Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lede wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But perhaps we just need better sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This is the current wording as per User:Lilipo25

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

• This was the previous wording.

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

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

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

These are two different factually and grammatically correct sentence options:

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

Media coverage and criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you actually read WP:WEASEL? Because that's... not what it says. The examples above are not automatically weasel words. And since we are talking about the lead section... They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Saying something does not make it true. Urve (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortdesc

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

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

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

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

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

Possible issues to add coverage of

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

• The LGB Alliance submitted an application for charitable status. As far as I can tell, this has yet to be either accepted or rejected, even after quite a long time. (I have no idea how long this normally takes.) There is a fairly large petition against it being granted and there is some coverage of this.[2]. I think this is a strong candidate for inclusion although probably just a couple of sentences.
• The LGB Alliance has been accused of biphobia.[3]. This does not seem to rise to the level off notability but may be worth keeping an eye out for if any RS sources cover it in the future.
• The LGB Alliance did a weird tweet in which they "bothsidesed" equal marriage before deleting the tweet. A deleted tweet is not notable in itself but their stance on equal marriage more generally might be worth covering if we can find multiple good sources covering it.[4]
• There is also the stuff about possible links to conservative and far-right groups. We need to be very careful with this one as there is quite a lot of noise obscuring the matter and I don't think anybody has demonstrated a direct link. The fact that the LGB Alliance has attracted support from people and organisations on the far-right does not intrinsically reflect on them if the support is unsolicited and not reciprocated. Some key individuals in the LGB Alliance seem to have worked with The Heritage Foundation in the past but not necessarily in their capacity as members of the LGB Alliance. Given the seriousness of associating an organisation with the far-right we would need multiple solid sources stating a direct link before we add anything to the article. We don't want it to be like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. In my view this is one to keep an eye on for now.[5]
• The LGB Alliance allegedly has an Irish branch but this has been accused of being operated out of London and basically just being a Twitter account.[6][7] There were also a load of Twitter accounts with names like "LGB Alliance $COUNTRYNAME" but, of course, nobody can know who actually made those or how serious they were. It might even have been somebody deliberately trying to make them look silly. A few more obvious parody accounts appeared after that and it is hard to know where the dividing line is. That said, the Australian organisation does seem to actually exist and even seems to be campaigning against a ban on conversion therapy which might be noteworthy.[8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media coverage and criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is awful. Surely there's a rule against immediately abusing and interrogating another editor's character instead of just focusing on the topic? I'm not a "single purpose account" here are a bunch of edits I made over the last couple of days that have nothing at all to do with transgender issues: [9][10][11][12] Can we please discuss the actual topic. Awoma (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't agree at all. Adding a degree of separation (thus putting strain on the relevance requirement) shouldn't make our notability requirement more lenient. If anything it should go the other way. You say "not Medium posts from random people" but that's pretty much what this is. The people are random, in that they have no notability, and the outlet they are writing for also lacks notability. You say "wide audience" but apparent circulation is just below 20,000 [13]. I'm struggling to find anything with a smaller audience. Awoma (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Founded by "Former members of Stonewall"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kate Harris was not a Stonewall volunteer in the sense that she was coming in on Saturdays and stuffing envelopes. The Vice President of American Express, she was described by the Times as a Stonewall "major fundraiser" [14]. She spent years raising much of the corporate money that ran the organisation and is certainly worthy of mention as being part of it. Lilipo25 (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Clarifying 'Stonewall' in lead

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

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

Agreed. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)