Talk:Gay and Lesbian Equality Network

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Notability

GLEN would be equivalent to the American NGO Human Rights Campaign, so I'm unsure why the notability tag was added. I've provided some basic references, including a link to a 2006 speech given by the Taoiseach (leader of the Irish government) that clearly notes the importance and status of the group. Notability really isn't an issue - it can be presumed - but the problem is getting good sources. I'll remove the notability tag and hope that other editors can help to find sources. Cheers, Conor (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be established *in* the article. Saying "I know it is" doesn't really help, as these things are hard to always infer. Anyways, the addition of references seems to alleviate it. Voice-of-All 17:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. It's always helpful to explain on an article's talkpage why a notabilty tag has been placed. In this case, no-one was offering original research or opinion; notability could be presumed as per WP policies (mentioned above). Information on the page - albeit unverified - indicated notability, so what was required was actually a good source list; a tag requesting such had already been added. Again, thanks for your comment and for prompting the addition of the overdue references. Conor (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gay and Lesbian Equality Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gay and Lesbian Equality Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gay and Lesbian Equality Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April edits

@Ruy costa:, re the edit summary "Links work" - yes, the link to "http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/app/uploads/2015/09/GLEN_WEB-copy.pdf" does indeed work, but what you had inserted twice previously and I had removed was this link: http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/app/uploads/2015/09/GLEN_WEB-copy.pdfFinancial%20irregularities%20at%20Gay%20and%20Lesbian%20Equality%20Network%20to%20be%20raised%20at%20Public%20Accounts%20Committee%20-%20Mary%20Lou%20McDonald%20TD%2017%20April,%202017%20-%20by%20Mary%20Lou%20McDonald%20TD - which doesn't.

The working link doesn't support the sentence "This has led to critics of GLEN to claim it is using funding from abroad to influence legislation." The IT opinion piece by Breda O'Brien (not Brenda) does back it up, but we'll add some context for balance there, I think.

Your IT reference ("1604") does not refer to "€60,000 not included in management accounts".

Nobody was "put on sick leave" - how would you even do that?

Áine Duggan has already resigned - see the very next sentence after your redundant inclusion.

Please use full citations (that actually back up your additions) rather than bare URL references. See WP:CITE if unsure how to do this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruy costa, rather than completely ignoring the above and edit warring, please engage, per WP:BRD. You have been reverted. Discuss. Why should we use the "regurgitated spin" of the Iona Institute's Breda O'Brien, without providing any context, while at the same time excluding what GLEN themselves have said? That would be bizarre. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, it isn't "critics" criticising GLEN, it's one columnist, who could hardly be described as unbiased when it comes to LGBT issues. The organisation she regularly represents has been accused of exactly the same as she accuses GLEN of... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discoverer of Financial Irregularities alerts charity regulator and resigns saying in newspapers, and on radio she cant stand over the accounts, just as investigations are on going is relevant and should not be removed. Rather than re issue the spin in a press statement from the organisation under investigation.

Plural of Controversy should be used if one infringement for political spending amounts to 11K and the irregularities amount to 60k means it is pluralRuy costa (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That the HSE has withheld funding amidst concerns government money was used for political campaigns (printing), or personal use or as it seems to be spun now a loan to a director - should also not be removed from the item about financial controversies Ruy costa (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally engaging. At the third (?) time of asking you've finally included a reference to €60k that actually does mention it. Progress! Now we can cover it per WP:RS! (I do notice you're still just including references as bare URLs with your own format of narrative. What's your objection to using the template as per WP:CITE?!)

Yes, now it's appropriate to use "controversies", plural (and uncapitalised).

We will absolutely include the press statement from the organisation, because of course you would - but now you've finally included something from a decent source that quotes Áine Duggan, that can be included also. Not instead of, but in addition to. NPOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Transactions worth €60k not recorded correctly in accounts of LGBT charity www.thejournal.ie, April 17, 2017, does make reference to the 60k Ruy costa (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. The previous times I had removed mention of the €60k was because you were using an Irish Times article as a citation, which made no mention of it. That's why it was removed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this needs saying again, more explicitly. Re Rose's resignation - you cannot include statements that aren't backed by what's actually in the references you're including. There is no mention of "€11,500" - explicit, or "approximately" - or of SIPO, or of Rose being "unable" to account for anything, in the Independent reference. Don't just stick in a reference that mentions someone and assume the reference can justify whatever you want to write. That's not how WP:V works, and there are WP:BLP issues to consider, too. My inclusion is accurate, backed by a WP:RS reference, and is NPOV. Yours isn't backed by the reference you're including and worded in a very biased manner. Look, we get it - you're a Christian, you don't like GLEN. That doesn't mean you get to ignore policy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]