Jump to content

Talk:LGB Alliance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Description of group in lede

[edit]

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.

Hope Not Hate and TUC

[edit]

Hi Andy. I partially reverted some of your edits which I felt did not improve the article.

1. I partially reinstated the categorization as anti-trans by the TUC, which made reference to the original motion passed by the union. As an original document, this is an acceptable source. However, I think you've correctly identified that mentioning TUC in two different paragraphs is suboptimal, and so I compacted it into a single paragraph.

2. I re-introduced the sentence about HNH. You are right that this group has been categorized as an advocacy group and therefore we should probably not use that source to say that the LGB Alliance is a hate group full stop. However, the sentence was an attributed statement reflecting the opinions of the group, and so as long as the claim is attributed I don't see an issue with this.

Thank you. 

HenrikHolen (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible. Thanks, Henrik. Lewisguile (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HenrikHolen and @Lewisguile
Re 1, the original document is self-published by the TUC. Please see Wikipedia:RSSELF AFAIK, there is no reliable source that quotes the TUC saying that LGBA is "anti-trans". But I may have missed it - please send a link.
Re 2, HNH, the source is self-published. HNH is an advocacy group. No evidence that it has a reputation for fact-checking. So there is no reliable source. AndyGordon (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published sources are acceptable in some circumstances. In this case, however, while these are primary sources, WP:RSSELF doesn't really apply. (It describes personal blogs, tweets, etc.) These are organisations publishing their own statements, as might a government, a charity, a political party, etc. The TUC, in particular, represents multiple unions, and its motions are voted on by members of those unions. That's very different to someone making a website and saying whatever they feel in a personal capacity. Secondary sources would be better, but primary sources are acceptable for these circumstances as they verify the "official" statement as that organisation originally made it.Lewisguile (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AndyGordon
While SPS are generally frowned upon, there are cases where such sources are suitable. Quoting from WP:SPS:
"Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source or among the best sources. For example:
If you are supporting a direct quotation, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."
Remember that we are citing this source as evidence of the opinions of TUC, not as a source of objective truth. HenrikHolen (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, the link should be WP:USESPS
I would also like to point your attention to the list of accepted uses of SPS, which includes:
"For certain claims by the author about themselves" HenrikHolen (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HenrikHolen But see the policy WP:ABOUTSELF Assertions about a third party, LGBA, are prohibited. AndyGordon (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyGordon. I don't think this qualifies. The assertion is primarily about TUC, and their subjective opinions of the LGBA.
Ultimately, the sentence is about a motion passed by TUC. I think the original text of the motion passed qualifies as an original document and is an ideal source. HenrikHolen (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our sources for TUC and HNH are both published by the groups themselves. They are therefore self-published, and therefore WP:ABOUTSELF applies. (I know that the non-exhaustive list of examples of self-published sources does not include organisational websites, but that doesn't alter the fact that these sources are self-published.)
The statements that TUC or HNH labels LGBA as "anti-trans" are statements that "involve claims about third parties". Therefore the policy doesn't allow the statements.
Moreover, these are primary sources that have not received any secondary coverage. I don't see how they can be WP:DUE in this article. AndyGordon (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, anything published by the Government or Amnesty International on their own websites would also be "self-published". Consider the spirit of the policy, which describes non-experts setting up websites without oversight, and note that this was a motion voted on by the TUC and later recorded on its website. It's not the same thing and is covered by the exceptions stated at the policy, even if we interpret the wording fairly narrowly. Lewisguile (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. A motion voted by the TUC being press released by the TUC is very different from a blogpost self-published by a non-notable individual. By AndyGordon's logic, Victor Madrigal-Borloz's report as United Nations Independent Expert on sexual orientation and gender identity is self-published by the UN. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lewisguile and @OwenBlacker, I agree that self-published material from any government or Amnesty or UN would fall into this policy. Note that WP:RSSELF allows material from a subject matter expert, provided they have been quoted on the area of their expertise by independent reliable sources. That would cover Amnesty on human rights issues, say, and probably Victor Madrigal-Borloz on his area of expertise. Remember also that we are talking about statements by an org that have not been covered by the press, and so are not likely to be WP:DUE.
Personally, it took me a while to grasp these policies (and I probably have more to learn) and these days I generally avoid including material unless its covered by mainstream sources that are listed in WP:RSN. For example, when I searched for sources on LGBA and TUC I found a 2022 PinkNews article, clearly from a reliable source, and included that in the article. AndyGordon (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources are always best, but the TUC is reliable when talking about motions passed by itself, which is what it was doing. HNH is relevent, again, for talking about its own views. To aid us towards a speedy resolution, I have condensed the list of statements in the lede now. Hopefully this is better. Now it groups together similar sources and takes up less space. Does that seem any better? If not, I am also happy with the edit I made immediately prior to that which condensed the list less but was obviously less concise as a result. Lewisguile (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HenrikHolen @Lewisguile @OwenBlacker
Here's my understanding of how to argue that our policies support these statements from a self-published source.
Recall "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." from WP:SOURCE. Remember too that verifiability in the sense of English Wikipedia is a stronger condition than truth.
Self-published sources are not independent, but policy allows for a couple of exceptions to this general rule.
WP:SPS allows for a subject-matter expert to be used: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
WP:ABOUTSELF allows for statements about self, subject to the condition "It does not involve claims about third parties;". But a motion about a third-party is a claim about a third party, so this condition is is not met, so WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply. @HenrikHolen said "the sentence is about a motion passed by TUC", yes, and this sentence involves a claim about a third party.
It's not acceptable just to say "reliable when talking about motions passed by itself," or "HNH is relevant" but instead you need to give reasons that one of these exceptions applies.
My analysis is that we may be able to make this case by providing evidence that the subject-matter expert clause can be applied.
Does anyone disagree with this analysis? AndyGordon (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the comments by Hope not Hate and the TUC have not been picked up and reported by independent sources, then they are not DUE to be mentioned in our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we relied solely on UK press coverage, we would be overwhelmed with anti-trans content and never have any pro-trans content. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 22:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: the TUC mentions the HNH claims, so they're a secondary source on that front. Unison has also picked up on the HNH statement: https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2023/08/2023-National-LGBT-Conference-Preliminary-Agenda.pdf
These other sources, or groups/individuals within those sources, also call them anti-trans:
I'm sure there are others. Lewisguile (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lewisguile
Thanks for the links. The Unison agenda is self-published so we can't use it. Added the Vice News article. The Metro article is saying the LGBT+ Consortium criticized them for anti-trans campaigning, but Metro is considered generally unreliable on WP:RSP, so we'd need another source for this point. The Star Observer report on the GPAHE report is already described in the page. LabourList is likely not reliable - we could start discussion on WP:RSN, but anyway the only mention of anti-trans is quoting a tweet, and would be WP:UNDUE. GPAHE is a campaign group, not a news-site, so self-published. AndyGordon (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to remove HNH and TUC as per discussion above. AndyGordon (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published sources are acceptable to confirm the wording issued by a source when it has also been covered by RSes. Pink News covered their vote, in which they voted against "any transphobic organisation", of which LGBA was one. The self-published TUC source supports this statement, so can be used. Lewisguile (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I didn't know this policy. Where did you find it? AndyGordon (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lewisguile found an answer to my own question: WP:PRIMARY "While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents." AndyGordon (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. WP:RS/QUOTE also says the original source may be more reliable for sourcing a quote than secondary sources which include the same quote (although the secondary sources are better for interpreting that quote, obviously). In this case, the wording is supported by Pink News, and the direct source can provide verification of the exact wording and context. (WP:ABOUTSELF covers similar ground but you can't use this exception for claims about third parties. The TUC link is a record of their motion, so it's a claim about themselves, but it does arguably include claims about a third party, requiring a secondary source instead – in this case there is one: Pink News). PN cites them as saying:
  • Organisations whose sole aim is to divide the LGBT+ community and ostracise trans and non-binary people are not for the greater good
  • This conference condemns any transphobic organisation who are awarded charity status by the Charity Commission.
So the part about third parties is verified by a secondary source. The primary source in this case establishes that what PN reported is accurate and what the context is. In the Responses section, I have just used the second source as a compromise, since it doesn't also require the primary source. However, PN uses Wikivoice to call LGBA anti-trans, too, so there's also that. Lewisguile (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no necessary agreement that advocacy groups are always SPS. We just have to attribute them in claims and ask if they are due. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found the looooong debate about this over at RSA. And it arose in an adjacent topic, too. Most informative. Lewisguile (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! Please share the link. AndyGordon (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-trans assessments out of date?

[edit]

As far as I can see, all the ‘anti-trans’ etc. assessments in this article date from a few years ago. It’s as if the assessors originally thought that LGBA would be anti-trans, but that there is no actual evidence of anti-trans activity – which presumably would be reported in the media. I suggest that we should give dates for the assessments, so that it is clear from our article that there is no recent criticism of LGBA as being actively ‘anti-trans’. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that they have changed in the meantime and this seems like an entirely inappropriate attempt to put distance between the subject and these assessments. What has actually happened is that the LGBA has ceased to be as high profile and to attract as much media attention as it did at launch. People talk about them much less than they used to. This is partially, but not exclusively, due to Twitter ceasing to be the world's main locus of debate/kvetching. As for, "there is no actual evidence of anti-trans activity", I'll just say "That's just your interpretation" and leave it at that. We don't need to argue about that. There is no reason to open a can of worms here at all. Let's just drop it. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason to suggest that the majority of LGBT orgs in the UK have stopped calling LGB alliance anti-trans?
there is no actual evidence of anti-trans activity – which presumably would be reported in the media. - this is 1) WP:OR and 2) manifestly silly, they lobbied spectacularly hard against a ban on trans conversion therapy and fought against gender recognition reform, internationally recognized as a human right that the UK lags behind on. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without any meaningful change in the leadership, composition or activity of the group, I see no reason why older sources can't be used. Requiring sources to be dated to within ~1 year would force us to constantly update all articles, and dramatically impair our ability to properly source our articles. HenrikHolen (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the LGB Alliance have done nothing anti-trans in the last few years is patently ludicrous. A very quick google shows me that, in 2024 alone, they have:
and that is just out of spending 30 seconds googling. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 23:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&oldid=1266876047"