is some suggestion in the objections to registration that the objects declared in clause 2 of LGB Alliance’s Articles of Association are not its “true” objects. This is, in legal terms, an allegation that clause 2 is a “sham”. [...]"

"42.The Commission found no evidence to support allegations of dishonesty or a sham."

The claim you make - that they are lying about their charitable objects - was investigated by the CC and dismissed, because that is indeed part of their remit. Getting bond wrong (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Where did I claim that they are lying about their charitable objects? And if you can't tell the difference between no evidence to support allegations of dishonesty and positive evidence that the Alliance campaigns for LGB rights, then perhaps you are not equipped to edit articles where such differences are important. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to add my 2p worth... It is not for us to tear the mask off, that would be Original Research. The key point here is that there never really was a mask in the first place and we have multiple Reliable Sources acknowledging this.

The LGBA has put almost no effort into portraying itself as an LGB rights organisation beyond simply claiming to be one. If you look at almost any other article about a charity you see that the largest section documents the charity's activities in support of its stated cause. We don't even have an "Activities" section here! Do they even have any activities apart from organising a conference? Instead we have a "Views" section where every single thing is about their anti-trans viewpoint. Even the section entitled "LGB rights" says literally nothing about actual LGB rights at all. It is all just anti-trans stuff. OK. So are we misrepresenting them by omitting their actual LGB supporting activities from the article and focussing exclusively on the anti-trans stuff? Well, if we are then so is their own website! There is no "Activities" section there either and the "Events" section is just the conference and a load of archived Zoom calls. There is no mask. We are under no obligation to pretend that there is, particularly when the sources say otherwise. That would be Original Research too. We are obliged to say how they represent themselves, and we do. We don't need to do more than that. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"It is all just anti-trans stuff" that is your POV, nothing more. Getting bond wrong (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it is the secondary sources that back that up, not the POV of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's not get hung up on my use of the specific phrase "anti-trans stuff" above. If anybody doesnt like that they are welcome to read "stuff about trans people" or "stuff not directly about LGB people" in its place and they will get my point well enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

All 6 things on their "campaigns" page are directly relevant to the rights and representation of LGB people, from their POV. That you think they are not is your POV. You're citing a primary source and saying it is proof on its own, based on your own interpretation of it, while the intent of the authors demonstrates the opposite. Considering LGB&T rights as inseparable leads to the absurd categorisation where a charity that believes itself to be pro-LGB is categorised as anti-LGBT because the category tree itself does not separate the two. The categorisation is inherently POV. Getting bond wrong (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

In way are thse six "campaigns" directly relevant to the rights and representation of LGB people? Them saying so does not make it so: Wikipedia is not a Nietzschean realm in which all POV are equally "true", regardless of consensus reality. Newimpartial (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

New lead edit

As of right now, this article is included in Category:Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom, and the consensus that this article belongs in either this category or its parent category seems to be unopposed. I have edited the article's lead to reflect this fact, which is possibly the most notable fact about the organization. If anyone is opposed to the description of the organization as being opposed to transgender rights, please let me know. PBZE (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@PBZE: Since you ask, I am dubious about having this category applied to this article. ‘Anti-trans’ is what other people/organisations say about them, and that is why this is attributed in the article. In a category, you can’t attribute. Presumably it would not be appropriate to have a category ‘Organisations said to be opposed to transgender rights’ (?) Sweet6970 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence should include the description in some form. (possible alternatives could be e.g. "is a British advocacy group that opposes transgender rights" or "is a British advocacy group described as anti-trans" or something like that). --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring this up since it would inevitably be a pain, but that category may violate WP:CATPOV and possibly WP:CATV. Even if some sources support it, most sources when introducing the group seem not to describe it that way. The placement of a category is not relevant since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and it implies nothing about majorly shifting the WP:WEIGHT in this way. The opening sentence has already been decided on by #RFC_on_opening_sentence above on this very page. Pinging Mattymmoo since Mattymmoo reverted you and hence has a stake in this dispute. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The sentence reinstated by you is, quite frankly, very poorly written purely in terms of readability and quality. No less than five co-founders, four of whom are non-notable (no articles), are squeezed into the first sentence (it would be better to mention them later), in addition to the date the group was founded (it would be more appropriate in one of the following sentences, e.g. the second sentence), an organisation they oppose and other information, and finally the word transgender (the only topic they are known for focusing on) is mentioned at the very end of a lengthy sentence and in relation to a different organisation. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I do think that at a bare minimum it doesn't really make sense to include the founders in the first sentence, since they're not a defining aspect of the topic. The focus on their split from Stonewall doesn't precisely seem like first-sentence material, either - it's a key part of their history (since it relates to how they were founded) but isn't the core definition of the group and doesn't belong in the first-sentence concise summary of the topic; their stance on trans rights (or however it ought to be worded) is, since it's the crux of their advocacy and the focus of essentially all coverage of them - they're a topic notable for one reason. There's room to massage the exact wording, but both the other versions were more to-the-point summaries in that respect. --Aquillion (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I think moving the founders out of the first sentence, perhaps into the second or third, would help with the run-on nature of the first sentence. Two possible alternatives below. Same sources and Wikilinks would be kept as current for either version.

The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to LGBT rights charity Stonewall's policies on transgender issues. Its founders were Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott. This is the same as the current wording, but moves the founders to the second sentence.

The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to LGBT rights charity Stonewall's policies on transgender rights. Its founders were Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott. This is almost the same as the current wording, but replaces transgender issues with transgender rights, as well as moving the founders to the second sentence.

I'm fairly certain we can find consensus for the first variant, or some slight adjustment of it for wording and placement of the founders sentence.

However neither of these addresses the point that @Aquillion: raised, about whether or not the split from Stonewall is first sentence material. Having only recently had an RfC on this, I would be wary of changing too far from the established consensus so early. Personally I'm OK with the Stonewall mention in the first sentence, the nature of that split was an important part of early media coverage on the organisation. While more recent coverage tends to cover statements they've made, either on social media or as commentary to journalism, the split and the reason for it is still a key part of their history. I'd also be concerned that if the split from Stonewall is moved to a later sentence, the first sentence becomes rather short, unless there's some other content we want to add there? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I would be happy with either of these changes, if "policies on" were replaced by "support for", which would be more to the point and which might also assuage some of Aquillion's underlying concern. Newimpartial (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the first of SS9’s suggested wordings, as it is more neutral. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Either option would be an improvement compared to the current sentence. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

First is better and is fine with me; it's just a switching around of words that doesn't change the meaning, hence RfC compliant. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As there appears to be a stronger consensus for the first version, I'll make that edit now. I am interesting in hearing @Aquillion:'s views on substituting support for with policies for as proposed by Newimpartial, but that's a small enough change to make later. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The Scotsman: House of Commons Speaker refers historic ‘abuse’ sent by LGB Alliance to Scottish MP John Nicolson to security after David Amess killing

Unsure how to include this, would appreciate if someone could have a look and add

• https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/house-of-commons-speaker-refers-historic-abuse-sent-by-lgb-alliance-to-scottish-mp-john-nicolson-to-security-after-david-amess-killing-3445737?s=09

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That's already in the article. See the last paragraph in LGB Alliance#History. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry to miss it. John Cummings (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)