Talk:LGB Alliance

Description of group in lede

Please see Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 6#RFC on opening sentence, where adding "hate group" as a descriptor in the lead was question 2. ... The first part of the RfC found clear consensus on describing the subject as an "advocacy group" in the opening sentence as a neutral term. The second part also found clear consensus against describing the subject as a "hate group" in the opening sentence.

Same sex marriage

This edit (which I've reverted) removed the entire contents of the "Same sex marriage" section, which is mostly negative about LGB Alliance, with contents discussing an entirely different topic, which is positive about LGB Alliance. The existing section may well have problems that we can discuss. The new text contained two sources, one of which didn't mention LGB Alliance at all, and the other is court documents from the European Court of Human Rights, and so a primary source. That document mentioned LGB Alliance extremely briefly and merely factually. There's nothing to indicate their presence or statement was notable. We need secondary sources. -- Colin°^Talk 17:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that. I was looking at it and considering doing the same. I was trying to decide whether to revert the whole thing or just to restore the removed content. I think you made the right call by reverting the whole thing.

As I see it, there are two issues here. One is the addition of the new content, which is something that can be discussed. The fact that the LGBA intervened in a very minor way is possibly worthy of inclusion as it is, as far as I am aware, the very first even arguably notable activity that the LGBA has undertaken that seems to be pro-LGB rather than merely anti-trans. That might merit inclusion, albeit in a way that does not overemphasise the significance of their intervention. The second, and more serious, issue is the removal of the existing content. That was indefensible and possibly merits a template warning for blanking, particularly given the accompanying edit summary which was, shall we say, less than clear about what was being changed. DanielRigal (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think removing the existing text is "indefensible". This is a wiki and people can edit articles without fifteen days of discussion, two RFCs, three AN/I reports and an Arbcom ruling before they click that [Edit] button. But given the contentious nature of this article, I suggest it is best to discuss before removing whole sections or topics.

Looking at the existing text, I find it to be weak. The first sentence it is hard to figure out what the purpose of it is. Was there originally something more and someone truncated it? The second part, about the tweet, is very much the definition of a storm in a teacup. That someone said something on twitter that wasn't what they meant to say, and people got upset about it on twitter, is not really important on its own. It has one secondary source, but I don't think it has any enduring notability as it doesn't AFAIK reflect their position on gay marriage. I do have to say that whoever in the LGB Alliance posted those statistics on Twitter needs to go back to school, and PinkNews was right to tear that to shreds.

Wrt the European court, well we might find it interesting that we have, at last, found an example of where LGB alliance stood up for LGB people, rather than attacking trans people, but it seems nobody else does. I searched for this and found nothing. I mean, we'd expect a charity for LGB people to do this kind of thing, so quite how one single example is encyclopaedic I don't know. It certainly ain't notable unless reliable published secondary sources write about it. -- Colin°^Talk 18:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(1) The new material is significant, as it is something that LGB Alliance has done. Primary sources must be used with caution, but this material is of interest and I think it was used appropriately. The King’s College source shows that the case was significant. (2) The material which had been deleted was trivial by comparison, and I support its deletion. (3) I did not find the edit summary misleading – ‘twitter drama’ is a good description of the material which was deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources do not help us assess weight and balance, as they do not effectively demonstrate how prominent the piece of information is in relation to all other published reliable sources about the subject. For that you need secondary sourcing who can tell us whether or not this actually is important. The lack of secondary sourcing seems to tell us that this is unremarkable, even if it is the first example of a positive action by the organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said, the King’s College source shows that the case was significant. There is a quote in that source from a professor of human rights law which starts: This is a huge victory for same-sex couples in Europe.. So I think there is no doubt that this case is significant. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That seems to imply a kind of COATRACK logic. There isn't much question that the decision is important, but why was the Alliance's participation in the case important? If not, it shouldn't be discussed in this article. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

And if this was an article about the case, Professor Wintemute, LGBT+ rights in Russia, or same-sex marriage in Russia I would agree that the case is significant. However the KCL source does not mention the LGB Alliance or any of the other seven third-party interveners by name.

As Newimpartial asked, why is the LGBA's intervention important? If we want to engage in original research, we could say that it's afforded 26 more words in the judgement than the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University, but aside from the table of contents and the list of interveners the organisation does not seem to be cited by name anywhere else in the judgement. So why is the LGBA's intervention in this case important? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Newimpartial: It is much more significant than the ‘twitter drama’, which has been in the article for some time, without, as far as I am aware, you objecting to it. WP:COATRACK starts: A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. Typically, the article has been edited to make a point about something else. The nominal subject is functioning as an overloaded coat-rack, obscured by too many "coats" – additional topics that were grouped together to make it appear as if they were all examples of the same thing. I don’t see your logic. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Defending the inclusion of content in an article because of coverage that is about an event (the ruling) the coverage of which doesn't mention the topic of the article does fit my idea of giving more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects than to the topic of the article. The Twitter-related content to which you object does have the merit of coverage in independent RS, in the specific context of the Alliance. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sweet, you need to argue "significance" using secondary sources. There are currently zero secondary sources that think LGB Alliance played any role, never mind a notable one, in the European judgement. This is like me citing a photo of the crowd at the World Cup Final, where if you zoom in really close, you can see my friend's face, and me then claiming that because secondary sources say it was the best World Cup Final in history, that my friend should get a mention on Wikipedia.

I think we should discuss the two texts on their own merits (or lack of), rather than doing some kind of "well it was better than the other text" comparison, which is apples and oranges. -- Colin°^Talk 20:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Colin: I think I see your point, but in this case, I think they have to be considered together. The twitter drama material is confused and trivial. The matter has only been reported by PinkNews, whose attitude towards LGBA is obvious, and Novara Media , who don’t seem to have proofreaders – I found this The argument pedalled by the likes of the LGB Alliance... in a casual check of the relevant source. The material about the legal case is based on a definite fact. I think I see your point about the World Cup – but the contradiction between the 2 texts is a bit analogous to someone finding a photo of me at the World Cup, when I have many times declared that football bores me comatose. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the bit where I was negative about the existing text. I am not impressed with either texts, and think (unless we find better sources) both should go. The only reason they are being "considered together" is because one editor deleted one and added the other in the same edit. They are entirely different events and we can have one, the other, both or neither. -- Colin°^Talk 20:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I noticed you were not impressed by the existing text. So, if you are saying that the ‘twitter’ text should be deleted, then I agree with you on that. I still think that the legal case material is useful inf for this article, because it is a definite fact about LGBA, which is something this article is short on – a significant part of the text of our article is repeating the hostility sourced to those who hate the organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I get that you think it is important. But WP:PROPORTION policy isn't something editors can overturn with a local consensus. And wrt the balance pro and con about LGB Alliance, again, it isn't up to us to decide "Let's make it 50% pro and 50% con". If our sources are overwhelmingly negative then so will Wikipedia. The problem, we can all see, with LGB Alliance, is that they are not notable for their good works because they basically haven't done any. If they start doing all sorts of positive things, and reliable publications notices this, then Wikipedia can mention them. To be honest, this citing a primary source to find even one case is embarrassingly bad for them. It is like someone claims to be a doctor, but has only actually treated one patient. I think pushing for this to be included just looks a bit desperate. -- Colin°^Talk 21:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It is more like an article mentioning that, say, Harry Kane scored a goal in a match, while specifically eliding that he was playing for England at the time. The intervention was named as by LGB Alliance. Robert Wintemute is an LGB Alliance trustee, and wrote the intervention on their behalf (https://lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Written-Comments-2022-02-04.pdf).

As Sweet6970 says - the KCL coverage indicates it is significant, and the primary sources highlight that it was indeed LGB Alliance who intervened.

Just trying to find things that have more substance than PinkNews pearl clutching over tweets. Void if removed (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

KCL isn't an impartial source either, just the college claiming its own professor intervened, and they don't mention LGB Alliance. Sweet6970 can "say" all they want about significance, editors are not empowered to determine WEIGHT. This is not a matter that editors can just decide for themselves. It is core policy that we need the weight of reliable secondary sources to consider this matter in any way important. That you are trying to find positive things is noted and very obvious. Doesn't make them encyclopaedic. -- Colin°^Talk 22:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there now agreement to delete the 'twitter drama' material? Sweet6970 (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t agree, though I am not confident I know precisely to what you refer, since I don't see anything in this article sourced to Twitter. Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Newimpartial, do you realise how that post sounds. "I have no idea what you are referring to, but I disagree with you anyway".

I think the material currently in the "Same-sex marriage" should be removed, and the material that Void inserted the other day should not return. There's nothing here that adds in any way to our readers understanding of the LGB Alliance. -- Colin°^Talk 16:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death my right to have no idea what you're referring to." *Dan T.* (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

To me, Colin, there is a non-semantic distinction between my I am not confident I know precisely and your paraphrase, I have no idea.

In any event, you appear to be including the following as material to be removed:

In June 2020, LGB Alliance said in a tweet that it is not homophobic to oppose same-sex marriage, citing a statistic that most lesbian, gay and bisexual people are not married. PinkNews says that the tweet was deleted following criticism from actor David Paisley, Scottish MP Mhairi Black, and journalist Owen Jones.

I oppose the removal of this material, which does indeed add to our readers understanding of the LGB Alliance; this incident in 2020 has also been cited by CTV news among other Canadian news outlets, as well as dazed digital and Bi Community News. This seems like relevant information to remain in this article, and the efforts to remove it look to me like whitewashing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the existing material has to stay. That is not to say that it can't be worked on to improve it, which could even involve making it more concise, but there is zero good reason to remove it. The fact that it is embarrassing to the LGBA should not be a consideration for us. That should neither lead us to over-egg it nor to soft pedal it. DanielRigal (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dtobias: Are you in favour of deleting the material, or of keeping it? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I've got a moderate view that may tick off partisans on all sides... Something about what views LGB Alliance may have expressed on the subject of marriage equality has a place here, but needs to be at a level higher than Twitter bickering and attempted "gotchas" no matter which side does it. Stick to things that are reliably sourced (and I remain skeptical of Pink News as a reliable source on anything in this area because of their heavy bias). *Dan T.* (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

So – do you support the inclusion of the existing material? And do you have something which is better sourced? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

After looking at both the existing and proposed material again, I think both are kind of marginal, but I would err slightly in the direction of keeping them (both the old and the new material) in some form since they both have bearing on what position LGBA takes on this issue. It would be nice if there were more sources (in both cases) to the notability of LGBA's actions and statements in this area. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I would also point out that the current version of the article contains a subsection on "Sex education" that is based entirely on primary sources and one on "Gender identity" that us sourced exclusively to The Daily Telegraph, so there seems to me something akin to WP:UNDUE about the efforts made to expunge the (apparently embarassing) content about same-sex marriage. Newimpartial (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's not go there, Newimpartial. We don't balance WEIGHT in an article by saying effectively that editors can't remove a section I want to keep, unless they agree to remove a section they want to keep. If you think the other sections are undue, open another section and discuss them on their own merits. This editor-balancing idea is as bad as earlier comments that moaned the article was overall negative. Well, negative organisations get negative coverage about the negative stuff they do. There are also complaints here that we are sometimes using biased sources and while that is something to keep in mind, there is always going to be a problem that an organisation like this gets very little coverage anyway, and most of the coverage it does get is about the hateful things they've said, or stupid things they've said which is what this same-sex section is about. Basically, if the LGB Alliance were just a handful of non-notable individuals who didn't once attack trans rights and organisations, and campaign against gender identity, but instead did just the tiny amount of work they did for LGB people, this page would be a redlink. The only way to fix that, is for LGB Alliance to get noticed for doing positive stuff, which is outside of our control.

I don't think it is acceptable to claim there is "zero good reason to remove it". WP:NOTNEWS says "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" and "when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are". This seems like one of those cases where someone posted something on Twitter that didn't really reflect their views and deleted it later. I don't really see how including that is encyclopaedic and the list of so-called news Newimpartial gives is pretty lame. Guys, this works both ways. If you descend to fighting to including a twitter brain fart by an organisation you don't like, that never reached a major news and has no real substance to it other than lolz, you just look hypocritical when you get inflamed that "the other side" demand to include some nasty trivia about something you care about. Like that nonsense about the Standards of Care and some Scottish feminist groups getting upset about a draft document. We need to raise the level otherwise we will all just spend too much time bickering about trivia and fighting to include "he said a bad word" crap. -- Colin°^Talk 15:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: the list of so-called news - we have two reputable, mainstream Montreal news outlets referring to this supposedly non-newsworthy event when they attempt to characterize this article's subject years later, when a speaker associated with the Alliance was scheduled to speak in Montreal. When Montreal activists engage in newsworthy protests and this bit of Alliance history is part of the grounds for the protest, I think it is a mischaracterization to say the latter has no real substance to it other than lolz. I know there is a long history of editors preferring to dismiss Canadian RS on trans topics because they are Canadian and therefore unfamiliar to some editors, but I for one am sick of it.

And concerning the appropriateness of comparing sections, WP:PROPORTION gives the following policy prescription:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

In fact, we are called on to make explicit comparisons among topics and sections, in evaluating proportionality, and not only to discuss them on their own merits. So in my view, a section outlining a topic discussed in multiple RS in varied media environments does have a stronger case for inclusion than one discussed only in primary sources published by the organization itself. I would have thought this to be obvious, but I suppose at times it is necessary to say obvious things "out loud". Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The CTV source is lame, NewImpartial, not because it is CTV, but because the journalist doesn't actually cite the tweet or claim anything about LGB Alliance's views. What they do, is quote things that the people they interviewed said or claimed. People say all sorts of things that get quoted in newspapers, many of which are untrue or misleading and are things the journalist doesn't themselves believe. That still a year on, a single activist in Canada is spreading, what really does appear to be, a myth that LGB Alliance oppose same-sex marriage, based on a badly worded tweet, just says something about activists. I don't think you'd find a real proper journalists would claim "The LGB Alliance oppose same sex marriage" based on that twitter spat. I looked at MTLBlog. Are you seriously saying that is a "major news outlet", something with "blog" in its name, who's homepage is "18 Bucket List things to do in Montreal" and who's writer of the piece you quote apparently is employed to be "focused on apartments for rent".

This is trash, Newimpartial, and if you accept trash here, you'll get trash elsewhere too. Enjoy your trash Wikipedia if that's what you want. -- Colin°^Talk 17:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This comment deserves a barnstar, but I'm too lazy. 😁👍  Tewdar  18:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you have against Narcity Media (of which MTLblog was the nucleus), but it is widely used as a RS within enwiki and is IMO a mainstream news source (not a major news outlet, per your caricature of my position). Your conclusion that This is trash...Enjoy your trash Wikipedia, entertaining as it may be to Tewdar, strikes me as borderline unCIVIL and certainly a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the WP:TPG. I am entirely unwilling to talk "trash" with you, Colin, here or elsewhere.

The fact remains that MTLBlog, in spite of the name, is a news organization with well-documented standards to which they have adhered over an considerable period. Nobody is suggesting that this article should say The LGB Alliance oppose same sex marriage in wikivoice, and that isn't what MTLblog or CTV say, either. But they do both note the topic of the section in question as relevant to the protests in Montreal, and that lends WEIGHT to the section, as do the other mentions in other media markets. Again, this seems obvious to me. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Working on the assumption that MTLBlog, in spite of the name, is a news organization with well-documented standards to which they have adhered over an considerable period is an accurate summary, I was actually unable to find any positive commentary on this mainstream news source. I managed to find several negative assessments, however, including a false report of a hostage situation, articles publishing pictures of 'hot' students' personal information without permission, and a review from a fan (!) who writes The problem is that we do not think about MTL Blog in the right way. We should not expect it to be a true news source—it is not. 😂  Tewdar  16:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I like the way PinkNews magically transforms "not to be in favour" to "oppose", and the way we favour the headline over the quoted speech in our article. Welcome to Trashipedia! 😂  Tewdar  10:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Newimpartial, don't play the CIVILity card to protest about a post that was entirely about weak sources and weak article content (what I labelled trash but some call cruft and other derogatory terms. Doing that is actually a personal attack... you are trying to attack me when what you should be concerned about is what I wrote. Look, MTLBlog may have standards, and no doubt it is a reliable source on local events in Montreal, the opening of a new restaurant or the closure of a hotel and so on. But it is by the very link you gave a "local news" outlet and thus excuse us for raising our eyebrows when you cite it on an tiny organisation based on the other side of the Atlantic.

It is really important we notice the difference between quotes inside a news article, and what the journalist writes. On CTV, the journalist quoted the protesters to give the reader an idea of what arguments the protesters were making. That does not mean the journalist agrees with them or indeed thinks those arguments have any weight. They may in fact be quoting them because they think those arguments are outrageously funny and lame. That's pretty common: the Daily Mail will (selectively) quote liberal lefties in order for their readers to laugh at the wokeness on display. That doesn't for a moment suggest the Daily Mail has gone woke. Likewise, when The Guardian quotes Nigel Farage for his beliefs on immigrants, it neither thinks those views are correct nor thinks such concerns are materially important to citizens of the UK (they may be politically important, but that's another thing). Let's not conflate the weight of The Guardian's opinion, with the weight of some random person they interview. Here, they interviewed some a protesting student. That student is your "source" of the twitter spat involving the LGB Alliance, and good luck establishing "19-year-old Canadian student activist" as a reliable source for "UK political organisation". -- Colin°^Talk 10:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Please top caricaturing and misstating my comments. I am not conflating quotes inside a news article with what the journalist writes. Concerning the Guardian quoting Nigel Farage, I think that represents a very good example where one source contributes WEIGHT to claims or views that are described ay greater length in (and therefore best cited to) a different source. This is precisely what I am saying about this "same-sex marriage" material. My "source of the twitter spat involving the LGB Alliance" is PinkNews - which we currently cite - and my claim here is that reference to that incident as characterizing the Alliance in multiple sources in other countries adds weight to the incident. It is fine that you disagree with me about this, but it is not fine that you refer to seeing "19-year-old Canadian student activist" as a reliable source for "UK political organisation" as though that bore any resemblance to my comments or position in this discussion.

Colin, you made this discussion personal with your comment, Enjoy your trash Wikipedia if that's what you want. That isn't a comment about sources, it is an ASPERSION about me as a contributor, and please don't gaslight me now by claiming otherwise. To say the least, doing so does not advance this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Newimpartial, you absolutely did conflate "quotes inside a news article with what the journalist writes". You literally wrote "this incident in 2020 has also been cited by CTV news among other Canadian news outlets". Not "this incident in 2020 has also been cited by a 19-year-old Canadian student activist, who's opinions and beliefs were quoted by CTV news when covering a protest they were leading" I have no idea what your sentence about Farage means, but since it precedes 'This is precisely what I am saying about this "same-sex marriage" material' I can only assume you have entirely misunderstood my analogy. Let's forget that analogy if it isn't working. The weight carried by "reliable sources" like newspapers does not automatically extend to the random people they quote, who are not necessarily "reliable sources". We had the same problem recently, but the other way around, when it was claimed that a newspaper quoting people on Twitter for their opinions made the other stuff that the journalist wrote in that article unreliable.

Wrt "Enjoy your trash Wikipedia if that's what you want"... That's a little rhetorical flourish. There's nobody here thinks any that anyone, not even the most ardent activists among us, want a trash Wikipedia. That is entirely the point. We all want a great Wikipedia but have quite different ideas of what that might contain. It's a warning about where this approach will lead. It's like saying to someone, who orders a triple cheeseburger and double fries, "Enjoy your heart attack". It isn't literally meant to suggest the person wants a heart attack or might enjoy it. There is no need to go all SHOUTY with the "ASPERSION" comment and wikilinking "gaslight" in case I was too old to understand this fashionable new insult, please stop digging. It really isn't possible to gaslight about what someone said literally a few paragraphs up the page.

This trashy "Oh look, the LGB Alliance made a fool of themselves on Twitter" paragraph is not given importance because a student activist in another country hasn't discovered yet whether to fight on serious matters, or just throw whatever shit they find on the internet at the wall and hope some of it sticks. The latter approach seems to be the standard method in this topic domain, and it isn't clever. -- Colin°^Talk 18:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There's nobody here thinks any that anyone, not even the most ardent activists among us, want a trash Wikipedia - I actually do believe that some editors prefer trash to a great Wikipedia. Some editors cite any auld shite as long as it supports their POV or makes their enemies look bad... sadly, this is true in many areas of Wikipedia.  Tewdar  19:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"any auld shite": When did you learn to talk like a Scot? While I agree with that sentence, I think actually some editors think that is "a great Wikipedia". The politicians and activists they admire engage at the same "race to the bottom" / "facts are inconvenient" level of argument and think that is how it is done.

Someone once explained that when making an argument about a topic, the temptation is to find 10 things and present them all. But those 10 things include a few great killer arguments and a few embarrassingly weak arguments. If you detail all 10, you'll be attacked on the weak arguments, and ignored on the strong ones. They will say "Oh I lost interest when your argument was based on a deleted tweet that doesn't even represent their position". They will say "I lost interest when your criticism of an international medical guideline was sourced to some Scottish feminists channelling Mary Whitehouse while protesting about self-id." -- Colin°^Talk 20:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Colin, if you think there is a non-semantic difference between the two following statements:

two quotes
1. this incident in 2020 has also been cited by CTV news among other Canadian news outlets 2. this incident in 2020 has also been cited by a 19-year-old Canadian student activist, who's opinions and beliefs were quoted by CTV news when covering a protest they were leading

then I respect that this is your view. I respectfully disagree that the former statement excludes the latter specification. But regardless of that, prior to your accusation that I conflated reporter-authored content with quoted statements, I had specified the context: When Montreal activists engage in newsworthy protests and this bit of Alliance history is part of the grounds for the protest (emphasis added). The statement by the protest organizer about why they were objecting to the speaker seems quite satisfactory in this context, perhaps more so than a statment in the reporter's own voice. In the context of this specific claim, I found your comment - It is really important we notice the difference between quotes inside a news article, and what the journalist writes - to be both condescending and disingenuous. It would have been relevant for the possible use of CTV or MTLblog as sources for factual statements about the Alliance, but my argument has been entirely different from that, as I have repeatedly explained. I don't know, either, why you had difficulty parsing my Farage comment, but my point was that when the Guardian joins, for example, The Times and The Telegraph in quoting or discussing claims made by Farage, that contributes to the WP:WEIGHT to be given to the inclusion of those claims in one of our articles. The quote in the Guardian contributes nothing to the possible veracity of those claims, as I trust we both understand by now.

As far as your little rhetorical flourish goes, I would not take it literally as an injunction to enjoy (my) trash Wikipedia. But if someone were to say to me "Enjoy your heart attack", I would absolutely take that as an insult/personal attack, or in wiki parlance, as an UNCIVIL comment. That you are blind to the way your comment turned this discussion into a personal dispute - to the point that you insist, "you are trying to attack me" for merely pointing out the obvious - well, I'm afraid I'm at a loss about that one.

The fact remains that we have a section sourced to PinkNews on an issue that has been picked up by other sources in other media markets, and we have two other sections in this article that are sourced only to the Alliance or to The Telegraph. In this context, you seem inclined to remove this section because, in your personal estimation, it makes a weak argument. I would rather base article content - in this case as in others - on the WEIGHT of the sources rather than on what I personally find to be a killer argument (which, to be fair, is an approach that would make for a very strange encyclopaedia if pursued with any vigour). Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes you mentioned that "this bit of Alliance history" was apparently part of the grounds for the protest, well at least according to the one student who lead it and was interviewed. You neglect to quote your previous sentence: we have two reputable, mainstream Montreal news outlets referring to this supposedly non-newsworthy event when they attempt to characterize this article's subject years later. But we don't have CTV attempting to characterize this article's subject years later, do we. We have a student, who is quoted. Indeed, CTV don't take sides at all, but give pretty equal room for both sides to make their argument about each other in their own words. And I never said the event was "non-newsworthy". This is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS was written for. That something is mentioned in the news doesn't inherently make it encyclopaedic. Newimpartial, please don't label other editors "condescending and disingenuous" for pointing out the flaws in your argument and flawed thinking about policy and guidelines. I get you want this attack paragraph, we all do. But you need to do better to convince others than referring to one activist student in Canada and some local city blog.

Wrt the multiple Farage quotes in The Guardian/Telegraph/etc what matters is in what way this "contributes to the WP:WEIGHT to be given to the inclusion of those claims in one of our articles". Which "one" of our articles is what matters? An article on Farage and his beliefs. Yes. An article on Turkey or Poland or Albania? No. This student's beliefs and evidence-for-those-beliefs about LGB Alliance, would have weight if we had an article about that particular student. Their beliefs have no more weight in this article than Trump's beliefs about injectable bleach have weight in the treatment section of the Covid 19 article. And those beliefs were incredibly widely quoted in the press. -- Colin°^Talk 22:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Concerning your first paragraph, you appear confused about what I meant by non-newsworthy event - I was referring to what you call a twitter spat. My argument is that the Montreal sources lend weight to the claim - weight, not veracity - by quoting or paraphrasing the activist, in the same way that the Guardian would lend weight, but not veracity, to some claim endorsed by Farage. Now you can of course object to the logic of this argument or its applicability, or both, but ad homimem attacks on me as promoting trash Wikipedia or caricatures implying that I have proposed wikivoice statements based on attributed statements in a source - well those are based on false premises and are, as you have put it previously weak arguments at best. When you put forth such caricatures as though they were my actual argument, I don't think disingenuous is a misplaced epithet, but clearly our perspectives differ.

Also, concerning your last paragraph, if you believe that statements of opinion by a WP:BLP on a topic are generally only relevant to an article on the BLP, but not to an article on the topic, I don’t think Wikipedia policy or practice backs you up on that. In the case of Covid-19, for example, we have the sub-article of Covid-19 misinformation in which Trump's statements are amply represented. But we do not have a sub-article, e.g., on Criticism of the LGB Alliance, so the obvious place for the reliably sourced content that would be found in that hypothetical article is, well, right here. From there IMO editorial decisions must depend on WEIGHT and the BALANCE of sourcing, and not on what you personally find to be killer arguments. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Newimpartial, every single, and I do mean every single, one of your "you said this" or "you claimed that" sentences is wrong. To be wrong repeatedly and conveniently in one direction just reads like a long bad-faith personal attack, much like how a newly ex-government minister happened to find himself "carelessly" wrong in a way that made him several million pounds richer. I don't think anyone else is much interested in the you said / he said battle of words, particularly when all the words we are arguing about are already on the page. Brandolini's law would require me to spend way too long and many paragraphs taking them all apart. Your ego is not what this talk page is about if it upsets you this much to be told you are Wrong On The Internet about WEIGHT, I suggest you quietly go ask a friend you respect to bring you up to speed on it. Let's move on. -- Colin°^Talk 08:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

A primary source is surely fine for something as supposedly uncontroversial as what a charity's views are. It shouldn't require the reading of second-hand tealeaves to discern their public stance on issues, and plenty of other charity pages link to their campaigns and programmes. You complain about the Telegraph but it is - unlike Pink News - at least published with official comment, though surely there's better sources by now.

The section on same-sex marriage and LGBT clubs in schools though are just social media drama interpreted as views via PinkNews. I don't even see what the novara media reference is for in the first section - it looks like WP:SYNTH. And the tweet about marriage isn't embarrassing - it is banal and tautological, and reveals nothing about the stance of the organisation on the subject. Void if removed (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Novara media is the source for the (false) claim by Alliance activists that In our historical gay and lesbian rights movement, we never demanded that society change its laws, its activities and its language to accommodate us. That false claim provides a convenient basis for scepticism about same-sex marriage, since in this reading of history, same-sex marriage did not result from what actually produced it - the demands of LGBT activists - but presumably through some other process so that LGBT communities might reasonably be expected to be indifferent to marriage equality. (In this bizarre misreading of history, presumably even the legalisation of gay and lesbian sexuality itself had nothing to do with the gay liberation activists who "demanded" that other form of legal equality.) This is all codswallop, but like the calls to close bath houses and the attacks on GSA clubs in schools, it is codswallop attributed by reliable sources to "LGB Alliance" activists. Newimpartial (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

> That false claim provides a convenient basis for scepticism about same-sex marriage, since in this reading of history, same-sex marriage

So, WP:SYNTH. The link says nothing about their views on same-sex marriage. This is an exercise in cobbling together different sources to support a novel and unconnected claim, and should be removed. Void if removed (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it is SYNTH to recognize that same-sex marriage required that society change its laws? If so, would your objection be met by a change in heading, e.g., to "LGB rights and same-sex marriage", which seems to be the actual scope of the section? Everything currently in the section is about the Alliance's indifference to conventional LGB (not T) rights claims.Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for Void but I would say so. Googling it turn up several blog-style articles, some of which bother to check that yes this is yet another deleted tweet. Since the tweet is deleted, we don't know the context, and they could well have been thinking about something other than marriage, such as, I don't know, the right to go to the bathroom. Yes it is abundantly clear that the tweet doesn't hold up to scrutiny about pretty much anything legal, activity or language based. I mean, being gay was literally illegal, you couldn't join the military, and I won't repeat all the insult words used to describe LGB people that are now thankfully less frequent. So really, to claim a tweet that is wrong on every single level, doesn't mention same-sex marriage, sourced to an article that doesn't mention same-sex marriage, should lead the paragraph in the section called "same-sex marriage" is rather a big dollop of SYNTH.

FYI I see that Newimpartial has changed the section title and fixed the T in the rights movement section. I think though that the title of "Gay and lesbian rights and same-sex marriage" should just be shortened to "Gay and lesbian rights" because the latter is included in that, and I've made that change just now.

So here we are, with a gay and lesbian rights organisation where they only things we say about their views on gay and lesbian rights are ultimately based on badly worded tweets that were deleted in regret. I don't think an encyclopaedia should be claiming to its readers that such brain farts actually represent LGB Alliance policy. We don't even mention that the first claim, about history, got deleted.

It is rather sad if that is the best we can come up with for this section. Surely this organisation has done some LGB rights campaigning that got talked about in reliable secondary sources. If not, then maybe we can find reliable secondary sources that comment on their lack of LGB rights campaigning. If we can't find either, which wouldn't surprise me as this organisation is tiny doesn't appear to do much outside generating trans controversy, then again, I think this section should go. Deleted tweets do not an encyclopaedia article make. -- Colin°^Talk 09:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "gay and lesbian rights" is an improvement. Their whole stated purpose is LGB rights. This should be their views within that, ie what are their views on specific LGB rights and how they should be advanced/defended. That is after all the entire controversy surrounding them. If they have a stated opinion on same-sex marriage (rather than indirect inference from tweets or legal interventions) it should be here, but what's there right now is weak and should go in its entirety IMO. Void if removed (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to edit war over a section title of material I think should be deleted. But Void, if "their whole stated purpose is LGB rights" how about trying to find some good secondary sources about that. We currently don't seem to have any. -- Colin°^Talk 11:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Civil Society "LGB Alliance aims to advance the rights of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals but holds gender-critical beliefs.".

Third Sector 'The LGB Alliance, which describes its mission as “to advance lesbian, gay and bisexual rights”'

GBNews (sigh, I know, but it is a straightforward interview with one of the founders): "About protecting the rights & interests of those with same-sex sexual orientation"

Telegraph "The organisation, set up three years ago, boasts of being the only UK charity fighting exclusively for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights, leaving it open to allegations by trans activists that it is “exclusionary”."

The Guardian "However, it concluded that LGB Alliance was established for “exclusively charitable purposes”, and would work to promote the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation."

The Guardian: "LGB Alliance contests that it is promoting the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, based on its position that there are only two sexes and that gender is a social construct, and rejecting the decision of most LGBTQ+ organisations to move towards a more interchangeable use of the words sex and gender. "

As an aside Paul Roberts' testimony about why LGB Alliance was not permitted to join LGBT Consortium in the tribunal transcripts makes it absolutely clear this is the heart of the matter:

"Q. [...] You exclude, don’t you, people who wish to define LGB as same sex attraction?

A. I – we have a – a membership value and principles and those organisations who will look to exclude transwomen from women’s organisations and transmen from men’s organisations – that would – that would cross the line for us as an organisation.

Q. So, that is a yes?

A. Yes."

This is the difference of views that is relevant to a "views" section IMO, and where their claimed LGB advocacy diverges strongly from the rest of the LGBT charitable sector. Same-sex marriage is already a done deal in the UK, they neither campaign for or against it in this country, and it is an irrelevant heading making too much out of isolated tweets. Beyond that, the other headings like conversion therapy, gender identity, sex education etc are all highly relevant because their defence of LGB as same-sex orientation - irrespective of gender identity - is what puts them at odds, and it is these clashes that are the focus of the organisation's coverage. Void if removed (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I was kinda hoping for more than just "LGB Alliance aims to advance the rights of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals". That could be worked out from the name of the organisation. And we already cover how their definition of those three words is biological-sex-based and, for most trans people, inherently trans exclusionary. Where is the secondary source material on what they believe or are campaigning for wrt LGB rights concerning marriage or workplaces or maternity/paternity or medical care or any other number of social issues. -- Colin°^Talk 12:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah perhaps I misunderstood, you said sources that "their whole stated purpose is LGB rights", so that's what I did. I was trying to support my contention that having a section on "LGB rights" under "views" is a waste of time, especially one as empty as the one currently there. Every view they have will in some way reflect on their sex-based perspective on LGB rights, because they are an LGB rights charity. People can disagree with their stance on what those LGB rights are and so IMO that is what the entirety of the "views" section should be: within the context of LGB rights, what those views are. Their general stance on LGB rights is adequately covered in the lede and overall description of the org .

Given all that, there are no good sources for especially relevant views on same-sex marriage, and the one on LGBT clubs in schools is social media drama not a "view" of the organisation. I think those two should be deleted along with the new, pointless "rights" one which just seems to be an attempt to keep the redundant Novara quote.

The remaining sections are at least relevant and something to build on with better sources, but that is hard to be constructive about while there's an edit war going on over titles and now the creation of a ridiculous sub-subsection. Void if removed (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that extended, expert testimony has challenged the assertion that the actual purpose of the LGB Alliance is the promotion of LGB rights, sex-based or otherwise, you seem to be taking as given the thing that is to be demonstrated. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't clear with "about that". I meant more than just "to confirm that that is what they say their purpose is" but actually about what they are doing to stand up for LGB rights or other things they are doing for LGB people. The Russian thing might be an example of that, but nobody wrote about it, it seems. There has to be more than just "We argue on the internet about the meaning of words, and take selfies with JK Rowling". -- Colin°^Talk 20:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources so far seem to fall mostly into one of two categories:

- Negative coverage of trivia

- Negative/neutral/positive coverage of just existing

TBH I think that until the tribunal rules there's not going to be much more than that, and whether spending time and money fighting in court to exist at all is "standing up for LGB rights" depends very much on your point of view. Void if removed (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

They don't need to be a registered charity to "exist at all". For example For Women Scotland and Transgender Trend are similar organisations and non-profit companies. -- Colin°^Talk 11:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I hope we can all agree that reliably sourced coverage of protests against public apprarances by LGB Alliance activists has not yet been reflected adequately in this arricle. Newimpartial (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If you want to include a section on how Prof Robert Wintemute of KCL was assaulted by a bunch of slogan-chanting students who stopped a presentation on gay rights, be sure you also note that he is an not an "LGB Alliance activist" but a trustee of the charity and an eminent professor of human rights law who was a signatory of the original Yogyakarta principles and in recent years specifically changed his mind on the issue of sex self-identification, and maybe also note that he authored LGB Alliance's intervention in favour of same-sex marriage at the ECHR. For more on Wintemute's history, the law in this area and the Yogyakarta principles, his 2021 presentation is a fascinating watch.

Lots of good quotes in Times Higher Education about the McGill incident stressing that LGB Alliance is a lesbian-led UK charity falsely labelled as an anti-trans hate group, that Wintemute is a "distinguished McGill alumnus with more than 30 years’ experience in human rights law", that the allegations against him and LGB Alliance are "absurd", that the incident "showed contempt for the Canadian Charter right to freedom of expression", and that "Their intention was to silence me, but their protests gave me a megaphone".

But however this is presented, a gay professor of human rights being prevented from talking about gay rights does not belong in "views" of LGB Alliance, and especially not under "same-sex marriage", so I suggest opening a new section in talk to discuss it if you feel strongly about its inclusion.

I'd suggest anything go under "media coverage and criticism", which is quite the dumping ground already. Void if removed (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that coverage of demonstrations and other confrontations with Alliance activists should be added, but not to the Views section.

I would also point out that the coverage is not limited to Wintemute's viewpoint - which is what the SPS and the THE interview you present essentially do - so we would sadly be unable to state in wikivoice that the allegations against him and LGB Alliance are "absurd". We could of course include the obviously verifiable factoid that he has said they are. Newimpartial (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as it being something as supposedly uncontroversial as what a charity's views are, haven't we just seen weeks of legal hearings to ascertain what those views are, among other aspects relevant to the Alliance's charitable status? I would scarcely use the term uncontroversial in this context, nor do I see any policy justification to privilege primary over secondary sources in assessing what views the organisation actually supports. Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Void, in this long conversation, it isn't clear which text and which source you are referring to. I think you are referring to the text I removed which had the court documents from the European Court of Human Rights as its source. Those documents contain five sentences about what the LGB Alliance representative submitted, which was mostly about "international consensus" and about what other nations have done already. There's nothing there that said explicitly what LGB Alliance believe, nor is it possible to conclude whether they are in favour of marriage or just some kind of legal recognition. To be honest, if this is the best that can be found on what this organisation believes then their communications department could do with hiring someone better.

As for the first article text sentence sourced to Novara media, in the source, the quoted sentence is in a paragraph that attributes that sentence to a (now deleted?) tweet and concludes "The implication, here, is that the trans movement, by contrast, is uniquely demanding, dogmatic and extreme." The Novara media source does not mention marriage once, so I don't know why this is in a section on same-sex marriage. I agree with Void here that there's a leap going on that appears to be entirely in some editors heads.

But even if we move the sentence to some other section, it doesn't really tell us about LGB Alliance. And to make matters worse, the source quoted text is "In our historical gay and lesbian rights movement" but someone has written "The group has said that the LGBT rights movement in the UK has" and the addition of a T in that is very very much not what the LGB Alliance were referring to. They were very very much excluding trans rights movement in that claim. I think we should drop that sentence. We need something better to tell readers what this organisation thinks than just randomly quoting their tweets about history and assuming the reader will have the first clue what it means. -- Colin°^Talk 14:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No, to clarify, I've moved on from the text I originally added. If everyone thinks it is unjustified, fine, it is tenuous to attach it in this way. I think that since they intervened in support of same-sex marriage ergo they have at least a supportive position on same-sex marriage, but it involves a bit of source combination to get there and it is weak, so best left unless a better source makes a clearer case. But I thought it was less tenuous than what's there right now, which is an old tweet stating the obvious (not all LGB people supported gay marriage) which doesn't illuminate their views on marriage at all. Void if removed (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s time to delete the ‘twitter drama’ material. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand that this is your view, but do you see a clear consensus for it based on this discussion and the article edit history? I do not. Newimpartial (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The ...never demanded that society change its laws... paragraph doesn't help the reader understand the subject's views on same-sex marriage at all. Rather, its purpose seems to be to draw attention to an ignorant statement, which may be a reasonable thing to call attention to in the criticism section, but if the only sources are opinion pieces on a deleted tweet, it would be pretty weak.

The ...not homophobic to oppose... paragraph is even worse. First it takes a similar deleted-tweet-detour, and when it finally arrives at a statement on same-sex marriage, that statement is sourced to... a tweet. Why are we relying on tweets to divine the policy position of the organisation? Why is there no policy statement on same-sex marriage on their website? Why are there no secondary sources containing a straightforward statement of what the organisation's position on same-sex marriage is? Same-sex marriage is clearly not a significant area of campaigning for them, so why does the article need a section on it? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I admit to not having read the above novella. Just chiming in to say that something needs to change with the sentence on the gay and lesbian rights movement. We should either include the source's analysis of the comment—that it's untrue and is an implied attack on the trans rights movement—or we should remove the line entirely. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I only skimmed the novella but similarly think the section should be cleaned up but not wholly removed. Like it or not, a leading member of an organization supposedly supporting cisgender LGB people making ignorant comments about gay marriage was covered in reliable sources and is relevant and due. @Sweet6970 please self-revert, there was no consensus on talk. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The only way to clean it up is to remove it. It’s garbage. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not how consensus or wikipedia works TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

If there is a policy basis for, "sourced content may be removed once editors have referred to it on Talk as 'trash' or 'garbage'", I'd love to know what that basis is so I could use it myself. WP:GARBAGE amd WP:TRASH are coming up empty. Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea – perhaps you could draft the essay? But I thought that it would be obvious that ‘It’s garbage’ is a TL;DR summary of the discussion in this section. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

There's WP:RUBBISH, but it's not related to the current discussion. All the good ones appear to be already taken (WP:BALLS, WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:BULLSHIT, WP:COBBLERS...)  Tewdar  11:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar, we've got WP:FANCRUFT. Maybe someone should write WP:HATECRUFT. There's a fair bit of WP:PROSELINE going on here too. But to answer NewImpartial's question, WP:NOTNEWS is the policy and deciding which bits of the news are unencyclopaedic is done by editors by consensus. -- Colin°^Talk 14:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I also think it is trash. And Tewdar wrote "I'd throw both sections in the WP:TRASH if it were up to me" when asked about it on their user talk page. The source on the "its laws" sentence doesn't even mention same-sex marriage and if you follow the trail to an article by Gemma Stone, that offers counter examples for "its laws" of same-sex marriage, age of consent and Section 28, and counters "its activities" with giving blood and serving in the military. From that, a reasonable person might conclude LGB Alliance were talking about "Gay and lesbian rights" and there's nothing in their tweet nor in the various writers responses to indicate anyone thought they were specifically talking about same sex marriage. It seems that the point of the tweet was that Trans activists were being particularly needy, but the real lesson of the tweet is that it is best not to publish things on twitter that are laughably wrong in every word you wrote.

I expect an encyclopaedia article on an organisation to give details on their views and activities, to the degree that either are notable, sourced to independent reliable sources commenting on that organisations views and activities. Newspaper articles laughing and mocking badly worded tweets are fun to read but definitely fall into the category WP:NOTNEWS warns us about. -- Colin°^Talk 10:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean... it's not really an encyclopedia article, is it? It started off as basically an attack article written by someone who seems to have been very angry, and as a consequence still includes all manner of inconsequential cruft and random quotes shoved in any old how as a substitute for decent summary. The 'Media coverage and criticism' section is the most egregious offender, with an apparent objective of quoting everybody who ever said anything about LGB Alliance ever to have been reported in a newspaper or website. This article should be about ten percent of the size it is now.  Tewdar  11:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on a long time, but does not seem to be getting anywhere. So what is the position on retaining this material? The onus is on the people who judge that it should be included in the article. As far as I can gather/remember (apologies if I am in error in any way): I think it’s garbage, Colin thinks it’s trash, Tewdar agreed with Colin,Barnards.tar.gz is in favour of deleting it, Void if removed is in favour of deleting it, DanielRigal was in favour of retaining it, Dtobias was weakly in favour of retaining it, Firefangledfeathers is in favour of it being amended or deleted, and so is TheTranarchist. Newimpartial has said a lot – I think they are in favour of keeping it.

There does not seem to be a consensus to include it. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Given the motif of "trash/garbage" in some of the comments, perhaps that factoid should be categorized as "recyclable"; it might be capable of being turned into something worthy of use, but its current state probably should go in the appropriate bin. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

A small clarification: I favor expanding or removing the gay/lesbian rights movement content, and I don't have an opinion on the same-sex marriage material. I have this page temporarily unwatchlisted, so please ping me if you need a response from me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a problem here that analysis of these tweets has only been done in opinion columns or reports citing other tweets and opinions, none of which we regard as reliable. That the tweets happened is not contested, but what they mean? We can't say in Wikivoice, for example, that the LGB Alliance criticised trans people for being over demanding, because that's just one persons interpretation of the first tweet. Another opinion could be that their brain wasn't screwed in tightly when they wrote it, given that even a moment's thought or "bouncing the idea off a colleague" would confirm it was 100% untrue. So what we are left with currently is either quoting the original tweet or a bad paraphrase of that tweet ("homophobic to oppose" is not equivalent to "‘homophobic’ not to be in favour of") and zero analysis for the reader to understand what on earth is going on. The first tweet on its own just generates a WTF? reaction rather than any clarity about where they stand. The second tweet appears to me to be a poorly written attempt to comment that not everyone is in favour of getting married rather than a suggestion that LGB Alliance oppose gay marriage or are comfortable with people opposing gay marriage, which our text currently implies. You know the joke "Well, I wouldn't start from here", and this applies. If we want to write about LGB Alliance's beliefs and opinions, we would not be starting with deleted tweets and scraping the contemporary news articles that were outraged that someone might be stupid on Twitter. -- Colin°^Talk 09:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Colin, reports citing other tweets and opinions is pretty much what RS journalism consists of - please don't conflate this with RSOPINION and SPS content. We should be starting with the reliable sources, and these paragraphs are both reliably sourced. Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Sigh, once again I didn't do what you criticise me for. It's getting boring Newimpartial, so please stop. I didn't say the paragraphs were not reliably sourced. I said that any analysis (which we don't make) about those tweets couldn't be reliably sourced such that we could put it into Wikivoice. So we are left with two deleted tweets, one of which is misleadingly paraphrased. The second tweet has some boring statements-of-fact added that mention three people who criticised it, and that it was deleted. And then we quote the response tweet from LGB Alliance. There's no analysis and there can be no analysis. As much as some might want us to expand on this, we can't. Bleating that the tweets are reliably sourced doesn't make them magically escape WP:NOTNEWS. -- Colin°^Talk 14:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no policy-related reason we couldn't include analysis - like Gemma Stone's, which would make sense of the two othetwise disparate paragraphs in the section. We just can't put that analysis in Wikivoice.

If it were a goal for this article to exclude sections where we can't offer analysis, this isn't the most striking instance IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

All our content is included by consensus, Newimpartial. There are no policies, none whatsoever, that insist we include some some shit you found on Google. So, go on then. Good luck inserting Gemma Stone's opinions. Do you want it to start with "In a tweet I can’t be bothered to go and check if they deleted or not, LGB Alliance claimed that..." continue with "a whole society Truman Show’ing the fuck out of your existence", include their view of LGB Alliance as "A group who has absolutely no fucking clue about the history of our community and signs off their rant with "Fuck LGB Alliance, you bigoted garbage merchants." (emphasis theirs). High brow stuff. You should have absolutely no problems achieving consensus on that. (I'm being sarcastic, in case the bleedin' obvious isn't obvious). -- Colin°^Talk 15:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If by being sarcastic you actually mean being rude, yes you are. And cherrypicking phrases in the comment that we would definitely not reflect in an article, while ignoring the actual argument she makes - well I guess I will AGF by assuming this has some unexplained relationship to #trashwikipediagoals. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This section, like many of the others here, has spiralled way out of control. I can't even follow where we are or where we are going with this. Maybe somebody can make a coherent suggestion and we can have an RfC on that? If so, I advise making the suggestion as simple, clear and self-contained as possible, with whoever makes it aiming for something that we can all understand unambiguously and (hopefully) all agree is an improvement, even if none of us thinks that it is the optimal solution or agrees about what that would even look like. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

How about this for an RfC?

Should we keep this section [insert text here], or throw it in the trash? If we keep it, should the title be 'Gay and lesbian rights and same-sex marriage', 'Gay and lesbian rights', 'Same-sex marriage', or something else?

 Tewdar  20:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping we were asymptotically approaching consensus and someone was finally going to crack and delete it but hey. Aside from the fact that I think it should be filed straight in the bin, and if not that the title shouldn't be changed, if you must offer options can it be "Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual rights" please? Lest the spectre of bi erasure rear its head. Void if removed (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Within the reliable sources has anyone accused the Alliance of supporting bi rights? If they have, I am unaware of it. Newimpartial (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a terrible RFC. Why do we do this, think that RFC is how we write articles? You'll just get random opinions from people who don't bother to investigate why on earth there is any dispute about the sentences. As far as I can see, only a few editors want it to stay, but mostly for reasons they haven't explained. Newimpartial wants it to stay because they find WP:NOTNEWS policy inconvenient. Nobody seems happy with the current text but the couple of voices that think it should be expanded haven't actually done that. Maybe they should give that a go, so we don't end up with an RFC result saying "The text should be expanded to include learned analysis of RGB Alliance's views on same-sex marriage and other LGB rights". Quoting and misleadingly paraphrasing a couple of deleted tweets do not do that. Has anyone involved in this discussion actually googled those tweets, because if you do then you will discover that (a) only a few people have written about them (those commenting on the first tweet always seems to reference Gemma Stone's foul mouthed rant) and (b) they are all opinion pieces in mediocre publications or original news reports that merely confirm that The Internet is Again Outraged that Someone was Stupid on Twitter. We all think a section with one or other of these headers would be good, but nobody has actually written anything good to put in it. So go do that. Then we can have an argument about it.

There is currently a majority in view of ditching this piss-poor content and no consensus to include it. So it is really up to those who want it to demonstrate they can write some good text worth keeping. If they wont do that, then lets delete it and move on. -- Colin°^Talk 08:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a terrible RFC 😂

Why do we do this, think that RFC is how we write articles? because in GENSEX topic areas (and a few other articles, like Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory), a few hard-core editors refuse to yield until they are brutally beaten into submission, or alternatively somehow by fair means or foul manage to attract enough support to defy rationality?

lets delete it and move on - alright, I'll give it a try.  Tewdar  09:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of the section, and was about to do it myself, on the basis that there is a clear consensus to do so, when I discovered Tewdar had already done it. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently this was the most popular thing I've ever done on Wikipedia 🤣  Tewdar  10:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly one way to resolve the edit war over the section name. Hey, maybe LGB Alliance will lose their charity status, decide to return to their day jobs and retire their twitter account, and we can turn the whole thing into a stub that begins with "LGB Alliance was..." -- Colin°^Talk 11:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Request: Please could someone who took part in this discussion (eg. Colin, Newimpartial, DanielRigal, TheTranarchist) provide a summary of the discussion and the reason for deciding to remove the information? I don't think its reasonable to expect someone to read over 11,000 words to understand why information was removed despite it having reliable sources. A= summary would hopefully help with disagreements in future if any more information about their views on equal marriage is published. Thanks John Cummings (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If we are referring to this edit by User:Tewdar, there were two paragraphs, discussing two tweets that were subsequently deleted from Twitter. Some editors felt these deleted tweets were being mentioned in order to define the organisation's position on same-sex marriage, which seems neither fair nor honest. The first tweet doesn't even mention same sex marriage and nor did the source, which was an opinion piece. The second tweet was deleted and responded to with an admission it was very badly worded, and the impression given didn't reflect their views. The argument for keeping it was that it was covered by a reliable newspaper, but WP:NOTNEWS says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" and the consensus of editors here was that these two LGB Alliance brain farts don't rise to the level of encyclopaedic content, and are being used in a misleading way.

This isn't in any way a sign that if "more information about their views on equal marriage is published" that such a topic would be off limits for the article. The argument is specifically about those deleted tweets.

Btw, please don't ping Newimpartial or TheTranarchist, as they can't respond and it must get annoying. -- Colin°^Talk 13:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I added the tweet's archive 2 years ago (thought it'd be helpful to have alongside RS). Now find it gone, can understand people don't know the context behind it however.

They posted it for critics of their relationship to Baronness Emma Nicholson who opposes gay marriage. She posted before them, defending her opposition (other posts). Gets people pinging LGB Alliance about it. LGB Alliance responds shortly after saying it's not homophobic not to be in favor of gay marriage. Deletes it. Goes on to defend Nicholson the next month again, praise her last year, and take her to their conference in 2021. Some may not see that as a mere brain fart.

That the reliable sources covering the gay marriage post include Dazed and PinkNews shouldn't be of much shock: they're some of the top UK-based media covering gay issues. Could argue it's "biased sources", but really all that was included was "they posted this then deleted it after criticism" which doesn't seem undue; it should be included. Chillabit (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you find reliable sources saying, in their own voice, not just quoting tweets, that the Baroness made homophobic comments attacking gay marriage and LGB Alliance clearly defended the Baroness on this point, and in fact considered their views entirely reasonable and not homophobic at all. All we had was their deleted tweet, and Pink News quoting a tweet by actor David Paisley. That doesn't cut the mustard, particularly when combined with the clarification by LGB Alliance.

We are supposed to summarise what secondary sources are saying about an organisation. Not just quoting this, that and the other from newspapers, which are themselves just quotes from Twitter. We don't make a case by dumping primary-source level information on to the page and expecting the reader to make conclusions. We should be summarising the conclusions of reliable sources. If we can't do that, we should say nothing. Mostly, per WP:NOTNEWS we should be saying nothing, because LGB Alliance isn't a significant organisation who's views greatly concern the nation's writers. -- Colin°^Talk 08:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't suggesting that the tweet's relation to Nicholson be inserted to that section. Was explaining how it isn't just old "drama" that somehow became irrelevant with time, as some above seemed to think that idea justified the removal of the entire section.

A controversy concerning an advocacy group, about its primary topic of advocacy (LGB rights) and certainly not trivial to the topic matter, as reported on by a reliable source and mentioned in brief neutrality by Wikipedia, standing on the page for years until this January or so, certainly seems relevant to keep in the article. Chillabit (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This was a section for the organisation's views. The tweet did not actually illuminate anything there.

As for inclusion elsewhere, this is essentially a badly-worded and subsequently clarified banal observation presented as somehow controversial. The archive of the tweet you provide doesn't include the immediately subsequent tweet in the same thread which states:

"In the 1970s & 1980s many gay and lesbian rights activists opposed same-sex marriage, seeing it as a kind of sell-out -- joining the establishment. Some have held on to that view; most haven't. The tweet obviously doesn't refer to opposing the legal possibility of gay marriage."

This is just true and not even a remotely controversial statement.

There are many things on this page presented as "controversial" by a handful of sources, predominantly PinkNews, who have an editorial stance that is openly hostile to LGBA. Given PinkNews are - as I've pointed out several times - a source who are supposed to be used with caution, their hostility and tendency to cover trivial social media drama in this way should be taken into account in determining if something is actually a controversy worth mentioning, rather than just blindly accepting that it is. If it can't be balanced with other coverage, perhaps it isn't actually notable. Void if removed (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This exact same topic which yes, is clearly controversial and long has been in the gay rights movement, is covered on the page: Stonewall (charity), using the exact same news organization as a source, covering that charity's same meandering on it.

Except in this case as you just alluded to, it's not just PinkNews which has mentioned it, even if PinkNews is probably the most fit to use as a citation (seeing as it's a whole article about the post itself). And by whose opinion is it mere "trivial social media drama" that the public face of a pro-LGB charity sparked lasting controversy (as evidenced by continuing mentions in other outlets years later) over their statements on gay marriage? Yours? Seems like WP:OR. Chillabit (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Void, repeatedly dissing Pink News is a distraction from this particular debate. They are considered reliable for facts, and nobody has disputed the facts here. That they have an agenda is frankly no different to the agenda and bias of The Telegraph and Times in the other direction. I would prefer if Wikipedia didn't cover tittle-tattle from either sides of this culture war, but whenever that gets considered people bleat archaic nonsense about "Newspaper of record".

We don't decide whether something is important by ourselves or by comparing "If it is important for Stonewall then it is important for LGB Alliance". We need WP:DUE coming from reliable sources. In the discussion further above, the best someone could get was that some 19-year-old Canadian student activist also mentioned it and repeated this when interviewed. It needs to be considered by reliable sources in their own words.

Clearly there is a nuanced discussion about thinking marriage (same-sex or otherwise) is a great or dreadful thing and whether it should be legal (same-sex or otherwise). It looks like while there was a big Twitter hoo-ha about legalising same-sex marriage, some people were suggesting additionally that everyone must be fully supportive of everyone actually getting married to one's same sex partner, otherwise they are homophobic. LGB Alliance tried to make a point about that aspect, and did so really badly, and got burnt. There's probably a story there about LGB Alliance's twitter writer being naive and stupid, but again, nobody has written one.

We need secondary sources guys. If we don't have them, we can't summarise it for Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 11:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, the idea that same-sex marriage is controversial in the LGBT movement in the year 2023 is… possibly giving a bit too much to the opponents of same-sex marriage. If the Stonewall-lobbying-against-same-sex-marriage affair proved anything, it's that opposition to same-sex marriage in the LGBT movement was an incredibly fringe view a decade ago, and not one that was even enjoyed by most of Stonewall's patrons!

Indeed, the fall-out from that affair basically ended up with Stonewall doing a public volte face from representing the dinner party set to being more representative, basically killed's Ben Summerskill chances of a peerage (especially after the disastrous "the Lib Dems are the real homophobes" interview in 2014), and indirectly led to the formation of the LGBA after said dinner party set got upset everything was not all about them. Sceptre (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sceptre you just made the mistake I was trying to separate. Saying "same-sex marriage is controversial" is ambiguous, as is "opponents of same-sex marriage". You need to be really clear. Are you talking about "opponents of legalising same-sex marriage" or "people who oppose the idea of marriage, whether same sex or not, but ok if others want to do so". I can quite agree that opposition to legalising same-sex marriage is fringe, but enthusiasm for marriage has been in decline for many decades. It is precisely this confusion between these meanings that made that a terrible tweet and the reaction to it pretty much the internet on auto pilot. Nobody comes out of this sort of thing well, as "making fun of stupid people" isn't any better a look than being stupid. And the article text was really just more of the same "Ha ha LGB Alliance are stupid on Twitter". This is an encyclopaedia so if there is a learned commentary on this history of same-sex marriage and LGB Alliance's part in that, we need secondary sources saying so. -- Colin°^Talk 20:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about opponents of legalising same-sex marriage, which enjoyed next to no support. There was also a minority view back then that "civil partnerships are enough"/"marriage is a patriarchal institution" which Stonewall and Summerskill disastrously hitched themselves onto during the 2010 party conference season, but the fallout from that proved even that was a fringe view

Back during the MSSCA debates in 2013, the homophobes against the bill did make a point of deliberately eliding the two; to wit, "even Ben Bradshaw doesn't want same-sex marriage!" (He was in the "civil partnerships are enough" camp).

FWIW, if LGBA existed back then, I would not have been surprised if they came out against same-sex marriage; they are comprised mostly of the dinner party set lot that was turfed (heh) out of Stonewall when Ruth Hunt took over. At the very least, they're useful idiots for the evangelical right, if not a stalking horse or outright front group; one needs only look at what Bev Jackson was saying about the Heritage Foundation for proof of that fact. Sceptre (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to note we are straying a little bit into WP:BLP territory here. Well, maybe someone will write a good book on all this and we can use it then. -- Colin°^Talk 08:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Irrespective of any controversy it is inappropriate to put it under the charity's "views" section. That's my fundamental issue.

If it ends up a passing mention in the bulging-at-the-seams "media coverage and criticism" dumping ground, sigh, well what's one more... but it really does seem inconsequential to me. Badly worded tweet about non-issue gets deleted.

Same with the "LGBT clubs in schools" section of "views" which is already duplicated in the "media coverage and criticism" section. Void if removed (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to say that I am still opposed to including the material about the deleted tweet on same-sex marriage. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Resumption of discussion April 2023

• I'm not really seeing a consensus here to remove. It seems like there was a lot of discussion which went in circles, and a few people who wanted it removed posted a lot of times, but overall just by a quick nose-count I see a consensus to retain it; and I'd generally agree it ought to be retained myself, given that it's fairly well-sourced and relevant. Obviously it could be tweaked or moved around, but that's not really the same as supporting complete removal. If people are confident there's a clear consensus to remove, and that everything that can be said has been said, we could always have an RFC, but it'd probably make more sense to tweak the wording and location to try and find something broadly acceptable, as some people above have suggested. --Aquillion (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Aquillion, can you explain to me why you think the first tweet is "well sourced". It seems to be an opinion piece, a call to arms, and not a whole lot different to the transphobic rants in Spiked?. And can you explain to me why we claim, in the text you restored, that "LGB Alliance said in a tweet that it is not homophobic to oppose same-sex marriage" when that is not what they said in the actual tweet: "To those people saying it is “homophobic” not to be in favour of gay marriage".

  Consensus isn't a "quick nose count" nor is it acceptable to restore disputed text that editors think fail WP:V and WP:NOT and expect them to invent a "tweak" that will magically make it not WP:NOT. So what tweaks do you propose? -- Colin°^Talk 21:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's very reasonable to characterize that tweet you linked as saying that it's not homophobic to oppose same-sex marriage. Besides that, it's unclear what "first tweet" you're talking about: if it's the same one as the one you linked, it's sourced from PinkNews, which is green at RSP.

  I also oppose removing the content, for what it's worth. Loki (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  It is frustrating that Wikipedians, who should care most about being accurate and fair, even for subjects they detest, aren't able to see the (or admit there is an) important difference between the actual tweet and how it got reported by some and now repeated by us. They were making a subtle point, and that subtlety has flown over several people's heads it seems. I completely see that Twitter is not the place for subtlety and that a single tweet lacked the necessary context which they provided in their response tweets. I also completely get it that for advocacy purposes it is necessary to smear LGB Alliance with all the mistakes they have ever made online, whether they represent their position on gay marriage or not. In fact, especially if they disagree with their position on gay marriage.

  The "first tweet" is the quote in the first sentence. Perhaps you should read the above discussion before voting to oppose removing content. It is sourced to a opinion piece, not PinkNews. I'm not sure what you are referring to by "the same one as you linked" as the only link in my post was an archive of Twitter. -- Colin°^Talk 07:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  One plausible tweak would be to move the content to the criticism section, because that’s what the sources are doing: they are providing criticism, not giving any actual insight into the org’s views on same-sex marriage. This would be the bare minimum tweak necessary to retain the content - but then we have the issue of the criticism section already being an overburdened WP:COATRACK, long overdue for some rationalisation, and this is incredibly weak criticism, and would not make the cut. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this. Void if removed (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion’s assessment of consensus. If this matter is still being debated then I would add that I also oppose the removal of this material, which adds to our readers understanding of the LGB Alliance; this incident in 2020 has also been cited by multiple reliable sources. The information is relevant to the topic, and as I see it, the efforts here by a few vocal editors to remove it amount to whitewashing. Addymarx (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There was not agreement to include it, and it was last removed in February. I find it very odd that this has now been disinterred and re-added without any prior discussion. The WP:ONUS to obtain consensus is on those who want to include it. There is still not consensus to include it. And no-one has yet explained why they think this is sufficiently noteworthy to be included in this article.

And disagreement is permitted on Wikipedia – having a differing view does not mean that an editor is ‘vocal’, and deleting irrelevant material is not ‘whitewashing’.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted while this discussion is ongoing. I think it would be helpful if people trying to add non consensus material back in worked towards a consensus in talk to add it in a way that's acceptable. I don't think it belongs in "views". I think it is a nontroversy that doesn't belong anywhere, but if people feel strongly then put it in the overstuffed dumping ground of media coverage. It illuminates nothing substantive about the charity's *views* on gay marriage. Void if removed (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find a "reliable source" among the links Addymarkx added. And interesting how most of those sources all twist the words of the original tweet. Honestly, this is all at the "An LGB Alliance founder once farted in a lift" level of encyclopaedic material. I get that people want to believe and suggest that they are opposed to gay marriage, cause that's one more reason to hate them, but Wikipedia should not be complicit in this deception of a "lets not let facts get in the way of a good story" kind. They didn't say that. And what they did say was boring. It is only outrageous when you misinterpret it. Having to twist words in order to be outraged is not a good look. -- Colin°^Talk 11:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m not seeing a consensus to include the disputed material. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Clearly there is absolutely no consensus to exclude it either. Certainly all the TL;DR here hasn't changed my view on the matter (see some way above). I pretty much agree with Aquillion and Addymarx here (although I don't feel entirely confident to say that there is intentional whitewashing going on here). If there was meaningful ongoing discussion then I'd be happy to let it run it's course but I feel that we are stuck in a loop where the validity of the content has been demonstrated over and over, with valid sourcing, and yet this just never stops. The real question is how to stop this going round in circles forever? We can't just keep on until those on one side or the other just lose the will to live. DanielRigal (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The key problem here is that weak material is being used to make a strong claim.

IMO anything portrayed as a "view" should be ideally summed up in one clear sentence up front. This section should start with "LGB Alliance opposes same sex marriage" or "LGB Alliance supports same sex marriage". Neither of those can be clearly supported by RS. The Pink News piece is being used to infer the possible meaning of a deleted tweet. The numerous tweets and actions by the org in support of gay marriage are simply not notable enough to gain clear coverage in RS because nobody cares, this simply isn't a political issue in the UK. They have nothing on their site either for or against and no campaign material for or against. There is nothing on this subject strong enough to support a statement that this is a "view" of a charity. It could go elsewhere (though I'd argue it's a nothingburger anyway) but it doesn't belong here. Void if removed (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not reading all of the above, but if we're doing unsourced speculation on their motivations, it seems equally likely that the original tweet meant precisely what it means on the tin, and that the subsequent explanation was made up in response to the criticism. Anyway, I support including the prose. Even if we believe their explanation about opposition to the insitution of marriage as a whole, that's still valuable and reliably sourced information about their views on gay marriage. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain how this material gives a clear explanation of their views on gay marriage? Void if removed (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it being edited for clarity if needed. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we'd generally be having an argument about what <<insert charity here>> thinks about <<rights for people their cause supports>> based on deleted tweets. That folk continue to think this constitutes well-sourced encyclopaedic content is depressing frankly, and probably not going to end well come the big arbcom case, which may well end up with some kind of statement like "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dumping ground for tittle-tattle negative shit about organisations or people you hate".

It is hard to find good quality information about this organisation because they are frankly inactive bar the odd poke at trans rights and statements about sex matters. This generally should mean this article should be a stub. Instead, folk have filled the vacuum with whatever crap they found on the internet and are reluctant to remove content they feel is negative about an organisation they feel negative about.

According to this tweet, Bev Jackson has a wife. That an organisation claiming to support lesbian, gay and bisexual people, co-founded by a married lesbian, might oppose same-sex marriage is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. As for the first "never demanded" tweet, our article doesn't even begin to explain what on earth that means. The ranty opinion source speculates about a meaning, but that's not a reliable source or a notable opinion. At the very start of this section, I opposed new text Void had added about LGB Alliance supporting same-sex marriage at the European Court wrt Russia. The source documenting LGB Alliance's representation at the court is CASE OF FEDOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA from the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg. It is a highly reliable source, but unfortunately a primary source, so until we have secondary sources writing about this event and LGB Alliance's contribution, it doesn't carry enough weight to mention in the article. But it is, for the purpose of this discussion, a reliable source on LGB Alliance's position on same-sex marriage:

"LGB Alliance submitted that there was a clear international consensus supporting an obligation for States to provide legal recognition to same-sex couples. It pointed out that the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had called for the recognition of same-sex couples. Moreover, a growing number of international courts required access to marriage for same-sex couples, a factor that pleaded at least in favour of an alternative form of recognition. The intervener referred in addition to decisions given by the domestic courts in Canada, South Africa, Brazil, Taiwan, the United States of America, Costa Rica and Ecuador."

"LGB Alliance expressed the view that the Court should give guidance on the content of the “core rights” for stable couples that States should guarantee in order to discharge their positive obligations under the Convention."

-- Colin°^Talk 11:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Rereading this, I see the point that it probably isn't that significant. Mark me down as a firm meh. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the content as there was no consensus to remove. If anybody wants to start an RFC then they can but I really don't think that exhausting everybody with repetitive circular argumentation can be called a consensus. (If anybody is wondering why I did not do this straight away then the simple answer is that I didn't notice it at the time.) DanielRigal (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The comment from Tewdar at the time of deletion in February was "Apparently this was the most popular thing I've ever done on Wikipedia". Void if removed (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an organisation founded to insist that Stonewall's "landmark victory" of the introduction of same-sex marriage in the UK should not be modified to mean "same-gender marriage", and to oppose Stonewall in 'redefin[ing] gay and lesbian to mean “same gender” instead of “same sex” attraction'. An organisation that says "The Conservatives in power earned the gratitude of all gay people in the UK for enacting legislation for Equal Marriage. We look forward to working with them to protect and enhance those advances." An organisation who sent their trustee, Robert Wintemute, Professor of Human Rights Law at King’s College London, to join with others in campaigning for Eastern European countries to be required to "to grant same-sex couples equal access to legal marriage". But you wouldn't know that from this article. Instead the "Views" section, "Gay and lesbian rights and same-sex marriage" subsection contains nothing more than inaccurately reported internet noise about two delete tweets. It seems editors are more keen to slow-edit-war to restore misleading trash than to actually write a neutral article about this organisations stated beliefs.

I'm going to edit the text now to fix the obvious inaccuracies because there's no point in any potential RFC arguing about text that is simply untrue when that should be fixed. -- Colin°^Talk 09:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus to include, and the onus is on those who want to include it to get consensus to do so. I am deleting it. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It was very longstanding content in the article, which I think shifts the onus somewhat. Also, lack of a consensus to include is not consensus to remove. Also the refusal to start an RfC is absolutely glaring here. If nobody else does so first, I'll make an RfC. It is a pity that Colin didn't get a chance to make his modifications. It doesn't sound likely I would have agreed with them but it might have been good to have multiple options for people to choose from and offered a way to break the deadlock by getting discussion moving in a less circular fashion. DanielRigal (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

User:DanielRigal I have posted my changes. The deleted tweets are now covered in the "Media coverage and criticism" section. I don't think you'll succeed in any RFC to claim Wikipedia should use deleted tweets to misrepresent what an organisation believes and in fact attempting to do so would I think be unwise for a topic with editor sanctions hanging over it. I have replaced the content of the "Gay and lesbian rights and same-sex marriage" with text sourced to what the organisation themselves claim on their website. A faithful restatement of their beliefs is damning in and of itself to most readers, so there's really no need to dig around in deleted tweets to try to make stuff up that they are "opposed" to same-sex marriage. That is a twitter myth and has no place in an encyclopaedia.

In moving the tweet text, I've attempted to explain to our readers why our source author cites the "never demanded" tweet. And it is one random non-notable author writing an opinion piece, so if there was a vote on whether that author's views and their use of a deleted tweet was significant enough for us to cover here, I'd vote no. But I've included it for now in a spirit of compromise and a demonstration of what Wikipedia would say should the community actually think this episode has any weight.

Wrt the gay marriage tweet, I've quoted it rather than using the misleading rephrasing we had before. Their comment about "not to be in favour of gay marriage" is very much not the same as to be "opposed to gay marriage" and again I think it was very unwise for editors to so openly slow edit war to restore such an clearly incorrect text. It isn't a good look to write and repeat untruths on Wikipedia.

While I've made my views on these deleted tweets very clear (they don't have weight for us to mention) I suggest we leave them where they now are, in the form they now are. There is quite a lot of cruft in the "Media coverage and criticism" that fits into the "some shit about an organisation I hate that I found on the internet one day" bucket. Perhaps when the charity commission legal case comes in, we may see whether this organisation actually survives. They are such an insignificant organisation (notable only for what they are against rather than what they are for) that the article really needs a scythe taken to it. -- Colin°^Talk 11:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree with what Colin has written above, and I think the article is improved by the changes he has made. I still don't think the article is as neutral as it should be. In particular, there is far too much reliance on Pink News, which is plainly not an unbiased source. -- Alarics (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is the most ignored guideline as it relies on editors goodwill to accept a story that they personally think helps their cause/beliefs isn't really encyclopaedic or fair. It works both ways, though, and if we have Pink News on one side, there's The Times, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail so on, on the other side, pumping out anti-trans stories on a daily basis. -- Colin°^Talk 18:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Pink News have unsurprisingly had an issue with LGB Alliance since their inception.

In December 2019 LGBA gave an interview in which Vic Parsons reported that "the new logo had been come up with “on the back of a fag packet”"

LGB Alliance responded publicly that this was the opposite of what was stated.

The original story has never been changed, and LGB Alliance have as far as I can tell declined to comment to Pink News since. Void if removed (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

So, it looks like Harris told the journalist "The logo was designed on the back of a fag packet" and the journalist confused this comment on the old logo with being for the new one. They could have written a nice letter asking them to change the words "new" to "old". Instead they published a letter on Twitter purportedly being the one they sent to the journalist, but clearly written sarcastically for the benefit of their twitter followers. Do you really think any journalist would read beyond "Oh dear Vic, such a shame" before filing the letter in the bin? That's a horrid letter.

It isn't a surprise of course that a newspaper written for a readership that includes trans people would be highly critical of an organisation whose main activism is to be anti-trans. This kind of thing is perfectly normal in journalism, if you read the Guardian they are sneering and hostile towards the Tories and if you read any of the right-wing press, they are sneering and hostile towards the Labour party. We have to deal with bias because we rely on mainstream media for our sources.

The very notable thing is that this article can't be "balanced" with lots of positive stories about LGB Alliance written by the transphobic conservative right-wing UK media... partly it seems because LGB Alliance doesn't do very much other than make mistakes on Twitter, and partly I think because the transphobic conservative right-wing media are also pretty homophobic to. So they only get coverage on an "my enemy's enemy" basis. Standing up for the rights of minority groups, like lesbian, gay and bisexual people, is not something that interests the anti-woke readers of the Telegraph and the Mail. They've found themselves friendless other than as an anti-trans / gender-critical organisation, of which there are many others. I think that explains why the article mainly contains criticism: that's all they get and do. -- Colin°^Talk 15:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I think your last paragraph is kinda the key takeaway here. I edit and vandalism patrol a bunch of controversial articles in this general topic area, and one of the most common complaints on the article talk pages is some variation of "this article isn't neutral, it's a hit piece against [organisation]", sometimes with a wikilink to WP:NPOV. And on the surface it's a fair question. How can an article that's overwhelmingly critical of an organisation or group be neutral?

The problem is that NPOV is a fundamentally misunderstood policy, even with the somewhat decent explainer in WP:YESPOV, in no small part because what we as editors mean by it is divorced from the plain meaning of the words and phrase. What NPOV means for us as editors is that we follow what the sources say about an organisation. If the sources are critical, then we're critical. If the sources are positive, then we're positive. And the same is true for anywhere in the middle between those two poles.

I think that explains why the article mainly contains criticism: that's all they get and do. Exactly this. The LGB Alliance does surprisingly little for what they purport to be their key objectives. Unlike other LGBT+ charities in the UK, all they seemingly do is be loud on Twitter, and host a conference once a year. And we aren't here to resolve that. We aren't the LGB Alliance's PR team. We're here to document what coverage they get of their activities by reliable sources, and for this group it's pretty uniformly controversial and critical in nature. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Generalising obviously, you're right - outlets that hate them leap on social media drama, while the Tory press gives favourable coverage only in service of something else (like general anti-woke bashing or whatever).

Take this story for example. In it we find:

- LGB Alliance sponsored Uganda Pride in 2022

- They arranged a meeting between the head of Uganda Pride and LGBT parliamentarians in the UK

- They platformed him at the 2022 conference to talk about the dreadful situation in Uganda

These are all more notable and relevant than some random tweet about gay marriage.

However the only reliable source for any of this is months after the fact, reporting in a Tory paper, who mention it only so they can have a pop at Stonewall.

So secondary sources are on the whole really quite biased in different ways, and I don't think that bias just cancels out if you throw enough of both in. Void if removed (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrt "sponsored Uganda Pride" this makes it sound like they were the entire source of money. I don't know how much they gave but you can donate just £10 if you want. In contrast, Tesco has marked Pride in the UK by donating "almost £600,000 to charities supporting LGBTQ+ people – including Switchboard, Albert Kennedy Trust, Mermaids, Terrence Higgins Trust, Fighting With Pride and Bi Pride UK". Good luck finding mention of that at our Tesco article even though there are many sources mentioning they are a headline sponsor in recent years.

People meet parliamentarians all the time to discuss issues or promote / push an agenda. It is usually not notable unless something dodgy is going on (MPs working for lobby groups, etc). A speaker at a conference at a minor organisation is also not notable. Organisations have conferences every year and several speakers. If you are as big as the Labour Party then perhaps we might mention a speaker at a conference some years (Labour Party Conference). But LGB Alliance appears to be on a similar size as a parish church or scout troop or comprehensive school. A twitter account that a few people seem to take turns at being stupid on.

I agree with you that these things were only mentioned to contrast the apparent criticism. I honestly don't really understand that twitter dispute. The world would definitely be a nicer place without twitter. -- Colin°^Talk 13:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

LGBT+ clubs in schools

This section is sourced only to social media statements of one associated person. There are no reported positions by the organisation itself on LGBT+ clubs in schools in any WP:RS that I've seen.

The claim is also duplicated in the "media coverage and criticism" section.

I have suggested in passing a few times that this should be removed from "views" as it is overstating the case quite considerably and needlessly repeating quite weak content.

Any objections to removing from "views"? Void if removed (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed removal. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't entirely buy the claim of duplication. It is mentioned in far less detail in the media coverage section. Rather than being removed, I guess it could be merged into one thing in the media coverage section. DanielRigal (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The wording of the current section gives disproportionate detail. For instance, the reference to section 28 is not relevant to the subject of our article. If the material is merged, then it should be reduced – to what is already in the Media coverage section – which amounts to deleting the separate section. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Big objection then. If the source does not mention Section 28 then that one sentence can be removed but all the rest needs to stay. Without that, it would be two sentences and a quotation. It's not disproportionate. DanielRigal (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This source [1] mentions section 28, but this is by way of editorial comment: it is not directly related to the factual reporting about LGB Alliance. The source says: LGBT+ clubs in schools – which were banned under homophobic Section 28 legislation – have become a troubling issue for the LGB Alliance, who seem to be opposed to them despite them providing a safe space for lesbian, gay and bisexual youth to safely meet. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

They mention it for context. I can see why. I'd prefer to keep it, also for context, but I'm not going to dig my heels in over it. So long as we keep the rest I am content for it to be merged down to the media reception section. DanielRigal (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I don't mind expanding the later mention, but the reference to Section 28 is unnecessary and ahistorical. "LGBT+ clubs" weren't banned in schools because they didn't exist. Plus the first "GSA" club of that kind was started in 2000 in the UK, before Section 28 was finally repealed. This is dubious editorialising and not relevant to the subject at all. The fact that LGBA did not provide comment for the article is not worthy of note either.

So comparing the 2 sections I would suggest the following slightly expanded new wording in Media Coverage and criticism:

Malcolm Clark, another LGB Alliance co-founder, has been criticised for saying that he "[doesn't] see the point of LGBT clubs in schools". He stated, "There should never, of course, be bullying" but that "having clubs where kids explore on school grounds …their sexual orientation seems to be unnecessary and potentially dangerous. It would be an unnecessary encouragement to predators". Void if removed (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The current wording refers to predatory teachers. I think this should be included in any revised wording, for clarity. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok I'll leave that part as per the original. Void if removed (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought we were merging this not just removing/softening much of it? I was very tempted to just revert it as lacking consensus but I've had a go at merging it in a way that actually includes everything (except the Section 28 bit) without duplication. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see the point of including Co-founders Kate Harris and Bev Jackson declined to comment on these remarks. This tells us nothing. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

How the other cofounders reacted is absolutely useful information here. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

What does it tell us? Apart, perhaps, from the fact that they had more sense than to comment to PinkNews? I don't think that a failure to comment to PinkNews is encyclopaedic information.Sweet6970 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC) 

It'd be relevant if they agreed and it'd be relevant if they disagreed. That they declined to do either is thus something that should be said. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it just means that they didn't comment when asked by Pink News.

You could add this to pretty much every single Pink News story on the page - most have "PinkNews has contacted LGB Alliance for comment" or similar at the bottom. It adds nothing.

You are drawing a false inference that refusing to talk to Pink News is taking a position on the subject matter. Void if removed (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

They declined to comment to PinkNews. No-one is obliged to comment to PinkNews. You still haven’t told me what we learn from reading that 2 people did not comment to PinkNews. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, "declined to comment" adds nothing noteworthy. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree declining to comment is significant. Theres a reason you see it stated in news articles. It also puts the statement in context with the group. Filiforme1312 (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't some kind of news aggregation service, faithfully reproducing all the reportage and meta comments by journalists. Per WP:NOTNEWS such details are really not relevant. That someone declines to comment to a newspaper, any newspaper, is entirely the default and normal position, and the paragraph about that in Pink News is very much a self-absorbed comment about their own interaction with the other founders, and just trivia. By leaving that out, we still retain the fact that this was a comment by Clark, a co-founder, rather than something coming from some official LGB Alliance channel. -- Colin°^Talk 11:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a clear majority to delete Co-founders Kate Harris and Bev Jackson declined to comment to PinkNews on these remarks. so I am doing so. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Arts Council England

The current article states that a grant for "Queens" was withdrawn after LCF were made aware of the challenge to LGBA's charitable status. However subsequent reporting - including this developing case from a few days ago - allege it was a result of internal bias and influence from ACE. Would it be wise to remove all suggestion as to the reason for the removal? It seems to be contended and I don't think it can be presented in a he-said/she-said neutral way, especially since it seems to be subject to an ongoing employment dispute.

Either way this article is a good source for an additional sentence:

"The film was retitled "Very British Gays" and premiered on March 24th 2023 at a screening in Soho."

Is it worth mentioning that - according to this source - the film apparently states “This film was not funded by Arts Council England” in the credits? Void if removed (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That is an interesting story in the Telegraph. But it doesn’t quite say that Ms Fahmy alleges that Arts Council England caused the grant from London Community Foundation to be withdrawn, so I don’t think we should mention this aspect in our article.

I don’t see any reason to delete the inf currently in the article, that the grant was withdrawn because of the legal challenge to LGBA’s charitable status. I agree to your proposed additional sentence. If we are not going to mention Arts Council England, then it doesn’t make sense to refer to the pointed comment about ACE not funding the film. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, thanks. I only raise this because this is now the third article I've seen from the Telegraph implying there is a link between comments by ACE leaders and LCF's decision to withdraw, but the wording is quite weaselly, eg:

Eg. in this one: "it is not known if the two are connected." Void if removed (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That "this is now the third article I've seen from the Telegraph" covering a minor story that is supporting either a trans-hostile or pro-gender-critical agenda tells us nothing more than the editorial alignment of the Telegraph on these matters and their obsession. This was a £9,000 grant for a 30-minute documentary. In a newspaper that is entirely comfortable with Johnson getting six-figure tax-payer funded legal aid to defend his PartyGate behaviour. So this is the dregs at the bottom of the journalistic barrel. Googling "Very British Gays" returns tweets by LGB Alliance, Malcom Clark, a Telegraph article briefly mentioning it, and now this page. I've actually changed my mind about the above sentence. Fine if you want to note it is now called "Very British Gays" but the "premiered on March 24th 2023 at a screening in Soho" makes it sound like a big event with red carpet and press attention. It got about as much attention as your weird uncle's latest vacation slide show. That's about as misrepresentative as to describe my post here as "User:Colin's latest work was published by Wikimedia Foundation at their San Francisco datacentre on 3rd April 2023 to a global audience of millions." -- Colin°^Talk 14:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I added the sentence as drafted by Void if removed. If you now don’t like the wording, on the basis that it makes it sound too significant, how about The film was retitled "Very British Gays" and shown in Soho in March 2023. ? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC) 

I'm not criticising you, and I approved the sentence too, but only after Googling I realised it was silly. This is more like half-a-dozen LGB Alliance members, a takeaway meal and someone's ipad cast onto a TV set. I don't think the "premier" or "showing" of this home-movie is notable in any way. Ten days later and not a single comment about the film in the press. I think the only thing of encyclopaedic relevance is that if we mention the original name of the film, we should note that it was renamed. So how about we write "...for a film Queens — 70 Years of Queer History (later retitled Very British Gays)." and leave it at that for now. If the film gets significant attention later than we can write more, but this is a zero for now. -- Colin°^Talk 16:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to say that a film was actually produced and shown, because otherwise our article would give the impression that it was abandoned, so I would prefer my suggested wording above. I also wonder whether we should mention that the film was funded by private donations, as mentioned in the second source provided by Void above, because otherwise readers may wonder how it was funded. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Let's have and first shown in March 2023. The Soho mention just sounds like someone trying to puff up something to be more than it is. The fact that they don't mention the venue makes me think this was some random office or upstairs in some pub or someone's flat (apartment) rather than an actual movie theatre where premieres occur. All a bit desperate. Obviously if someone finds a source that says it was Odeon Leicester Square and Nicole Kidman and Brad Pitt came to watch, then I'll stand corrected.

I don't think we need to explain the funding for a 30 minute documentary nobody has seen or cares about. Do you routinely see Wikipedia mention funding for every 30 minute documentary? I mean, what other funding options did they have, if public money was refused? Theft? Playing the lottery? Busking? And that £9,000 wouldn't cover the production of a professional 30 minute documentary, so we're only talking about a minor contribution loss. Really, this is a minor minor story that is only getting press attention because it fits with the anti-trans / gender critical agenda of some newspaper.

I think it interesting that the Telegraph is only interested in LGB Alliance for their anti-trans / gender critical stance. When they actually make a LGB-supportive film, this very socially conservative newspaper couldn't give a shit, and didn't send anyone to watch or review it. This is LGB Alliance's problem, that they are only notable for dropping the T, and the reason why we can write so little about any good things they have done is not just that they have done so few good things but that nobody else is interested in writing about that either. -- Colin°^Talk 20:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Your latest suggestion is fine with me. I’ll change it tomorrow if there are no further comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have now made the amendment. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sweet6970 not to delete info. It was removed for the reasons we state. Whether those questioning that it should have charitable status are right or wrong is yet to be decided in court, but LCF made it clear that while this question hangs they are not a suitable destination for funds. There isn't a lot of factual information we can lift from an article where most of the "facts" are quotes from an aggrieved ex-employee planning to sue regarding their gender critical beliefs. That's about as unreliable as you can get. The sentence in quotes above is fine, but the comment on the credits is just self-absorbed fluff and not noteworthy. -- Colin°^Talk 11:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have now added to the article the sentence proposed above by Void if removed. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"Far-right"

In response to this line:

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

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

This has been discussed already at

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have to agree with @Sideswipe9th here.

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

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

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

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

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

"Reliable sources are reporting the accusation reliably"

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

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