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.

Language bias on page

The "LGB" alliance, according to many LGBT people of all four letters, is considered a hate group run largely by far-right non-LGBT people in a "divide and conquer" manner of operation regarding transgender rights via hoping to convince gay and bisexual people to work against their shared interests of civil rights. Yet, the opening paragraph doesn't mention this and describes it as a legitimate organization, which is wildly irresponsible. The Westboro Baptist Church shouldn't be described as a "church with disagreements about gay rights," so it is strange another hate group such as the LGB alliance should be given this treatment anyway. 71.69.201.160 (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I know this can feel like a lot of work, Wikipedia:LEADFOLLOWSBODY Is a very relevent essay here. As well as this Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources say. I will note that in our 3rd paragraph do have a wide range of people and groups opinions on LGB alliance. I'll probably have a look at sources again and if there's anyway I can improve the article. LunaHasArrived (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken, LGB Alliance are not a "hate group", but a registered charity campaigning for LGB rights, and this sort of strong WP:POV would be entirely inappropriate.

Happy to reopen the question of how it is referred to in the lede. By my reckoning, now that the challenge to its charitable status has failed, the balance of current coverage favours something like "gay rights charity" or "gay rights organisation" or "charity supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights" based on reliable, neutral, mainstream coverage in The Times, The Guardian, The BBC and The Telegraph. Void if removed (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I would support a change in the wording of the lead. My preferred description of this group would be Void’s 3rd option: ‘charity supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights". Sweet6970 (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

That's very obviously not going to fly as it is a highly disputed claim that can not be stated in Wikivoice as a fact. It also borders on homophobia to conflate the actions of the LGB Alliance with the interests of lesbian, gay or bisexual people. DanielRigal (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

That the charity supports the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people is the reason that LGB Alliance has charitable status. It would be homophobic to suggest that supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights is somehow disreputable, and not a charitable purpose. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If we are to change it at all, and I really don't think that we need to, we would need to find a wording that says what their stated aim is without either accepting it as their true aim, as this is plausibly contested, or saying or implying otherwise, because that is also contested. I think we should keep the current description but I would not object to also describing it as a "charity registered for the purpose of supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights", if that is the exact phrase used in their registration. That is a statement about what their registered purpose but it makes no claim in wikivoice as to whether they actually fulfil that purpose. It seems like a wording that is hard to object to regardless of one's own understanding of their activities. It helps lays the groundwork for the conflicting opinions to be described later in the article. DanielRigal (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The current registration at the Charity Commission’s website [1] says under Activitities – how the charity spends its money : To promote equality & diversity for the public benefit, in particular by: the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; advancing education & raising awareness in equality & diversity in respect of lesbian, gay & bisexual people; conducting or commissioning research on equality & diversity issues and publishing the useful results to the public;. There is more along the same lines further down the page under Charitable objects. I think it is reasonable to summarise this by the wording you have suggested: charity registered for the purpose of supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights . I would have this in the first sentence of the lead, replacing nonprofit advocacy group. This gives more precise information: a charity is regulated by the Charity Commission, whereas a nonprofit advocacy group would not be. The next sentence would then start: It was founded in opposition…. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The language there is authored by LGB Alliance, so it doesn't move the needle on how we should cover the group. It's not true that non-profit advocacy groups aren't regulated by the Charity Commission, which includes multiple advocacy groups in its register. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If we use the language suggested by DanielRigal above, we are not saying in wikivoice that the organisation does anything – merely that it is registered as a charity for certain purposes. And a charity regulated by the Charity Commission is in a different legal position from a nonproft organisation. There may be advocacy groups which are registered as charities – but we should always make clear that any such group is a registered charity, because of the consequence that such a group is subject to regulation as a charity. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

That is of course your opinion, but here we go off what reliable sources say, and how they refer to a subject.

With an IP editor wanting to reopen a 2021 compromise with the absurd and inflammatory notion that it should be called a "hate group" I think it fair to sound caution of the wisdom of this in light of several recent mentions in reliable, mainstream, neutral sources that say something very different. Void if removed (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't say that in wikivoice, at least not until a scholarly consensus emerges that this is the case, although we do need to cover that they have been described as such. It belongs in the lede but not in the the first sentence or in wikivoice. I think it is OK as currently placed. The current version seems more or less OK to me. If we can't agree a change that is widely agreed to be an improvement then let's leave it as it is. DanielRigal (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

That is so intensely pov I think I need a geiger counter Snokalok (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Now adding The Independent

But LGB Alliance, a charity formed in recent years to support the rights of same-sex attracted people

This is pretty much the entire spectrum of the British press who now call them a charity when referring to them, and mention their purpose. Void if removed (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

LGB Alliance is and is widely described as an anti-trans group—indeed anti-trans activism is all they do—and is also widely described as a hate group. It is not a "charity formed in recent years to support the rights of same-sex attracted people" any more than KKK is a charity formed to support the "rights of white people." We cannot describe an anti-trans hate group in such a biased manner in Wikipedia's voice. "Pretty much the entire spectrum" of the Russian press also describe trans and other LGBTIQ+ people in a certain way, but that doesn't really matter—for us. It doesn't make transphobia a mainstream view that Wikipedia should accept. It doesn't change how this anti-trans group is seen by impartial observers, in scholarship, by scholars who also study transphobia and populism in British media. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I've given you five recent mainstream WP:RS, across the political spectrum. In terms of neutrally presenting a subject for a broad audience, this carries substantial WP:WEIGHT, and by this measure anyone saying different at this point is not presenting a mainstream view. I suggest you take your Russia comparisons to WP:RSN if you want to discount them. Void if removed (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It really doesn't because those sources are themselves widely criticized for their transphobia and for being part of the "virulent attacks on the rights of LGBTI people"[2] in the UK (and Russia). I see that you include The Telegraph among those sources, a newspaper that is not "generally reliable" on transgender topics, plus The Times (a right-wing newspaper that publishes a steady stream of transphobia), The Guardian (known for extensive transphobia controversies [3][4]) and the BBC (owned by a government that has been condemned for its anti-trans policies, and that publishes such conspiracist hoaxes as ""We're being pressured into sex by some trans women"). While some of these media used to be considered quite respectable—like the Daily Mail was once a serious newspaper—they are no longer respected for their reporting on LGBTIQ+ rights/trans topics, especially internationally. The fact that they are big really doesn't matter; the Daily Mail is still a big newspaper too. They are increasingly studied as part of the UK's transphobia problem. What you have provided is a couple of highly biased British sources that are themselves widely considered transphobic, that describe another transphobic group whose sole focus is campaigning against trans people in a euphemistic manner that any impartial observer would find as laughable, biased and extreme as describing a white supremacist group in the US as a "charity formed to support the rights of white people", and that contradicts how the group is described by scholars and experts. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree (again) with Void. It is clear to me that Amanda A Brant does not offer a neutral point of view. She keeps describing various sources as transphobic, even the BBC and The Guardian, which is absurd, and repeatedly uses weaselly phrases like "widely described as". The simple fact is that there are stark differences of opinion in the present society on the whole subject of gender identities and transsexualism. Wikipedia should reflect that. The article as it stands fails to meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. -- Alarics (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

owned by a government that has been condemned for its anti-trans policies Are you aware that the government you keep referring to stopped existing a fortnight ago? 212.36.63.7 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The BBC has been criticized for promoting transphobia for several years. The British government has been criticized for its anti-trans policies by human rights bodies and organizations, scholars and LGBTIQ+ rights organizations. The UK was compared to Russia and a group of Eastern European countries by the Council of Europe, that's how bad their reputation is. It is correct that the increasingly far-right Tory party has now been ousted from power, but that doesn't magically change the BBC, its leadership or political direction overnight, nor has it changed the UK's abysmal record on LGBTIQ+ rights overnight. The new prime minister goes on about "gender ideology", a term linked to the anti-gender movement. He uses the same terminology and talking point as the Trump movement about "banning gender ideology" – i.e. diversity education and teaching the importance of respect for each other – in schools.[5] --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

When your position is that we should explicitly avoid using the language of The Independent, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times and The BBC because they are all biased against you, I'd say that's when you've entered Trump territory. Void if removed (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hear hear! -- Alarics (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say you entered Trump territory when you pick 5 news articles from one country (including the Telegraph, which you know was just found WP:MREL on trans topics, whose article How trans fanatics tore Pride apart you just linked is a barely veiled vitriolic rant) and argue it trumps the dozens of academic sources, the dozens more international newspapers, and the fact that every LGBT rights organization calls it an anti-trans grift that does nothing to help LGB rights in any way. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

MREL just means evaluate in context. When the Telegraph accords with the other four, there's no question of unreliability. So yes, I'd say the British press speaking with pretty much unanimity about a British charity is a good guide, and the objections so far are basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT Void if removed (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No, they're per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. What policy says "a description used by some newspapers in one country has more weight than all scholarship on the organization and international reception among RS and human rights groups"? Your argument is WP:ILIKEIT, more RS question that description than endorse it and we cannot put such a contentious description in the lead. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSAGE there's been a substantial shift in coverage since their successful tribunal ruling a year ago, and the WP:NPOV advanced by a cross section of the British media quite clearly reflects that. Do you actually have some comparably weighty sources? I've not seen any actually offered, just lots of editors insisting it is so, for reasons.

In fact, in this entire discussion, I'm the only one offering sources actually backing up how people refer to LGBA.

All I can see notably going the other way is Pink News doggedly referring to them as an "anti-trans campaign group" (which I have pointed out already) and an opinionated academic essay waffling on about political whiteness, which is so niche and unauthoritative the idea it trumps the entire mainstream British press is ludicrous, and even that doesn't actually support not referring to their charitable aims, it just disagrees with them on the author's, opinionated philosophical grounds. The remaining sources I find aren't terribly reliable, or are self-published screeds.

Everything else in a WP:RS that says things like "anti-trans" in recent years is attributed opinion, and sometimes a subject of criticism in the same report.

So please, stop alluding to some vast consensus and demonstrate it using actual WP:RS from since the time the matter of their charitable status was settled.

Because right now, "how the British press refer to a subject on balance" is a very good guide to WP:NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"5 news articles from one country"... well, yeah, the country the group in question is located in; isn't that where you'd expect to find coverage of it? *Dan T.* (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Activists call everything "transphobic" if it doesn't ask "how high?" when the activists say to jump. That's not a reliable indicator of an actual problem with news outlets covering the subject, which may just be providing balanced coverage instead of giving the activists what they want all the time. The New York Times has also been attacked as "transphobic", so it's not just in the UK. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dtobias "these minorities activists call everything bigoted these days if you don't obey them" is not a policy based argument, it's what I'd expect a bigoted uncle to say at a holiday gathering. It's certainly not a statement that can be backed with RS and this is WP:NOTFORUM.

What does it have to do with the facts that 1) other uk papers call them anti-trans, 2) international papers call them anti-trans, 3) academic RS call them anti-trans, and 4) every other LGBT rights organization calls them anti-trans?

Please, provide a policy based reason to ignore the majority of RS to put a contested claim in wikivoice in the lead. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

We are not going by how pretty much the entire press in "the country in question" treats various Russia-related topics. That the sources are British is not an argument in their favor. The UK in general[6] and the UK media have an abysmal reputation regarding LBGT+ issues, commented on by many observers and experts, so their media should be treated with the same caution we treat Russian newspapers as sources for the LGBT+ rights situation in Russia. There are many sources showing how this anti-trans group is entirely focused on anti-trans activism. There are many sources describing it as a hate group and anti-trans group. The radicalization and virulent transphobia of British media doesn't change that. The only thing it changes is the reliability of British media, especially regarding LGBT+ issues, in the same way that we treat Russian media with a fair degree of skepticism, especially regarding contentious topics. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Amanda here. The Council of Europe has long held the UK’s institutional transphobia as being on par with that of Poland, Hungary, and Turkey. We would not uncritically trust Hungarian news sources to determine our description of gensex topics, we shouldn’t be doing so here either. Snokalok (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest if you want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS you go and open RFCs on WP:RSN to deprecate The Times, The Telegraph, The BBC, The Independent and The Guardian on GENSEX based on a single political statement criticising the then-Tory government by a Green-led subcommittee in the Council of Europe, and until you do this comes under WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, and I very much suggest both you stop waving this partisan political declaration around like it is some sort of uber trump card that lets you selectively discount WP:RS. Void if removed (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The proposed wording is so biased and extreme that it's almost comical, and starkly contrasts with how this anti-trans group is described by impartial observers and reliable sources, including academic studies. Imagine this: The Russian group "Normal People Alliance" is established. They say their purpose is "to support the rights of normal people". They actually spend all their time—as commented on by Western observers—calling for the removal of all gay rights and the visibility of gay people, as they argue that it infringes on "the rights of normal people" if gay people are allowed to marry, have children, have various jobs etc. RT, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti and Lenta.ru all uncritically report that Normal People Alliance works for "the rights of normal people". Meanwhile, the Council of Europe condemns Russia for "virulent attacks" on LGBT+ rights.[7] Then, a couple of Wikipedia editors are arguing over how to describe Normal People Alliance. A Russian editor provides five sources from RT, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti and Lenta.ru that describe Normal People Alliance as "a charity set up to support the rights of normal people." A group of American editors cite Western media sources and academic sources that describe Normal People Alliance as an anti-LGBT+ hate group, and argue that the Russian media sources cannot be used to describe it as "a charity working for the rights of normal people" in Wikipedia's voice. They say Russia's record on LGBT+ issues, including the overall reputation of Russian media in this field as demonstrated by several sources, is relevant when assessing Russian media sources as sources on this topic. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Amanda, we don't need mythical examples to get the point you are trying to make. It was ridiculous the first time you made it and hasn't got any less ridiculous fifty-odd posts later and hasn't got any less inappropriately and offensively xenophobic. Stop this please. -- Colin°^Talk 19:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unfounded claims that it is "xenophobic"—for editors who are born in the UK and of British descent, even—to comment on transphobia in UK media. There are valid reasons why I, along with others, am skeptical of many British newspapers when it comes to LGBT+ issues. There are also similar reasons to be skeptical of Hungarian, Polish and Russian media in specific contexts—including LGBT+ rights—that have nothing to do with "xenophobia". --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Amanda, and Snokalok, would you both stop doing this. The Council of Europe has not "long held" anything. There was once a document published and a bunch of people in an obscure committee once signed off on it. Once. I don't know why you think trotting out this CoE stuff in order to say "Anything Wikipedia says about a British organisation cannot be sourced or based on material published by a British publication because, you know, Terf Island and all that, and can only be sourced to American trans activists" is doing anything other than earning yourselfs diffs for a topic ban. Suggesting that all of British media is as unusable as Putin's Russian propaganda is on-another-planet level of wasting all our time. Please please stop this now. -- Colin°^Talk 18:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there now agreement to change the wording, as proposed in my post of 19:54, 24 June 2024 above? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I support charity registered for the purpose of supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights as this is both accurate, neutral and a reasonable reflection of the sources I gave upthread. Coverage of this charity has shifted significantly in recent sources (since their tribunal mainly), and the only source that calls them an "advocacy group" is this page, making it a bit of an anachronistic fudge that was justifiable at the time but not any more (though Pink News still insists on such things as "trans-exclusionary activist group").

I think when The Times, The Guardian, The BBC and The Telegraph all broadly agree on language, that's a good indication we should follow suit. Void if removed (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now made the change. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Jumping the gun I think. As far as I can tell, DanielRigal still opposes, as do I. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:: I am baffled by your comment, and by your revert. (1) I used the wording suggested by DanielRigal, who I assume is watching this page. (2) I was not aware that you opposed this change – as far as I can see, you have not expressed opposition to the change, and have not given any reason for opposing the change.

I asked in my edit of 10:30 26 June 2024 whether there was agreement to the proposed change, and received one reply, from Void if removed, who agreed. I then waited another 24 hours to see if there was any opposition to the change. There was none, so I made the change. I feel that your revert is unjustified – please self-revert.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Clearly there has been a misunderstanding here. I objected to the specific wording "charity supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights", which would be an endorsement in Wikivoice, and suggested the minor variant "charity registered for the purpose of supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights", which says the same thing without endorsement. My intention was to help those who wanted to make a change to hone their proposed change towards acceptability, not to endorse the change itself. I also said that I was unconvinced by the need for change. I made no comment on any wider changes being discussed, beyond saying that I thought the status quo was OK and that I was unconvinced by the need for change.

I see that most of it got reverted. The only remaining things that I object to is that the wording "charity registered for the purpose of supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights" has replaced "advocacy group" and that "advocacy organisation" has been removed from the infobox. I supported that as additional wording not as replacement. (On reading back my comments I realise that I didn't make that clear, so that's on me.) I think that we need to have both "advocacy" and "charity". They each express different elements of the nature of the subject here and we don't want to leave half of it out. The simplest way to resolve this would be to say something like "...advocacy group. It is a charity registered for the purpose of supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights" in the body. I'd also like both in the infobox but that's less important. I think this makes sense and I hope it can keep everybody happy. It seems to me that both the supporters and opponents of the group could read this and not object to it. If anything, making sure to describe them as an "advocacy group" makes them sound less sus as the reader reads on. If we just call them a charity then a reader will wonder why all of their activities are advocacy and not more conventional charitable activities. If we point out that that is the whole point from the outset then readers will better understand what is going on and know to consider them in comparison with other advocacy groups that are also charities e.g. Liberty, Amnesty International, etc. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

If we just call them a charity then a reader will wonder why all of their activities are advocacy and not more conventional charitable activities.

I don't think that's relevant, since what we do is refer to them on balance in the way WP:RS do, and I don't think an overwhelming number of recent ones use "advocacy group" for them, compared to some variation of "charity". There's this in the Telegraph, but its an opinion piece. There's this which appears to be a copy & paste from the lede of this article so not terribly compelling and risks WP:CIRCULAR.

Probably best source is this in the Telegraph, but that just means that coupled with the mention in my comment upthread, the Telegraph supports both.

How about: "advocacy group and charity registered for the purposes of supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights" in the lede? Void if removed (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if this has been suggested before above. But the change to introduce current charitable status with the least change to status quo would seem to be something like "The LGB alliance is a British nonprofit advocacy group with charitable status. It was founded in 2019 in opposition to ...." I'm not sure if charitable status makes non-profit redundant, if it does nonprofit can easily be removed. This isn't to say this should be the change. It's just if the objective is to introduce the fact they have charitable status, this seems to be the way to do so with the least change. LunaHasArrived (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with mentioning their charitable status but I would oppose any attempt to disguise the aim of the organization as documented in many reliable sources.

Even the current lead is less clear than I would like. We previously called them "anti-trans" in Wikivoice when now we describe the extensive sourcing behind the label. Well, if we have extensive sourcing for a fact that means we say the fact, not that we say we have such-and-such many articles that say the fact. Loki (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to DanielRigal for the clarification. Sorry, I slightly misunderstood. I would agree to "advocacy group and charity registered for the purposes of supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights" which, as far as I can see from their posts above, would also satisfy DanielRigal and Void. This is a neutral factual statement: we are not making any statement which would ‘disguise the aim of the organization’. We would also mention in the infobox that they are an advocacy group with charitable status. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do we have to mention the registered purpose at all in that first paragraph, it would be very repetitive considering the first sentence of paragraph 2. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

We need to say what its charitable purposes are in the first sentence, because that is basic information about a charity. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

In fact my only problem with the current first paragraph would be it is too long if anything. Is the quote about lesbians facing extinction really so notable to be included above the info box instead of below with more similar quote. Is the list of founders necessary considering you have the information again in the info box. I'm not saying these are changes that should be made. Just that when considering the first paragraph and comparing it to other organisations (I did Mind, Stonewall and mermaids for a quick 1 minute summary) it seems a lot longer. LunaHasArrived (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want to discuss a possible restructuring of the lead in general, I think it would be better to start a separate discussion section for this. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not a consensus nor, even a majority. Hard oppose, per Amanda, FireFangledFeathers, Daniel, Loki, Sche, SilverSeren, and Luna. Snokalok (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me that there is a majority for adding the wording "registered for the purposes of supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights" into the first sentence of the lead. The only actual objection seems to be based on an unsourced allegation that the purposes are somehow faked. But even if this was the case, that could not alter the objective fact that these are the purposes for which LGBA is registered. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask where you get this majority from. I can only see you and void really wanting to add this to the first sentence. LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The current text (British advocacy group [...] founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues) looks like a more accurate summary than the proposed rewrite, when considering how they're covered in sources (which in turn cover/reflect what they do, which is oppose trans rights while being conspicuously silent when gay rights are under attack). So, I would not support the proposed rewrite at this time. -sche (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am suggesting, as previously, to use the wording suggested by DanielRigal, which also has the support of Void and myself. Firefangledfeathers has not replied to my comment saying that I think this should be added. LunaHasArrived has not said she is opposed. Loki has said he is opposed, but has not answered my point that his reason is invalid. -sche has now said that they “would not support the proposed rewrite at this time.” . But I am not proposing a rewrite – merely the inclusion, in neutral language, of the basic encyclopaedic information of the registered purposes of the charity. I really do think that if anyone is opposed to including this information, they should provide reasons for this exclusion. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

DanielRigal suggested adding language to the body of the article. I'd support such a change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I had not made this clear. I think it's unnecessary and out of step with other charities to include it's own description in the first sentence. We already include statements to the same effect in the 2nd paragraph of the lede and it would seem overly repetitive to put the same information within 3 sentences of eachother. LunaHasArrived (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Whereabouts in the body of the article is it suggested that the wording be added? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, did you mean to reply to fff? LunaHasArrived (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary and out of step with other charities to include it's own description in the first sentence.

Some comparisons:

• Stonewall (charity)

Lede: Stonewall is a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights charity in the United Kingdom

Source: Promoting equality and human rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people.

• Mermaids (charity)

Lede: Mermaids is a British charity and advocacy organisation that supports gender variant and transgender youth.

Source: supporting trans, non-binary and gender-questioning children and young people

• Galop (charity)

Lede: Galop is an LGBT anti-abuse charity

Source: Galop is the UK’s LGBT+ anti-abuse charity.

I struggle to see how what you're saying is supportable. The first sentence is absolutely where we should be summarizing a charity's aims and objects. The note that they formed in opposition to Stonewall actually belongs in a subsequent sentence, as it is part of their history, not their purpose. As written it sounds like their charitable aims are opposing stonewall, which is nonsense and wouldn't be permissable for a registered charity.

We already include statements to the same effect in the 2nd paragraph

So take it out of the second paragraph. Void if removed (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that it's widely documented in reliable sources that their stated purpose and their real purpose differ. Our job in the first sentence is to describe their true purpose, not their stated purpose. Their true purpose is to be an anti-trans campaign group, not a pro-LGB charity, so we should say that as clearly as possible, like we did in a previous version of the article. Failing that, at least saying that they oppose Stonewall gestures towards it; saying that they are a pro-LGB group is just false. Loki (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I still don't have time to participate in the discussions but as far as I can tell the only articl of those 3 which actually uses the charity themselves or the charity commission documents to define the purpose seems to be Mermaids. Even that isn't actually necessary since there seems to be a secondary source albeit a weak one, a directory, with the same thing. Frankly I expect Mermaids can be improved. I think a key question is what secondary sources say about all these organisations. If secondary sources largely describe the purpose of the other charities in line with the charities official purpose for the other cases but don't for the LGB Alliance we need to reflect that in our articles. The fact the other articles say what they say doesn't therefore demonstrate that what a charity has said it their official purpose is the most important thing but rather reliable secondary sources say it's what's important. It's not our fault nor are we being unfair if we describe those other charities that way because that's how secondary sources do it but don't for LGB Alliance because that's what secondary sources do. Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a key question is what secondary sources say about all these organisations. If secondary sources largely describe the purpose of the other charities in line with the charities official purpose for the other cases but don't for the LGB Alliance we need to reflect that in our articles.

And as I've shown at the top of this discussion, WP:RS do refer to LGBA in those terms, so you've basically conceded my original point. Void if removed (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually no, I have not looked into the sources and do not intend to, so it's unreasonable for me to concede anything. I apologise for the confusion as I was typing from a mobile device so didn't explain myself very well. What I'm saying is that I think it's largely irrelevant that the 3 articles you linked have text that happens to match what the organisations say about themselves, except perhaps for Mermaids which IMO demonstrates that the article needs improvement not what it's what we should do. If the vast majority of secondary sources say organisation A is a charity which does XYZ, and XYZ happens to match what the charity says about themselves, then it's reasonable this is what our articles do. It doesn't mean we are following what the organisation says, instead we are following what sources say. If a tiny minority of sources say organisation B, is a charity which does XYZ, again XYZ matching what the organisation says about themselves, a greater number says organisation B is a charity which does DEF, and DEF does not match what the organisation says about themselves and even more sources say something like organisation B is a charity which does DEF although they describe their official purpose as XYZ then clearly how we handle organisation B may very well be very different from organisation A. There may be merit to mention XYZ, or maybe not. It seems reasonable though to treat DEF as far more important than XYZ that's for sure. And the fact that this is different from what we do for organisation A doesn't indicate we are being unfair or treating organisation B different. In fact we're treating them both the same, going by what reliable secondary sources say about the organisation. Frankly if we only have 4 sources talking about LGB Alliance no matter if they're from different media organisations, I'm not sure we should even have an article, so those 4 sources are only a tiny part of the picture. We really need a more holistic look at the secondary sources, rather than concentrating on finding ones which happen to match what we feel the articles should say. And yes this applies in both directions. Definitely primary sources should basically be ignored, and the fact that other articles happen to match what primary sources say, but when they are based on secondary sources is irrelevant. Anyway again this is probably my final comment on the matter. I only said this because I felt the discussion had be come distracted from the key point namely it's what the preponderance of secondary sources do that matters for all articles, not whether something happens to match what primary sources say. It's ultimately not on us to decide what does and doesn't matter about an organisation but secondary sources. From what I can tell, Loki and possibly others are suggesting that most secondary sources do not in fact simply describe the organisation in terms of them being XYZ so it's why we should treat the organisations different. Again I have not and will not be looking at the sources so cannot comment if this is accurate but the existence of 4 sources which say something is largely irrelevant to counter the accuracy of this view. It requires a holistic look at the sources which talk about the LGB Alliance point blank, not looking for ones which happen to say XYZ or DEF. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought we'd had this sort of topic discussion multiple times before? And in those times, the problem was that despite being a claimed charity, they don't have any actual charitable activities going on and never have. The policy page on their own website is entirely about anti-trans political stuff and nothing about doing any charitable work for LGB people. Hence why defining them as a charity didn't match up because there was nothing that could be put in the article on charitable works they do. Because they don't do anything. Silverseren^C 01:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

they don't have any actual charitable activities going on and never have

Which (aside from not being true) is just your opinion. As I've shown above, when WP:RS now refer to them as a charity (as they increasingly have done since this matter was settled in court), we should do. Judging the merits of their endeavours based on your own opinion is not how we settle these things. Void if removed (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean at the very least, they've done no notable work whatsoever . LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree they’re not notable as a charity any more than Bill Clinton is notable as a saxophonist. Dronebogus (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't seem productive to me. Let's concentrate on what secondary sources say about the organisations. Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has gone off the rails. The wording under discussion is "registered for the purposes of supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights". This makes no assertion about what LGBA do – it is an objective fact about the charitable purposes for which they are registered. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It is widely regarded as one of the most famous anti-transgender groups and is commonly described as a hate group. It should be described as an anti-transgender organization in the first paragraph/sentence, and the first paragraph should also mention that it has been described by many as a hate group. It should not be described as "registered for the purposes of supporting lesbian, gay and bisexual rights" in the first sentence or paragraph. That's not how they are commonly seen or what they do. We can include their self-perception – which is quite fringe – somewhere below, preferably in the body. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

All of this is completely contrary to the high quality recent sources upthread, so no. Please try for WP:NPOV. Void if removed (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

No it's not. The material is already included in the lead. However, the most defining descriptors have been buried in the third paragraph, while the fringe views of this group have been given prominence in the first and second paragraphs. This should be reversed. It's first and foremost an anti-trans group, that is often labelled a hate group. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not how WP:RS like The Times, The Guardian and The BBC describe them, and it is how balanced and non-partisan sources such as that refer to a subject which guides how we do. Void if removed (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

All of those sources have themselves faced extensive criticism for transphobia[8][9][10]. British media generally have an extremely poor reputation[11][12] as far as LGBT+/trans issues are concerned. We just decided that another of them, one of the sources used here to present a biased view of this anti-trans group, The Daily Telegraph, is not generally reliable as a source on trans-related issues or the extremist (as noted by UN Women[13]) gender-critical ideology, and I believe the same should apply to those you mentioned as well in light of a consistent pattern of transphobia and extremist content, including fabricated stories. We treat Russian media—even their equivalent of the BBC, i.e. state media—with a lot of skepticism when they "report" on the Russian invasion of Ukraine (or LGBT+ rights in Russia, for that sake), and the same caution is called for when it comes to the treatment of trans issues in British media, against the backdrop of international condemnation of "virulent attacks" on LGBT+ rights in the UK and international criticism of rampant transphobia in British media[14]. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Trans activists are prone to throwing tantrums when they don't get their way; they insist that all media toe their ideological line without the slightest deviation, and issue fervent open letters denouncing them when they don't. The New York Times has also been a target for this. Increasingly, the media is showing journalistic backbone and ignoring the screams of activists and getting on with covering current events in a more balanced way. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

lol real subtle about showing why you're actually here, dude Iostn (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Dubious source

The Daily Telegraph is not considered generally reliable (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) on trans-related issues or issues related to the gender-critical ideology. Its use in the lead section here to support the biased description of this anti-trans group (see above) in the first paragraph is not appropriate. All the sources used to essentially whitewash this anti-trans group have faced similar criticism too. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This was a "no consensus" close, you're way overstating the note. Void if removed (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said, it is not considered "generally reliable". It no longer has that status in this area. The close was "reliability disputed", it's now yellow on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with the summary that "In regards to transgender issues and gender-critical views, the reliability of The Daily Telegraph is disputed", and it is distinguished from The Daily Telegraph as a "generally reliable" source in other fields. Hence, it's a dubious source, especially when it's used to promote a contentious narrative (e.g. by portraying this group as something else than an anti-trans group, in a way more positive light than other sources), in the first paragraph of the introduction to boot. We should use sources of higher quality there. There may be some situations where it's possible to use The Daily Telegraph as a source (e.g. for uncontroversial information or quotes, as opposed to promoting a gender-critical group and its narrative), but this is not one of them. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

After the lukewarm result for the Telegraph, are you going to try to get all those other news sources that have "faced extensive criticism for transphobia" as you noted above to be declared unreliable (or at least "disputed") on this topic as well? Maybe eventually the only "reliable sources" will be Pink News and academic papers on Queer Theory? *Dan T.* (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a compelling case for treating these sources with the same level of caution, given their history of promoting anti-trans content, extremist views, and even fabricated stories. If The Daily Telegraph is not considered generally reliable in this area, it stands to reason that other British media outlets known for similar bigotry and extremism—and facing similar criticisms—should also be treated with skepticism. Perhaps we need a broader discussion about the reliability of British media sources on transgender issues[15][16], or separate discussions on some of those other newspapers/media organizations.[17][18] --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The argument is rather circular. "Those newspapers are unreliable sources because they platform fringe stuff! Wait a minute, how can it be fringe if large mainstream newspapers are platforming it? They're fringe because none of the RELIABLE sources support it! But those newspapers have always been regarded as reliable! Not any more, now that they're platforming fringe beliefs!" *Dan T.* (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Climate change denial, racism, and absurd conspiracy theories have been promoted by large right-wing media and even the former US President. Still, they are not mainstream. They are fringe for our purposes. This is partially related to how scientists and scholars treat those topics. Transphobia, racism, climate change denial or the Pizzagate conspiracy theory can never be treated as "normal", "accepted" or "mainstream" on Wikipedia, regardless of whether such views are platformed by media in certain countries. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a discussion in this area without someone making xenophobic comments about the British or supplying ancient sources complaining about opinion pieces by writers long gone or single events unrepresentative of an organisation. The Telegraph was especially bad with supposedly factual reporting, as it is on any topic it is engaged in culture warring (cyclists, heat pumps, etc). The same pattern is not true of other otherwise respected news organisations in the UK. Can we please stop having any trans article contaminated with the same old ancient activists links and offensive xenophobic nonsense someone read on a blog and thinks worth repeating ad nauseum here. -- Colin°^Talk 21:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside the question of the other sources: the quote cited to the Telegraph should obviously not be in the lead, why on earth is it WP:DUE? WP:NOTPROMO - absent of evidence of secondary coverage of this very specific argument of theirs we shouldn't include it (though I think we have the sources for a general statement they argue that gay kids are supposedly being turned trans en masse) Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Why does the reliability of the Telegraph matter here? Is anyone claiming that the organisation has not said that lesbians are facing "extinction" because of the "disproportionate" focus on transgender identities in schools BilledMammal (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is that due in the lead? Nobody has presented a policy based reason for it, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY we should summarize the article, not cherry pick one quote that only one source has reported. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Then make that argument. Don’t argue that the source is unreliable when nobody disputes the accuracy of the claim. BilledMammal (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I did, feel free to read it (I've commented on this issue twice, neither time mentioning the Telegraph's reliability)...

• the quote cited to the Telegraph should obviously not be in the lead, why on earth is it WP:DUE? WP:NOTPROMO - absent of evidence of secondary coverage of this very specific argument of theirs we shouldn't include it
• Why is that due in the lead? Nobody has presented a policy based reason for it, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY we should summarize the article, not cherry pick one quote that only one source has reported.

So, please answer, instead of evading, the question: Why on earth is a single quote of theirs in one source due in the lead? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m just here because people are misusing RSP. I’m not interested in joining the discussion beyond objecting to that. BilledMammal (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Do not reinstate the low-quality source—that is not considered generally reliable on this topic and that certainly doesn't belong in the lead and that cannot be used to promote a contentious narrative, and that also seems to be WP:UNDUE per the above concerns discussed by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist—without consensus. Also, you are obliged to address the concerns by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist as well if you continue your edit warring here, which you have not done. Please self-revert immediately. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

RSP doesn't work that way. No consensus just means "be more careful", and in a circumstance like this where nobody disputes the factual accuracy, it is meaningless.

See also WP:SATISFY and WP:EDITWAR. BilledMammal (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You are required to obtain consensus for your changes and engage with the concerns above. See WP:EDITWAR. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your novel changes to the lede. Best just to leave it in the state it was. Void if removed (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You have edit-warred instead of responding on this talk page. You are required to obtain consensus for the inclusion of this material, especially when 1) the source is no longer considered generally reliably on this topic, 2) there are concerns about WP:DUE, and 3) multiple editors, at least three, have agreed it doesn't belong in the lead for one of those reasons, and no editor has offered any kind of policy-based defense of the content in the discussion. I believe the most recent edit by User:Barnards.tar.gz that removed it from the lead (again) was a good solution that improved the lead. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: Wikipedia:Edit warring is "edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". Amanda began this section to discuss the reliability of the Telegraph as used in the lead of the article. After a single editor briefly disagreed, Amanda boldly removed longstanding text from the lead paragraph, citing a recent RFC. That was reverted by Void. Reverting a bold edit is perfectly normal and not considered edit warring. After a further editor disagreed with Amanda, they reverted their bold edit back. This is edit warring. That revert was in turn reverted by BilledMammal to restore the text. This is also edit warring. BilledMammal, you have been around long enough to know you don't fix an edit war by warring it back to whatever you think was the correct version. That text was then removed by Barnards.tar.gz though they also joined two paragraphs together. This minor tweak isn't enough to separate that edit from simply being further edit warring to remove longstanding text, particularly since Barnards.tar.gz hasn't participated in the talk page discussion nor is there any sign of editors reaching consensus on whether to include or exclude the text.

The only editor who hasn't edit warred is the one being accused of it: Void. Could we perhaps find other sources for the 'lesbians are facing "extinction"' claim to establish its weight or accept it has insufficient weight for the lead paragraph. Meanwhile there is no rush. We can live with this sentence being or not being in the article. There's no need for anyone to earn themselves topic-ban diffs over this. -- Colin°^Talk 22:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Going to say I agree with Barnard's edit, as the principal difference is the change of reasoning (proposed by YFNS). Ie, weigh the content, not point at RSN. Void if removed (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but being Right^TM doesn't justify edit warring. -- Colin°^Talk 07:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

To expand, I don't think any editor here reached sanctions level edit warring, but it showed all the signs of editors determined to enforce their version of the article through repeated reverting. WP:BRD is a much misquoted and misreferred to essay (not at all a guideline) and one could argue Barnards edit was in the "cycle" spirit of trying a compromise or fixing edit. But it still completely removed the disputed text. My advice would be that making such an edit should be accompanied with a clear summary that it is an attempt to find a compromise/fix and that editors may revert if they disagree. That clearly signals the person is not warring but just wants to offer their proposed solution for examination on the page. An accompanying talk page post is also helpful in this case, to demonstrate one is in good faith participating in the "discussion" part of BRD rather than just joining in the war and not bothering to discuss at all. -- Colin°^Talk 07:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I should add that while editors are right in saying the issue is weight rather than reliability (the claim about lesbian extinction is not being disputed as having come from them) our measure of WP:WEIGHT concerns what has been published in reliable sources. I understand there is some dispute over whether the closure should have included "gender-critical views" along with "trans issues" but the closure is where it is right now. And regardless of the reliability, one newspaper isn't "sources" plural. -- Colin°^Talk 22:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I have not edit-warred at all. Void if removed reverted without offering a justification or engaging with the discussion in a meaningful way. That is edit warring. I have reverted exactly once with a detailed justification on the talk page. That is not edit warring. This is both a matter of whether this source is good enough in this specific context, of whether the material itself is WP:DUE and belongs in the first paragraph. It's a nuanced discussion, not black and white. The editors who edit-warred did not engage with this discussion. The Daily Telegraph is not "generally reliable" on this topic, it's widely agreed to be biased as well, but that's not the complete story or the whole reason for excluding this material from the first section. It is, however, relevant when we assess how the source is used. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Amanda, you reverted a revert of your bold edit. In other words, you edit warred to retain your edit that had been reverted. That is edit warring plain and simple. If you think otherwise, please take yourself to the nearest admin forum to ask for clarification and a million editors will enlighten you. -- Colin°^Talk 07:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

On 21:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Void if removed posted half a sentence on this talk page that didn't really offer an argument. On 21:37, 8 July 2024 I posted a very detailed response addressing his concerns[19]. On 22:07, 8 July 2024‎ Void if removed reverted my edit without even offering a response (he did not respond on the talk page, he says nothing new in the edit summary and does not engage with my response at all). Then, and only because he had failed to justify his edit or even respond to my comment, did I reinstate my edit. That is not edit-warring. That was completely justified. The only person edit-warring was Void if removed. I also note that other editors agreed with me that the material shouldn't be in the first paragraph and that it has been removed again by others. Reverting once with a detailed justification on the talk page that the other party simply ignores is not edit-warring, it's the other way round. If Void if removed had at least made an effort to discuss his edits and responded before reverting I would not have reverted, at least not before we had discussed the matter. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I said you were overstating the note on the source.

You went ahead and made the change anyway, and I reverted, for the same reason as that which I'd stated on talk. You were overstating the strength of the note and its implications.

YFNS has come up with a better reason. Barnards made the edit for that reason. I agree with this edit.

The edit you wanted is now there, for a reason everyone here either agrees with or doesn't sufficiently care to dispute.

There are enough intractable conflicts on this page without arguing about a change that now has consensus, just for a different reason than you originally proposed. Void if removed (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that; we have more pressing issues to attend to. It was really editors from the "other side" who started harassing me with false claims of non-existent edit-warring for reverting exactly once with a detailed talk page justification (entirely normal editing) and who then engaged in egregious abuse of templates and personal attacks[20] against me in relation to that. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

They weren't false, and you were (and still seem to be justifying continuing to) edit warring. If your change is reverted, you come to the talk page to discuss it, and do not reinstate it until a consensus is had. You don’t get to “change your reasoning” and then revert it again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

They were false and constituted harassment of me. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

They weren't false. As another editor pointed out, you made a bold edit, as allowed. The edit was then reverted by another editor. Rather than come to the talk page or that editor’s talk page, you instead reinstated the edit. Regardless of the fact that you are now on the talk page trying to discuss, you have a history of reverting the revert. That is the definition of edit warring. You do not have some “first mover advantage” that your edit gets to stay in the article while it’s discussed - if it’s reverted, you wait for consensus and discuss on the talk page. Only after consensus comes do you make the edit again. Yet you instead wanted your disputed edit to appear while you discussed it. Ultimately, your best bet is to admit you messed up by reverting back and try to keep this discussion up. If you continue to act like you’ve done nothing wrong, I suspect another editor here will attempt to have you removed from this article (or perhaps the entire topic as a whole) as it is not constructive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"you made a bold edit, as allowed. The edit was then reverted by another editor. Rather than come to the talk page or that editor’s talk page, you instead reinstated the edit": That is a complete misrepresentation of everything that happened. I have reverted exactly once, and only after offering a detailed rationale on the talk page that the other party did not respond to, after being given an opportunity to do so. That is not edit-warring. That is normal editing. I was the editor who came to the talk page, and who waited in vain for the other editor to engage in discussion. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It was definitely edit warring, especially since you gave a very short time for responses before reverting to something which had clearly been disputed. You're an experienced editor so you really should know better, I suggest you seek feedback from someone you trust who I'm sure will disabuse you on your confusion over what constitutes edit warring. This is CTOP issue, so if you continue to be confused over what constitutes edit warring you're likely to find yourself topic banned or otherwise restricted sooner rather than later which will be unfortunate since you can provide valuable feedback on discussions in the area. Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not give "very short time for responses before reverting" because my response was posted before the revert by the other party. Hence, he was aware of, and did not reply to my response. The only editor engaging in discussion, and who has reverted exactly once with a detailed rationale that has received no response—when the other party reverts without responding, that means he had the opportunity to respond—is not the one engaged in edit warring; then all editors who reverted an article once would be involved in edit warring too. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You're mistaken, there is absolutely nothing in WP:3RR which says providing a detailed rationale is an excuse to edit warring. If editors disagree with an edit, they are allowed to revert it. They are expect to engage in discussion, but they do not have to do so the instant they revert especially if they have left an edit summary which provides a basic explanation for why they reverted. Whether you the editor who proposed the edit, feels their simple explanation is sufficient to counter your detailed rationale is irrelevant. You cannot open a talk page discussion, make an edit, get reverted and then revert back within minutes. That is edit warring, a poor practice on en.wikipedia and particularly unacceptable with a contentious topic. Again if you keep up this nonsense expect to be topic banned which will be a loss to the project, and I'd hope also a loss to yourself since I assume you're only editing because you feel you're doing something good. If for some reason despite this loss, you want to be topic banned, continue your poor behaviour because remember that being right about the content issue is not an excuse to violate core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For good reason it never has been. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and editors are expect to collaborate, not claim they're right and no editor is allowed to revert them because they explained why they are right. Or at least that the other editor needs to satisfy the editor who made the original edit with their rationale before they're allowed to revert. In fact, even if two or three editors support a change, if there's only been minimal discussion, these editors are still generally not allowed to force through their change until the other editor other finds someone to support them or provides a response these 2 or 3 editors consider satisfactory. That's not how it works, never has been and it's unlikely it ever will be. WP:1AM is a thing but frankly 2 or 3 editors against one often isn't really a 1AM situation, and besides that 1AM only applies after there has been some meaningful discussion not generally when there has been a single post no matter how detailed. You may note that I often make long posts trying to satisfy all possible queries. Nevertheless I still have to accept that even with this, other editors may not agree with me, and if I do not engage in a back and forth discussion, I cannot expect my view to win out despite my detailed explanation. Editors are expected to engage in meaningful discussion rather than try and force their particular version in the article. Note that whether anyone else was edit warring was irrelevant to the point I was making. All editors engaging in an edit war are a problem, and any editor who keeps doing so in a contentious topic can expect to be restricted and eventually topic banned. AFAICT, you are the only one who continually insists you were not edit warring even when multiple editors have said you were. The other editors made mistakes, but they seem to be willing, at least tactically, to accept they did so. You don't seem to be willing to, which is a far, far greater problem. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Two grammar errors

1. This is a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence: "Firstly by making a "false and misleading" claim that it was the only charity representing lesbian, gay, and bisexual interests." 2. The sentence containing "that it became available" is ungrammatical because of the word "that". It seems to be a quotation, but you could use ellipsis. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C5F1:624A:3BAD:EF44 (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I have made changes which I hope meet with your approval. Thank you for pointing out these things. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent Edits

@Antitransphobe You have added the following twice now:

On 14 October 2024 the organisation launched a crisis hotline which was met with criticism, both from the side of trans people and gender-critical activists.

Your source for this is a tweet. This means that: launched a crisis hotline which was met with criticism, both from the side of trans people and gender-critical activists is all your own WP:OR.

It is also incorrect since they tweeted about the helpline's launch in June. This event has garnered no significant coverage in any secondary source, which means this isn't really WP:DUE. You cite WP:SOCIALMEDIA says may be used as sources of information about themselves, which would potentially cover something straightforward and not self-serving like In June LGB Alliance announced a helpline, but would not cover editorialising of the response.

I also suggest following WP:BRD on contentious topics. Void if removed (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The "helpline" might, or might not, blow up into a genuine topic at some time in the future but if we lack RS sources for it at the moment then it is best to leave it out for the time being. I also don't think that it should be included under External links either as we do not know the actual nature of the "helpline" and it might, or might not, represent a safety risk to some of our readers. It is linked from their main website, which we do link to, so it is not like people can't find it if they want it, but we should not do anything to promote or to funnel people towards it. DanielRigal (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ELMIN it probably shouldn't be in external links anyway on reflection. Void if removed (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I was actually considering starting a discussion if my changes got reverted the second time.

As for the date, I wasn't aware of the much earlier tweet announcing a helpline, as it didn't have much social media traction before.

I think that without the mention of criticism, keeping it on the page can actively help the group, as it will suggest more people to use their helpline run by volunteers with no related education or experience, rather than trained psychologists.

Overall, I think that the information would be better off taken down at all till the criticism appears from reliable sources as per WP:RS. I'll keep the information off the page until the consensus is reached. Antitransphobe (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

"volunteers with no related education or experience, rather than trained psychologists" -- do you have a source for this assertion? The LGBA website includes a page about the helpline: https://lgballiance.org.uk/our-helpline-is-open/ , which sets out its policies on the recruitment and training of volunteers: "We were able to select volunteers with decades of helpline experience between them gained at organisations such as The Samaritans, Crisis or the Lesbian and Gay Switchboard. In addition, in their professional lives, many worked in roles related to the safeguarding of children or vulnerable adults or were mental health or education professionals", etc. -- Alarics (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is difficult to argue it's due without any secondary coverage being presented here for evidence. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

We already have in the article a statement that LGBA received a grant for a helpline, which is sourced to PinkNews in June 2022. I think it makes sense to keep the current text saying that they have announced that they now operate a live-text chat service, because it is, in effect, a follow-up to the inf from June 2022. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just added criticism as pinknews has done an article about the criticism received. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have attributed the inf to PinkNews, because this is a biased source, which does not provide any example of criticisms from any particular ‘gender-critical’ Twitter account. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I also think this is yet another strike in the "reliability" column for PN on matters pertaining to LGBA, since as anybody can easily verify, and as everyone here already accepted, the service launched in June. Void if removed (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Describing LGB Alliance as a hate group

Given that the change might be controversial, I have decided to start with the "Discuss first" alternative described on WP:BRD.

To avoid any unnecessary edit wars, I want to gather the consensus on changing the article's content from "The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group" to "The LGB Alliance is a British anti-trans hate group", given that in the media and transgender community, the organization is highly notable for opposing transgender rights.

There are plenty of sources describing them as a hate group, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be called as such, provided there are sources to back it up. Antitransphobe (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on previous discussions here, I don't believe the preponderance of sources support the designation. Riposte97 (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on previous discussions here, and a wealth of well-supplied reliable sources, this is obviously not the case. This is clear POV, please stop. Void if removed (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Google news search, quick skim of the better sources that aren't self-published or opinion:

Independent, 24 October 2024: neutral quote (no designation): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/charity-commission-charities-nhs-england-lgb-alliance-society-b2634626.html

Standard, 12 October 2024 The LGB Alliance formed in 2019 to protect the rights of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals and are a registered charity.:https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/hundreds-flee-lgb-conference-protestor-dumps-crickets-b1187447.html

Telegraph, 21 July 2024 on behalf of gay, lesbian and bisexual people who disagree with Stonewall’s stance on transgender issues https://archive.is/QZC5L#selection-2795.47-2795.151

Metro 11 October 2024 Described by trans rights activists as transphobic, LGB Alliance says it supports the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people https://metro.co.uk/2024/10/11/thousands-crickets-unleashed-anti-trans-event-addressed-jk-rowling-21782166/ (WP:HEADLINE)

Express 11 October 2024 The LGB Alliance - which campaigns exclusively for the rights of homosexual and bisexual people [...] The LGB Alliance has previously found itself at odds with some proponents of trans rights, who claim the organisation is transphobic. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1960821/lgb-alliance-crickets-video

Scottish Express 11 October 2024 LGB Alliance aims to assert "the right of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men to define themselves as same-sex attracted" https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/celebrity-news/jk-rowling-sends-four-word-33872173

MyLondon 11 October 2024 n 2019 the group splintered from Stonewall, the gay-rights charity, with its declared mission of 'asserting the right of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men to define themselves as same-sex attracted'. The LGB Alliance says it believes that biological sex matters and that replacing sex with gender could lead to the dismantling of gay-rights. The group's stance on gender has drawn criticism, however, with trans-rights groups describing it as 'transphobic'. Hope not Hate, an anti-extremism group, and the Trades Union Congress have also described the LGB Alliance as as 'anti-trans'. https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/live-insects-released-protesters-lgb-30125935

Standard 11 October 2024 The LGB Alliance, a charity formed in recent years to support the rights of same-sex attracted people, confirmed in a statement that the crickets had been released. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/crickets-released-insects-lgb-alliance-event-london-westminster-met-police-queen-elizabeth-ii-centre-b1187419.html

Independent 12 October 2024 LGB Alliance, which was set up in 2019, promotes the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people who disagree with Stonewall’s stance on transgender issues. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lgba-conference-westminster-crickets-trans-b2628244.html

Telegraph 11 October 2024 LGB Alliance, which was set up in 2019, promotes the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people who disagree with Stonewall’s stance on transgender issues. https://archive.is/77Ktk

Pink News has taken an editorial line that LGBA are "anti-trans" since founding, so no change there, however even here "hate group" is attributed:

Pink News 3 November 2024 While the LGB Alliance denies it is transphobic, the group – which was granted charitable status in 2021 – has been repeatedly condemned as a “hate group” by numerous commentators and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, including Pride in London and Guardian columnist Owen Jones. https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/11/03/kemi-badenoch-lgbtq-rights-gay-trans/#page/4

Of 11 recent stories from a quick skim, exactly one outlet calls them "anti-trans" in its own editorial voice, and that is Pink News, who have always done so.

Not a single one refers to them as a hate group in their own voice. Two report that other people do, one of them being Pink News.

Strong statements of criticism like this can be included with attribution as they are now. Stating them in wikivoice - as you've been repeatedly told - is going to require a significant shift in neutral coverage, which there simply has not been. The evidence is overwhelmingly against this ridiculously POV change. Extraordinary claims - like a registered charity being a literal hate group - require extraordinary evidence. Void if removed (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Void. We've debated all this before. Describing LGBA as a "hate group" is taking sides in a divisive ideological battle in which there is plainly no society-wide consensus. Wikipedia is supposed to be "neutral" in such cases, as in "neutral point of view" (NPOV). -- Alarics (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed that an RFC was already done at the top of this talk page, but the problem is that a lot of these users appear to have anti-trans agenda, or at least are marked as such by the Shinigami Eyes browser addon. I'm not saying to withhold their answers, but rather that a bunch of trans-friendly users should be able to participate to counter WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Antitransphobe (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest not relying on a doxxing tool to attempt to divine the political views of fellow editors, but rather to focus on content. In this case, we don't describe the LGB Alliance as a hate group because that's not how most sources describe it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to Shinigami Eyes as a "doxxing tool?" It is nothing of the sort... pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 01:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The tool, and the original suggestion, blatantly violates WP:AGF and I would recommend dropping this. Void if removed (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the article will describe them as a hate group in 20 years time but, for now, we don't have the sources required to use such a strong label in wikivoice. I know that this is infuriating but we just have to wait for the sources to catch on. I think that the current opening which gives a factual description, rather than a label, is the best thing for now. It is a text that neither side can really object to. It's taken a long time to get to a stable wording that isn't constantly being pulled in one direction or another. Let's not open another can of worms on it. It won't help. DanielRigal (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)