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.

Founders

Reopening the issue of the founders yet again. There have been repeated discussions about this over the years, with attempts to have the founders listed as Kate Harris and Bev Jackson alone overruled by a consensus that favoured ambiguous or possibly incorrect early sources over more specific later ones, to justify the inclusion of Ann Sinnott, Malcolm Clark and Allison Bailey as founders.

Can we please defer to the sworn testimony of Bev Jackson in Mermaids v Charity Commission/LGB Alliance (archived: https://archive.ph/ALezB) which states unambiguously:

"(4)  Kate Harris and I founded LGB Alliance in 2019."

Also the sworn testimony of Kate Harris (archived: https://archive.ph/RdXZl), which states:

"The Founding of LGB Alliance (1) I am one of the two lesbian founders of LGB Alliance."

I argue the founders need to be listed as Kate Harris and Bev Jackson only, and all other sources should be disregarded.

Void if removed (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Because primary sources are better than secondary sources? Or for some other "reason"? Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Secondary does not mean "good", and this is a straightforward case. Void if removed (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Plus in the archive, the last time this was discussed, there were at least 5 sources that stated only Kate Harris and Bev Jackson were founders, with the current consensus reliant on interpretations of ambiguous and possibly incorrect sources, and Pink News. Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 7#Founders

In terms of more recent secondary sourcing, there is this from September https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/14/lie-of-gender-identity-spurred-founding-of-lgb-alliance-court-told Void if removed (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian looks like a good source on this. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

As I've linked below, The Guardian have also stated, about two months prior to the article linked by Void if removed, that Allison Bailey was a founder. There is also a November 2022 source for Malcolm Clark, and September 2022 source for Ann Sinnott. I would be very wary at interpreting "co-founder" to mean only two. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You are making a specious interpretation of an unambiguous sworn statement. here is no reason to go to these lengths, when there are no primary sources that name anyone other than Kate Harris and Bev Jackson as co-founders. They have been clear since November 2019, in statements on Twitter and here and here and here and here in interviews and now in evidence to a tribunal that Kate Harris and Bev Jackson are the only two co-founders. For comparison, Aubrey Waters and Bob Mellors co-founded the UK Gay Liberation Front, and Bev Jackson was a founding member. It is a meaningful distinction that is being ignored by amassing secondary sources and using possibly erroneous reporting to overrule primary sources. But if some secondary sources disagree with such a clearly understandable primary source as a one sentence statement in sworn testimony on such a really simple and basic fact, the answer is not to add everything together and synthesize a result that explicitly disagrees with the primary source. Void if removed (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah this old argument again. Neither of the two primary statements by Jackson or Harris preclude there being other founders.

Taking the three other founders in order, here are sources that support them being listed as founders of the LGB Alliance:

• Allison Bailey: PinkNews, September 2022, Gay Times, July 2022, GCN, July 2022, Civil Society, July 2022, The Guardian, July 2022, The Law Society Gazette, July 2022, The Times, June 2021
• Malcolm Clark: PinkNews, January 2020, Scottish Daily Express, November 2022, Dazed Magazine, June 2022, OpenDemocracy, November 2022
• Ann Sinnott: PinkNews, June 2021, Gscene, June 2021, Diva Magazine, September 2022, Health Service Journal, June 2021,

While one or two RS could be wrong about there being founders other than, I find it hard to believe that a combined total of 13 independent RS could be wrong, especially over a period of two/three years. Because we have a strong array of secondary sources that can be used to verify all of the other three founders, I do not see why we should defer to two primary sources, that are worded in such a way that allows for the existence of other founders. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

For starters, that OpenDemocracy article for Malcolm Clark lists only Kate Harris and Bev Jackson as co-founders, and makes the distinction that Malcolm Clark was a founding member. This is the distinction that's been argued previously, and the source of all of the confusion: the two founders were Kate Harris and Bev Jackson. The other three were founding members.

This is supposed to be about assembling a best effort at truth by consensus. A sworn and - despite what you say - unambiguous statement of fact is highly indicative of truth, and when supported by multiiple secondary sources (as this has been) it indicates that other sources which say different are mistaken. Truth does not emerge by combining multiple wrong secondary sources and completely ignoring primary ones. If numerous sources have mistaken founding members for founders (or are careless with a distinction they view as unimportant) that is an understandable error, but one that shouldn't be blindly reproduced here. Void if removed (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Allison Bailey's own website says "I helped to set up a new organisation for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, the LGB Alliance, to provide an alternative to Stonewall". Her press release says "Miss Bailey, a barrister, lesbian, prominent gender critical campaigner and founding member of LGB Alliance". If we are going to wave court documents about, her Witness statement says "when I launched the LGB Alliance in October 2019" and goes on to say "LGB Alliance formed out of a meeting on 22 October 2019. While others who set it up did work preparing for that meeting, I did not. I attended only one social event, in a friend’s flat one evening for less than an hour, in the summer of 2019. After the 22 October 2019 meeting, I was involved more, but again not in a way that could or did distract me from work" This seems to suggest that Bailey was involved at the start/launch but perhaps others did the initial setup for that meeting. Bailey reproduces a tweet "LGB Alliance, waste no time, you have my full support. Breakaway now, post-haste, right now. Long live LGB Alliance (or whatever name you settle on)" which suggest a little distance. Later "I met Kate Harris at a get-together in a Covent Garden flat. Later she would invite me to the launch of LGB Alliance." and "In fact, I found out later that there had been a plan (or at least, the recognition of a need for a plan), which I was not aware of, to set up and announce the formation of LGB Alliance in a more formal and structured way. By sending that tweet I effectively launched LGB Alliance prematurely and by accident." and "The Tweet that I sent launching LGB Alliance went viral" suggests confusion over how to launch it but her claim that she was the one who accidentally did so. Then "From 23 October 2019, I worked with Kate, Bev, Malcolm Clarke and Ann Sinnott on the Steering Group, and continued to do so for the first 7 months of LGB Alliance’s existence."

This last sentence supports the idea that all five people "founded" LGB Alliance, in terms of setting it up. Setting up a group requires work over a period of time. The word "founded" can be interpreted in many ways, from having an original idea, or making an announcement, to being on the original "Steering Group" for the first 7 months of the group's existence. I think this settles the question of who we should describe as founders. I am surprised this is contentious? Is there someone arguing they weren't a founder or that someone else wasn't a founder? If not, I say just believe them if that's what they claim about themselves. -- Colin°^Talk 15:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a distinction between founder and founding member. Kate Harris and Bev Jackson are the two founders. Allison Bailey - by her own statement there - was a founding member, as was Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott. The two founders should be listed as founders, the other three as founding members. As I said above for comparison, Aubrey Waters and Bob Mellor co-founded the UK GLF, while Bev Jackson was a founding member. Void if removed (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd add that every quote you provide from Allison Bailey supports her joining a nascent organisation at its launch as a founding member, not founding it. In terms of "believing them if that's what they claim about themselves" - LGB Alliance consistently state who the two co-founders are. Trying to draw a wider interpretation of what "founder" means than they do themselves is disbelieving them, and there is no reason to do that. Editors on this page have consistently tried to interpret "founder" more broadly than LGB Alliance do, hence why it is contentious still. Void if removed (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

See also Women's Equality Party as an example of better practice - the two co-founders and current leader are listed, but founding members (such as Sophie Walker, founding member and first leader) are not. In the same way, the two co-founders should be listed as founders in the detail box, and possibly current MD Kate Barker. The three founding members should be mentioned in the lede and in the body as part of the narrative of the organisation's setup. Also, the current array of sources for the founders list used in the body are dreadful. For example, rather than referencing Bev Jackson as co-founder using clear neutral sources such as I've offered here (court filing making it obvious who the only co-founders are, and contemporary, balanced Guardian coverage) instead there is a highly POV Pink News piece attacking a tweet predating the founding of LGB Alliance. The current list of founders is a result of WP:SYNTHESIS. Void if removed (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The list can't possibly be an example of synthesis since our list appears in its entirety in Alison Bailey's testimony, and in other sources.[1] I'm missing something here about why on earth we should care. Wikipedia is not interested in ego. Can you provide a reliable source that explicitly describes two "founders" and three "founding members" in two groups like you propose? -- Colin°^Talk Colin°^Talk 12:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Both the primary sources of Kate Harris and Bev Jackson's witness statements are absolutely crystal clear and go into great detail about the history and founding, and I've given secondary sources to confirm this. That other secondary sources are less accurate does not give license to ignore primary sources they conflict with and synthesize a contradictory picture.

Excerpts from Bev Jackson:

1. (17)  Kate Harris and I then decided to hold an event nearby LSE on the same date, which would focus on our concerns about the direction taken by the LGB rights movement. This became the meeting at which LGB Alliance was formed.
2. (18)  We spent three months preparing for the meeting on a full-time basis: drafting a provisional statement, writing our speeches, planning the different groups we proposed forming, and so forth. We spent many hours on social media identifying those who clearly shared our concerns about the erasure of sex within the meaning of what it was to be LGB, and invited around 80 people to attend. We contacted each person individually, to explain our views and what we were planning.
3. (20)  After the meeting, one of the attendees, Allison Bailey posted a tweet about the meeting
4. (21)  Kate and I set up LGB Alliance to help LGB people
5. (22) LGB Alliance was founded by two lesbians, one (myself) a founding member of the UK Gay Liberation Front and one (Kate Harris) a former volunteer fundraiser for Stonewall.

Excerpts from Kate Harris:

1. (52) In May 2019 I was introduced to Bev Jackson by someone who knew I was trying to organise an LGB group of some kind to re-build our LGB life and culture. I found out that Ms Jackson, a founding member of the UK Gay Liberation Front (GLF) when she was at LSE in 1970, was also trying to set up a dialogue with Stonewall on the same subject.
2. (54) Between 18 July 2019 and 22 October 2019 Bev Jackson and I contacted over 70 people we believed would be interested in coming to our meeting.
3. (58) Our speakers at the meeting were Simon Fanshawe OBE, a founder of Stonewall, Miranda Yardley, a trans person and human rights activist, as well as Bev Jackson and myself, the founders of LGB Alliance.

Believe them, if that's what they claim about themselves. List the two co-founders as founders in the about sections, and remove the others if necessary, or mention them as notable early members.

Just because you don't care about it is no excuse for leaving incorrect information. Void if removed (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI, earlier versions of this article (after initial vandalism was removed) had this right, and through a process of synthesis, other founders were added over time.

The about page on their website is also clear.

There is no good reason to continue to include the other three as "founders". The about should simply list the two founders, the body should simply say Kate Harris and Bev Jackson founded the org, and that they were joined by the other three. I don't think it is necessary to go into any more detail than that. Void if removed (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not arbitrators of truth. We aren't here to determine the truth behind an article or article subject. It is the job of the sources we use to determine the truth. We are here to report on verifiable facts that reliable sources report. This concept is best explained in the essay WP:NOTTRUTH.

In this circumstance, it is verifiable that reliable sources list five founders for the LGB Alliance. For each founder we have a multitude of sources, across the lifetime of the organisation, including those that were published in the last couple of months. As Colin has pointed out, we are not engaging in synth by listing all five of the founders. I would add that synth is not juxtaposition nor summary.

Colin has asked a good question. Are there any reliable, secondary sources that describe the LGB Alliance as having only two founders, and three or more founding members? If there are not, then we would be introducing unverifiable content to this article by changing it as you have proposed. As such, if there are no sources that support the text you wish to change, I would recommend that you drop this stick as you do not seem to be convincing any other editors present to support your proposals. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have linked multiple, solid primary sources, and at least one high quality, recent secondary source produced with comment from LGB Alliance, all which point at there being only two co-founders. Per WP:CONFLICTING favour newer sources, especially when older ones could be misreporting factual content, as is clearly the case here. To repeat what was said above, again: believe what they say about themselves.

The Pink News article given as a rebuttal, aside from being an opinion piece and not a good source for a statement of fact, is further questionable given that it was published without comment from LGB Alliance, and apparently by sheer coincidence lists the same five names in the same non-alphabetic order as they appear in this article, and therefore as is returned by a simple google search.

By contrast, this piece by Debbie Hayton that was dismissed by you as opinion last year, states: "Its founders Bev Jackson and Kate Harris were veteran lesbian campaigners. They were joined by filmmaker Malcolm Clark and barrister Allison Bailey". That is a fine middle ground. Describe the two co-founders as founders, and say in the body they were joined by the others.

If secondary sources written without quote or input from the group themselves disagree with clearly readable high quality primary sources, then the secondary sources must be in error. There is no reason to favour them over the group's own public statements, website and sworn evidence for such a straightforward factual matter, and you are giving undue weight to misreporting here. Primary sources need only be used with care, not ignored completely. This is appropriate use of a primary source, and inappropriate use of secondary sources to contradict what the primary sources say. Void if removed (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any Pink News ... opinion piece cited here. What source are you referring to? Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Just up the page, as an argument against the list being synthesis, this was cited but as I say, this is opinion, and constructed without input from LGB Alliance, contradicts the primary sources, while also being identical to a google search result which returns this article.

A check of the history of the talk page demonstrates both synthesis and older sources being corrected in light of new information (eg. this gscene article which changed Ann Sinnott from founder to founding member months after publication) which lends weight to the preference for more correct primary sources than unreliable secondary ones. Meanwhile sideswipe9th said "I'm not convinced they are reliable narrators about their own history."

They have said who the two co-founders were in sworn testimony. The process by which a list of five founders has been synthesized from multiple secondary sources is questionable. Void if removed (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the PinkNews piece in question has any of the markers of WP:RSOPINION. Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that PinkNews source does not meet WP:RSOPINION. The article is quite clearly written in the second person (no I statements), consists of factual reporting, has no attempts at convincing speech (no You statements), there doesn't appear to be any identifiers that reveal the author's opinion, and perhaps most convincingly it is not categorised as an opinion article which PinkNews categorise separately from their factual reporting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The very first sentence calls them "anti-trans" in the author's voice. Void if removed (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

No, that's quite clearly the publication's voice. See also this piece from October 2022, or this one from August 2022, or this one from December 2021, or this one from August 2021. All of these articles have different authors both from the source linked by Colin, and each other. And there are numerous other examples, from multiple authors on the site all describing the organisation in the same way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd also add that it contains a straightforward factual error, claiming Ann Sinnott remains "involved to this day". Ann Sinnott resigned in mid-2021 and there's no evidence she has been involved in any capacity since. Void if removed (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The one secondary source you've provided was published on 14 September 2022. The two primary sources are dated 18 March 2022.

While recent, those are not the most recent sources. The Diva Magazine source for Alison Bailey and Ann Sinnot was published on 15 September. The PinkNews source for Alison Bailey was published on 20 September 2022. The Scottis Daily Express source for Malcolm Clark was published on 18 November. These are all more recent than The Guardian source you've provided.

The CONFLICTINGSOURCES is generally good advice, but that one Guardian source needs to be contrasted against the other sources that were published after it. In this case, we have more sources that state that there were other founders than Jackson and Harris.

I would also add, that like the two primary sources, The Guardian source does not preclude there being other founders, nor does it explicitly state that there is only two founders. Where the article says Michael Gibbon, KC for Mermaids, on Wednesday questioned the two co-founders of LGB Alliance, that is in context of who was present at the tribunal on that Wednesday. Gibbon asked questions of the two founders who were present. As far as I'm aware, from chatter on social media who were watching the livestream of the tribunal, the other founders (Bailey, Sinnott, Clark) were not present at that date. It would be completely improper to interpret this part of the sentence to mean that there are only two founders for the LGB Alliance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

There are zero primary sources that contradict the ones I have given. No quotes from any of the other three claiming to be co-founders. No dispute of the information on the website. The primary sources I have given are unambiguous that there were only two co-founders, and you are simply wrong to say otherwise. The only dispute is manufactured by assembling potentially wrong - and frequently hostile - secondary sources, none of which quote any of the five saying that anyone other than Kate Harris and Bev Jackson are the founders. It is ridiculous to argue for doing anything other than simply copying what is on the about page of their website, as they are the most authoritative source for information about themselves. There is simply no need to go to these lengths, except that you, personally, don't believe them, as you have stated. Void if removed (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don't cast aspersions about what I believe, or misrepresent what I said. What I actually said was that I find it hard to believe that 14 independent, reliable, secondary sources published over a two/three year period could all be wrong. Nowhere in that do I say I disbelieve what Harris, Jackson, or the organisation itself have said, I just see that your interpretation of those words is not the only interpretation.

And please drop this stick. You are now repeating the arguments that you've already made, and that other editors have not found convincing and have rebutted with the relevant policies and guidelines. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

No I am quoting you: "I'm not convinced they are reliable narrators about their own history." From the last time this was discussed.

So again - why wouldn't we just take what it says on the "about" page on their website? "The Founders of LGB Alliance, Bev Jackson and Kate Harris". Why wouldn't we just defer to their sworn testimony that this is true and correct and that they are the two co-founders? Why go to so much effort to augment such clear and uncontentious primary sources? Prefer secondary sources yes, but not slavishly, and not in such a straightforward case of an organisation repeatedly stating which two people founded it. Void if removed (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember saying that now. And as is clear from that discussion I said that with evidence. At the time of their website launch, they listed four people as their "team" which coincides with their earliest filings at Companies House. That they're now saying different does lend some support to the idea that they may not be reliable narrators of their own history.

As for why shouldn't we defer to their testimony, well Allison Bailey also provided a witness statement in her case against her Chambers, which goes into detail her involvement in the founding of the organisation. That offers a different story for the involvement of people other than Jackson and Harris in the founding of the organisation. How do you reconcile these differing narrations of the founding of the organisation, without engaging in original research?

However that is just an interesting thought experiment. The BLP policy tells us quite clearly to Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Emphasis from the original text. Stating who is or is not a founder of an organisation would be covered under the BLP policy, because it is content about a living person. By policy, we cannot use the witness testimony you wish to defer to.

As I said before, our role is to report what reliable, secondary sources say about a topic. In cases where the secondary sources conflict with each other, we need to figure out what the balance of the sources are. However when secondary sources conflict with primary sources, it is not our role to determine which are true. We simply follow the secondary sources. In this case, the secondary sources are clear, Harris and Jackson were not the only founders for the LGB Alliance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research, referring to companies house filings and making your own interpretation that early directorship is equivalent to being a "co-founder", as well as inferring meaning from a "meet the team" page that it does not contain any such statement of being a "founder". None of this supports the claim that anyone other than Kate Harris and Bev Jackson are the two co-founders, and is completely inappropriate.

It is not your role to dispute statements of fact in this way, and synthesize additional founders. LGB Alliance have made numerous clear statements as to who the two co-founders are, no-one else. Your role is not to go on a fishing expedition to assemble anyone who might look involved during their launch or early start up and also label them a "founder", if the organisation themselves do not.

LGB Alliance have made a clear, factual statement that they had exactly two founders, and we have solid primary sources for it, spanning several years, from a Twitter thread around their launch, to their current website, and their tribunal submissions. There is no need to go beyond this, and if you do, what you need is not additional "founders" from misreporting in secondary sources, what you actually need is a strong secondary source that demonstrates that LGB Alliance are lying - because that is what you, specifically, have alleged. Void if removed (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Also the BLP policy is for court transcripts, court records and public documents. This is none of those things, but a witness statement voluntarily published on their own website, restating their own history, and only referred to because you refuse to simply take their website's "about" page - or even Mermaids - as true. The policy also refers to assertions "about" a person, this is an uncontentious statement a person is making about themselves.

Meanwhile the Pink News reference is unattributed and has become WP:CIRCULAR, now incorporating the synthesis on this page. There is no single source that predates this wikipedia entry that lists those five names together as founders, least of all in that order. Void if removed (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Void, please stop accusing sources of WP:CIRCULAR without evidence that the source is either a plain Wikipedia mirror, or explicitly cites Wikipedia as a source for the claim we are using it for. It would seem most odd that established journalists at Pink News rely on Wikipedia for information on groups such as LGB Alliance. -- Colin°^Talk 11:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

They provide no citation for the claim, nor do they include any comment from LGB Alliance. Again - the first source for all 5 names listed as founders is this wiki article, which is of course the first result in a google search. It is also the source for those five names in that specific order. It would indeed be most odd for an established journalist to rely on google or wikipedia for the truth about an organisation rather than an attributed comment from the organisation, and that is an argument for another day, but it is not a justification to go beyond the organisations own "about" page. The longer this goes on the more likely circularity is. Void if removed (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Newspapers do not routinely provide citations for their claims. -- Colin°^Talk 11:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the Scottish Daily Express article does not say that Malcolm Clark is a co-founder. Void if removed (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking at this list of links again that are presented as overwhelming evidence

Malcolm Clark:

• PinkNews, January 2020 - says founder
• Scottish Daily Express, November 2022 "co-founder" removed from photo caption since publication
• Dazed Magazine, June 2022 - WP:OPINION says founder, but cites the same Pink News article as above
• OpenDemocracy, November 2022 - possibly WP:OPINION, says only "founding member", not founder, also says that Eilieen Gallagher was a founding member, when she is not, but is chair of trustees, not a known reliable source

Ann Sinnott:

• PinkNews, June 2021 - says founder
• Gscene, June 2021 - changed from "founder" to "founding member" since publication
• Diva Magazine, September 2022 - WP:OPINION
• Health Service Journal, June 2021 - WP:OPINION

Three and possibly four opinion, one seemingly unreliable, two corrections that now don't support the claim, and two from Pink News, again the common factor. Note that Pink News is caveated "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used." Void if removed (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

For comparison, the sole source for the list of founding members and trustees of Stonewall is their "about us" page, with no secondary sources necessary. Defer to LGB Alliance's own description of themselves, and stop engaging in unnecessary WP:SYNTHESIS Void if removed (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I continue to wonder why so many words on such a minor point. I don't know the general or detail BLP policy about witness statements and whether we should use them, Sideswipe may be right that they should not be used in the article. I referred to one just as Void did and they appear to conflict. All I can see from this is that different parties have different views about their involvement, which seems to come down to opinion and ego. There isn't a legal "We hereby sign as founders of XYZ" document, so they are relying on their memories and impressions of who did the founding work. At times perhaps two people think they are the core founders and at other times other people claim to have founded it. What really isn't in dispute is that all five of these people setup the organisation from the very first day and worked together for months. Any finer distinction seems to me to be purely a matter of ego, and not one shared by all reliable sources. We still do not have a single source that would support the 2+3 approach that Void is suggesting, but we do have sources for 2 and we have sources for 5. Perhaps this can be resolved by using another word than "founding", such as saying it was "started". -- Colin°^Talk 11:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why so much effort just to avoid referring to them in terms they refer to themselves? And no, the statements you provided did not conflict. You are again engaging in synthesis - there are no attributed statements of any of the other three referring to themselves as a "founder" or "co-founder" - you are interpreting and paraphrasing.

There is only one source needed - their own about page. Void if removed (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And what happened to believing what they say about themselves? Stop inventing language that they do not use to excuse the current state of affairs. Simply change the lede and the about box to list Kate Harris and Bev Jackson as co-founders, and if necessary list the other three as notable other members if their precise status is uncertain. Eg.

"The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in the UK in 2019 by Kate Harris and Bev Jackson..."

"Notable other members include Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott" Void if removed (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Going back to the Stonewall example - there were six original founders (Ian McKellen, Michael Cashman, Duncan Campbell, Peter Rivas, Douglas Slater and Simon Fanshawe). But the wiki page on the organisation doesn't expend months collecting secondary sources and doing WP:OR to dispute what's on the charity's own about page in order to provide a finer categorisation of who did what when. Nor does it quibble about "started by". It refers to the founding members and trustees in the language that they themselves have decided to use, using only the org's statements about itself as the single, primary source. For such basic information this is wholly appropriate, and there is no good reason not to follow this example here. I would not be forced to expend so many words on such a "minor point" if there was less unjustified resistance to it. Void if removed (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Void, what should you do on Wikipedia if you've made your point, and nobody else agrees with you or even thinks it is nearly as important as you, and you have repeated yourself already several times? -- Colin°^Talk 14:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Open a dispute, which I was hoping to avoid by appealing to reason, given how utterly trivial this is. Void if removed (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong answer. The correct answer is to appreciate it is not nearly as important as you feel it is. See WP:DISENGAGE. We have sources that say two and we have sources that say five. Each of these five people are happy to be regarded as being involved in the founding/starting of the organisation, so there are no BLP concerns. I don't think any of the people are in dispute with each other such that they have explicitly rejected anyone's claim to have been involved in founding it. It seems very much therefore a matter of opinion, and I think ego, whether the number is two or five. Sometimes there is no correct answer. We should use dispute resolution boards and RFCs for the big questions. This one is one where it is best to demonstrate a willingness to realise we won't all agree on everything, to accept the opinions of others, and to be persistent only if it is important and you are making progress. This is neither. -- Colin°^Talk 15:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You say: "Each of these five people are happy to be regarded as being involved in the founding/starting of the organisation, so there are no BLP concerns."

But this is, again, missing the point - there are BLP concerns because only two of those people are described as co-founders by the organisation, and none of the other three are. You are applying your own personal interpretation that "being involved" is close enough. It isn't for you to make that judgement. Void if removed (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that the LGB Alliance is a living person. I don't believe this to be the case. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I quote sideswipe9th in this very thread: "Stating who is or is not a founder of an organisation would be covered under the BLP policy, because it is content about a living person. "

In one comment thread we have editors arguing both for an overbroad interpretation of BLP guidelines so that a self-published witness statement can be excluded as a source, and simultaneously that claims should not be made conservatively because there are no BLP concerns. One or the other, please. Void if removed (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Void, stop this. You are being disruptive. Graham Beards (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflct) It is not a personal interpretation; it is the consensus here. You are flogging a dead horse. There is no BLP concern. Graham Beards (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Unbelievable that we're still here. LGB Alliances own website states Kate Harris and Bev Jackson were the founders. They've testified in a court that they were the founders. Allison Bailey gave a keynote speech at an LGB Alliance conference explicitly stating that she, and others, were invited by Kate and Bev to a meeting and that Kate and Bev were the founders. I don't know the reasons for trying to tie Malcolm Clark, Allison Bailey and Ann Sinnott to the founding on this organisation but it's clear to anyone who cares about the truth that it was only Kate Harris and Bev Jackson that founded the LGB Alliance. It would be the correct thing to have both of the women as founders and perhaps have the others listed in a separate sentence as founding members or notable members. I can't believe we're still here, it's time to do the right thing. Samcowie (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

And another thing, the other charities that the usual suspects here edit on. Their websites are used as primary sources to discuss their inception. and for many other matters. The bias displayed on this site is appalling - particularly around LGB Alliance. It's clear that many of these so called editors detest the idea of a charity exclusively for homosexuals. You shouldn't be editing these pages if you can't keep your bias under control, guys. Samcowie (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are so many editors determined to stick to this controversial position and ignore primary sources? It does nothing to improve the reputation of Wikipedia as a balanced source if so many entries display a genderist bias? mcleaver (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors of bias on this matter. I am not aware that this is controversial other than to Void. I have repeatedly asked why anyone should care and nobody has explained. I am not seeing any need for an editor bias to be considered when deciding between listing two or five. We have sources of all flavours supporting a variety of numbers, and it seems to come down to (previously) one editor alone who thinks there is some vital difference between "founded", "set up" and "founding member" that none of our sources care about. I can only repeat, if you want to split the group of five into two founders and three founding members then you need a source that does that. Otherwise, I repeat that we should follow our sources utter disinterest in the matter. There are far more important things to care about. I have also earlier suggested a compromise of "set up" which is a synonym and WP:NOR permits (and indeed encourages) such. -- Colin°^Talk 16:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

That compromise is inappropriate, non-specific, contradicts how the charity describe themselves and sets the stage for ever more tangentially related names to be added. The better compromise is to name only the two founders exactly as specified on the charity's about page, and include the other three in the body as "notable other members". I have yet to see any reason provided for even bothering to assess evidence beyond the charity's own "about" page, other than WP:IDONTLIKETHEM. There are many examples of doing exactly this on wikipedia.

I have shown earlier in this thread how the sources of "all flavours" for Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott have either been corrected and no longer support this claim, are opinion (and hostile opinion at that), or are Pink News. Pink News are tagged as a source that should be handled with caution, and as has been pointed out by others in this thread has an editorial voice that is hostile to LGB Alliance, and I think are at the very least suspicious for now repeating the same five names as "founder" in the same order as this page, something for which there is no earlier precedent than this article.

In terms of utter disinterest - the fact that some sources have been updated demonstrates this is false, and the organisation itself is clearly interested in it, else it would not have so repeatedly and specifically named only two individuals as founders. I wonder why so much interest in ignoring this? If there has been imprecise reporting, it is not realistic to expect every single source to be corrected. Likewise, the sourcing on this is cherry-picked, looking only at positive sources, and ignoring every source where those three are not given the title "founder". The existence of clear statements from the charity itself as to who the two founders are should be enough - there does not need to be evidence repudiating prior misreporting.

And this is important because as I've pointed out, we have no single source for all five being given the title "founder" prior to their appearance together in this article. We have numerous sources from the charity itself that specifically name only two as founders, to the exclusion of anyone else being given that particular title, we have months of synthesis on this page working to ignore this and pull in additional names into this article - while disregarding that some of those sources have been changed and no longer support this view - and now we have new sources that have started to repeat those five verbatim. You may not think this is looking WP:CIRCULAR but I think it is suggestive.

The charity's "about" page should be the beginning and the end of this in terms of sourcing, as it is elsewhere. Combing the media cherry-picking mentions of other "founders" to call this into question without good reason is inappropriate WP:OR. If those other three want to contest the charity's claims about who the founders are, then there should be a secondary source specifically quoting them bringing the matter into dispute - but the only actual dispute appears to be on this page. It is confusing to me that this is claimed to be minor, or a matter of disinterest, when so much effort is expended on ignoring and disputing the one most obvious source of this information. Why so much interest in looking elsewhere? Void if removed (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding to this more about why it matters.

Malcolm Clark responding to that Pink News article which names him as a "founder" on Twitter, two days after it was published, said "I’m not a founder" and "Two lesbians founded the organisation months before it was incorporated. They organised the launch event. It’s a lesbian led organisation."

Stating that anyone other than Kate Harris and Bev Jackson are the founders undermines the timeline of the organisation's founding, ie that those two are the founders by virtue of putting in the months of work leading up to the organisation's launch - something explicitly respected by Malcolm Clark there, and something that editors here are ignoring.

All of this is laid out in detail in their witness statements for further verification, but there still hasn't been a good reason offered not to simply take what is on the "about" page as-is. It is the best source used in other circumstances, and going beyond it is resulting in conflicting information between this page and the organisation itself, for no clear reason. Void if removed (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no horse in this race and just came by the article by chance, but here's my take: If there are some sources saying A is true (and B is false), and other sources saying A and B are true, we should either use the lowest common denominator ("A is true"), or we should reflect both versions in the article ("A is true, B might be true by some sources or false by others").--Kraligor (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, though I would stress the fact that some disputed sources have been corrected makes me question the reliability of the ones that remain - they're probably just understandable mistakes in the confusion of a new, tiny organisation setting up. Additionally LGB Alliance have recently published a lengthy history of the founding of their organisation again making abundantly clear that the two founders are Kate Harris and Bev Jackson, irrespective of the subsequent involvement of others. https://lgballiance.org.uk/lgb-alliance-who-what-why-when/ Void if removed (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really work like that, and we don't have reliable sources saying "B is false". What we have really is that different people have different definitions in their minds of what it means to be a founder or to found something. Some people use a broad definition, and some a narrow one. And there's a strange logical error going on along the lines of "Glasgow and Edinburgh are Scottish cities" and "Dundee is a Scottish city" and these two sentences do not contradict nor is the first sentence claiming that Dundee is not a Scottish city. Void, seriously, you are flogging a dead horse here, and I don't really know why, because it is all entirely of no consequence other than to one or two people's egos. -- Colin°^Talk 19:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of "Glasgow and Edinburgh are Scottish Cities". It is more like: Douglas Adams wrote the Salmon Of Doubt, but Stephen Fry wrote the introduction. Then, because one source says that the book is "by" Douglas Adams and Stephen Fry, the wiki article on the book is updated to list both as co-authors, and no amount of pointing at the book cover or the publisher's website can ever overturn it.

By your reasoning, this would be wholly valid because "people can have different definitions in their minds of what author means". Even if everyone involved in the creation and publishing of the book disagrees with that. I have to wonder how could anyone ever undo the change? Especially if it was dismissed as trivial.

In this specific instance I can think of many reasons beyond "ego" why it matters. But how about simply: because their website says one thing, and this article says something different, and no good reason has been offered as to why that should be. Void if removed (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Tufton Street

Editors trying to add references to Tufton street, please seek consensus on talk first. At the moment there is a developing story with scant sourcing about LGBA having an office at Tufton Street. This is not "headquarters". Their address is given at companies house and the register of charities. Void if removed (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This Pink News coverage merely adds to the pile of evidence that Pink News is not a reliable source when it comes to LGB Alliance. https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/12/19/lgb-alliance-address-55-tufton-street/

The article quotes a random Twitter user, who cites Wikipedia, for the claim the building is "only occupied by right-wing orgs".

This is a) circular and b) not true, since - for example - https://feedingbritain.org/ are based there, who were set up in 2015 by former Labour MP Frank Field, and whose president is Justin Welby. Void if removed (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Your original objection to the material had nothing to do with the content quoted and seemed much more like an excuse than a solid reason to remove it. You originally reverted the information with the summary This is not NPOV - other organisations share this address. Article's source for "only occupied by right-wing orgs" quote goes to random Twitter user, citing wikipedia. See talk.

Pink News does not actually claim that "only" right-wing orgs occupy it, it states the office is shared with some of the UK’s most extreme right-wing conservative groups. It then lists examples, none of which are false. Quoting someone else saying "only occupied by right-wing orgs" does not mean the source itself is saying that. Their claim that "some" right wing orgs occupy the building is not circular or dependent on that tweet and it seems disingenuous to conflate the contents of the article with a single quoted tweet.

WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

An article by an independent source noted that LGBA share an office with extremely right-wing organizations, noted that people criticized them for that, and noted what the LGBA said in their defense. The information added to the article was if anything slanted in LGBA's favor, since it didn't mention they received criticism, just that they denied having ties. Like it or not, a reliable independent source described some simple facts, which were then incorporated into the article. Removing those details seems a lot more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than something based in WP policy. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record, so far 3 editors have supported the inclusion of that material, and only you have opposed it. If you want to remove it again, please seek consensus on talk first. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I oppose mentioning this in the lead. This is a recent controversy covered by one reliable source. It should be in the body but not the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

No problems with it either, my only objection is to not mentioning it at all. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that this material should not be in the lead. So why is it in the lead? Is someone going to move it? Sweet6970 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'd only put this in the lead because I was writing it as a plain statement of fact about where they have an office, rather than casting it as a revelation that had been reported in a specific month of 2022. It got rewritten to be a chronological revelation again without being moved. --Belbury (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I should point out that the address with Companies House is not actually Kemp House any more; they moved their registered address a hundred yards down the road to 124 City Road (Fergusson House). Fergusson House is a five-story building hosting about 8,000 companies, so it's pretty clearly a virtual office for people who need an address in central London for whatever reason (see also: how half a million companies are all legally headquartered in a quarter-acre of office space in Delaware).

This begs the question: if the LGB Alliance are registered at Fergusson House — which is clearly not their actual office space — why is Ofcom sending mail to them at Tufton Street? It's completely possible they're just availing themselves of convenient physical office space, but as that person quoted in the PN piece said, "it's Tufton Street, not a bloody WeWork".

That said, we're verging into OR a little here. But the point remains that the most recent source of the LGB Alliance's physical location is Ofcom (which is, admittedly, a primary government source, but so is CH), then that's probably the "more correct" address. Sceptre (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. It is not for us to get into OR but clearly it does merit inclusion. I see no need for it to go in the intro at this stage. Maybe this is a thread of investigation that will yield more material as it is pulled on but this is not the venue for the pulling. We can just watch what comes out and cover it accordingly.

So, where should it go? We have a great big section called "views" but no corresponding section covering their actual operations/activities. I propose that we add a section, maybe called "operations", which would cover where they operate from and what they actually do. Yeah, I know that's a big ask, as they don't currently do much except lobby but it could cover their locations, their conferences and their lobbying activities. If they ever "get around" to doing anything charitable then at least we will have a place to cover that if/when it happens. DanielRigal (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

How about putting it at the end of the History section? Sweet6970 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that the material about Tufton St has been moved to the end of the History section, which I agree with. But the wording is incorrect, and is not supported by the source. All the source says is that LGBA has office space at 55 Tufton St. The wording in our article is That same month, it was reported that LGB Alliance shares office space at 55 Tufton Street with several right-wing groups promoting climate change denial and anti-immigration politics, including……… etc. This implies that LGBA is actually sharing offices with the other groups, whereas all the PinkNews article supports is that they have office space in the same building as the other groups. So I am amending the wording accordingly, to …LGB Alliance has office space at 55 Tufton Street, a building also occupied by several right wing groups…. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The article quotes a random Twitter user, who cites Wikipedia, for the claim the building is "only occupied by right-wing orgs". Void, can you please stop this, where you claim without any foundation, that our sources only get their information from unreliable sources themselves, and that it all comes back to Wikipedia. Nowhere else works like Wikipedia, where citations are given as "evidence". Normally, people don't cite source for their information at all, and when people do give links, like that Twitter user did wrt Tufton street, it isn't "here's the sole evidence for my claim" but "Ha ha look this address is so notorious for being the home of extreme right wing groups, it even has its own Wikipedia page". Anyone in the UK with modest knowledge of UK politics is well aware of 55 Tufton St, and certainly doesn't rely Twitter or Wikipedia to know this. The article cited the twitter users for added flavour, demonstrating the opinion on the internet, and not for the facts of the article. They also cited Twitter when supplying the "explanation" that LGB Alliance offered for their address. Our sources are allowed to do that.

Further, the comment "Seek consensus on talk page before changing the lede" is not policy. This is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, and editors do not need to seek consensus before changing the lead in an article. They do need consensus if additional text is challenged, but that's quite a separate thing from being unable to boldly edit a lead. Wrt the little edit war here, editors may benefit from reading Wikipedia:Bring me a rock. -- Colin°^Talk 21:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Void if removed is 100% correct that Pink News cites random Twitter users in their reporting of this issue. Read the several paragraphs in that article, beginning from "Twitter users, however, have criticised the idea that the office space is simply convenient..." Of course, there's the overall issue of doxing that the Pink News article represents, but that's an issue for another page. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's doxing by Pink News, insofar as a PDF of the letter is freely and openly available on Ofcom's website, as are a number of other correspondences between the two organisations. The individual who Pink News cited also appears to be a journalist who has previously written for Vice, Huffington Post, and Metro among others. Not really seeing an issue there. So I'm not really seeing any issue with the reliability here of the Pink News reporting for our requirements. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that the Twitter users Pink News cites in the above linked article are "a journalist who has previously written for Vice, Huffington Post, and Metro". Because all I see are [2] and [3], neither of whom mention any of those things in their bio. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The very first link in Pink News' article is to Lee Hurley, who both screenshotted the letter and provided a link to it on Ofcom's website.

Unless of course we're talking across each other about two separate things in the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably. I was referring to the section of the article beginning "Twitter users, however, have criticised the idea that the office space is simply convenient..." In any case, I've asked the question on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Clarification_on_the_publication_of_business_addresses. We should hopefully have clarification on the overall issue soon. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Homeostasis07, Void is 100% wrong that Pink News gets its information from random Twitter users who in turn get their information from Wikipedia. Which is what they claimed. That a newspaper article in 2022 mentions the opinions of people who expressed those opinions on Twitter is so unremarkable as to make me wonder what century you guys are living in. -- Colin°^Talk 08:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

My problem mentioned at the top of this category about the random twitter user/wikipedia issue in this article was a note of caution really. I don't actually think it has bearing on the mention of the address - what I was pointing out is that PinkNews are not above publishing false/hyperbolic information from random twitter users for - as you put it - "added flavour", who in turn in this case happened to substantiate that opinion using Wikipedia. Pink News chose to give weight to false information for "added flavour", and this is just yet another reason why PinkNews should be treated with a more caution as a source.

On more substantive matters though, the Pink News article states "In a statement on Twitter, the LGB Alliance said:"

This is simply false, LGB Alliance made no such statement on Twitter. They made this statement by email - the actual link is here.

Pink News OTOH do in fact cite a random twitter user, who has screenshotted this email and shared it.

So in that regard, they do at least appear to have got their information from random Twitter users, and I suggest that the actual linked statement would be a better source than Pink News' reference to a random Twitter user's screenshot of it. So which is better here? A primary source, or a secondary source that gives false information about its provenance? Void if removed (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem separating the journalistic writing in the Pink News article, which states their address and the association with various organisations that it lists and describes, with the additional inclusion of twitter comments. Just ignore the twitter comments if they bother you that much (though for the record, nothing they said was "false/hyperbolic"). That you keep bringing them up is some weird attempt to discredit Pink News as a reliable source and yet again a weird attempt to claim our sources are ultimately getting their information from Wikipedia. Stop this now. -- Colin°^Talk 11:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

To clear up - I added this section because, at the time, there was a breaking story just before xmas with very poor sourcing, and I wanted to discuss how to approach it. Editors were adding information based on documents released under FOI on Ofcom's website, and claiming a released letter addressed there meant that 55 Tufton Street was the one and only "headquarters" of LGB Alliance. Time has passed, and there are better sources and at least some of the claims have been watered down/balanced with a response. I think the fact that there was/is a controversy about the address is inescapable and needs a mention. I am agnostic as to whether 55 Tufton Street should be listed as an address in the about box - but since it is still not their address with Companies House or the Charities register, or on their own website, at least it now isn't in the lede and isn't claimed to be their only address, or their "headquarters". Coming back to the mention in the body though, I am not sure what purpose is served by listing five specific organisations, two of which are defunct, to illustrate why the address is controversial? This list is not straightforwardly derived from a single source but appears to be editorial selection combining two sources (and I note that both OpenDemocracy and PinkNews erroneously list orgs at that address who are not). Why those five? Why mention the defunct BrexitCentral and Leave Means Leave as if they are current residents? Why list any? I think it is enough to say, eg "an address controversial for hosting an influential network of right-wing libertarian lobby groups and think tanks, specifically relating to Brexit and climate science denial.". Given that the next sentence is a denial of any connection to any of them, I don't think preceding that with five specific, arbitrarily chosen organisations is NPOV - it comes across as over-egging. Also, I wonder if their actual statement is a better source than Pink News' third hand reporting of it. Void if removed (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Void your second comment in this section cites the Pink News article that was written on 19th December. Despite your repeated attempts to discredit this article by claiming its information is based on twitter which is based on Wikipedia, you have failed to demonstrate it is an unreliable source. The Letter from Offcom is not an ideal source but the way Wikipedia works is that editors in good faith attempt to find better ones, which you did yourself and then attempted to discredit what you found. Void, you are seriously wasting everyone's time. Stop it. -- Colin°^Talk 11:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Since Brexit Central and Leave Means Leave are defunct, it does not make sense to list them in the way that is done in our article, because the wording in our article implies that they are still in occupation of the building. So the list including Migration Watch…etc. should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And yet strangely www.leavemeansleave.eu and brexitcentral.com are live websites, albeit seemingly untouched for years. Perhaps they are maintaining existence in case Starmer takes us back into the EU or customs union. They were listed by the source. -- Colin°^Talk 13:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Aside from being defunct, BrexitCentral were based in Millbank Tower. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/28/brexit-not-a-done-deal-battle-to-stay-in-eu-second-referendum Something half a dozen other sources and business directories confirm.

OpenDemocracy also wrongly says the IEA are there (when they are at North Lord Street), as well as the Centre for Policy Studies (when they are at 57 Tufton Street).

So of the 8 orgs that OpenDemocracy and PinkNews between them list as being currently based there, only 4 are actually are. Void if removed (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OpenDemocracy says it "acts as a base" for those organizations, which is vague and perhaps sloppy. However, if you look at The Independent's article[4], the association isn't pulled out of thin air. At the risk of synthesizing, I think "55 Tufton" is acting as a metanym for "Tufton street," which is a metanym for the conservative lobbying groups in or near 55 Tufton — Such as 57 Tufton, and 2 North Lord Street (90 meters away, or "around the corner" in the Independent's words). It's like "k street" or "wall street".

In a podcast, the director general of the IEA “We aren’t based at 55 Tufton Street, which I think has now become a concept rather than an address.”[5] Again, "base"/"based" are both vague. Calling it a "concept" is also vague, and intentionally dismissive in this case, but supports the idea of a metanym. They're clearly not headquartered out of that exact address, but the Independent's story alone is enough to say there's a close, verifiable, and notable association between the IEA and 55 Tufton. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is obvious that these websites are not active (one of them shows Philip Hammond as Chancellor – I can’t remember how many chancellors ago that was). Please do not raise trivial points, Colin.

I have come to the conclusion that all this material about Tufton St should be deleted as trivia.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think deleting all of the content relating to Tufton Street is unreasonable, but looking at what we currently have it could be paired back. It looks like there's three bits of core information we need to convey on this:

1. The LGB Alliance has an office at 55 Tufton Street
2. 55 Tufton Street is a controversial building, due to its tenants
3. The LGB Alliance has denied links to the other tenants, and that the building was "available at the right time".

Accordingly, I would propose trimming the existing sentence to: That same month, it was reported that LGB Alliance had office space at 55 Tufton Street, a building also occupied by several controversial right-wing groups promoting climate change denial and anti-immigration politics.[existing citation 48]. LGB Alliance denied having links to the groups, stating "the office was chosen because it's handy, flexible, and that it became available at the right time".[existing citation 49] This shorter sentence still conveys the same core information, without the trivia on who exactly the other tenants are. If readers are interested in the other tenants, then they can read the main article for that building. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, that works for me. Void if removed (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree too. We don't want to overcover it, or make more if it than there is, but there is absolutely no good reason to remove it entirely. DanielRigal (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Now trimmed based on the rough consensus here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

All of which is, frankly, a debate for another page. Especially when it loses nothing to simply note that the address is controversial in as I have suggested, and link the article that explains all that in much greater detail. Why there even need to be any examples here is unclear. Void if removed (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Problem with Categories again

So this page has been added to the category "Tufton Street" - which is part of the category "Brexit" which is in category "British Nationalism". LGB Alliance has nothing to do with Brexit or British Nationalism. I'm taking the category off because that hierarchy makes no sense and carries wider implications beyond the text.

Void if removed (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds more like a hierarchy error with the categorisation of Category:Tufton Street being part of Category:Brexit. Other articles in that category, such as Global Vision (UK) and Global Warming Policy Foundation, do not mention Brexit either. Belbury (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree and you aren't being complete about what the Category:Tufton Street category is part of, which is also Category:Organisations based in the City of Westminster and that's exactly appropriate for this. Please add the category back. Categories can be "part of" all sorts of categories, and the linking isn't a science and the world doens't fit into heirarchies, so they have their limitations. If you have a problem with one of Tufton Stree's parent's categories, that's a matter to address on the category talk page. I would suggest that the Brexit parent is wrong. -- Colin°^Talk 12:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You might suggest that, but you'd miss what the Tufton Street category actually represents, which is shorthand for the nexus of right-wing, libertarian, climate denial and pro-Brexit thinktanks associated with 55 and 57. Either the category name is a misnomer, or the hierarchy is, and either way, the categorisation is confusing and shouldn't be added to any new pages until it is sorted out, because it implies more than the name suggests. As it stands, adding LGB Alliance to this category is categorical axe-grinding. The existence of a "Tufton Street" category is faintly ridiculous and a maintenance nightmare if it is to be neutral and comprehensive. The National Churches Trust is at 7 Tufton Street. Should it be in that category? Clearly not if it is a "Brexit" subcategory. But it is in Category:Organisations based in the City of Westminster and that is fine, neutral, and a reasonable granularity. Void if removed (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

From the Tufton Street wiki page: "today it hosts a number of right-leaning lobby groups and thinktanks. As a result, the street name is most often used as a metonym for these groups." This categorisation is not a neutral reference to location - this is applying a value judgement to the politics of a charity. Void if removed (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I have removed "Brexit" from the parent category of Tufton Street, and restored that as a category. Void, you are edit warring and your rationale for avoiding the actual location of the organisation will be viewed dimly indeed. If you have a problem with the actual fact that they have setup offices in the same location as organisations that are frequently viewed with suspicion or hostility, then I suggest you attend an LGB Alliance meeting and ask them to move their office. Do not edit war. -- Colin°^Talk 11:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The point is that as it was (with the Brexit hierarchy), the category was not a neutral street address, but - as the Tufton Street article implied - a metonym for a specific *kind* of organisation on that street.

Without that hierarchy, the category becomes so fine-grained as to be a bit silly to maintain. Pure street address categorisation is pointless. Either it should be clearly labelled and treated as the metonym, or it should be deleted. Void if removed (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

There are lots of Category:Streets in the City of Westminster. LGB Alliance's choice of office location is their problem to deal with, not Wikipedias. -- Colin°^Talk 14:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I note that a recent edit to a different charity notes that it is not Wikipedia's style to give exact addresses rather than general municipality locations, so perhaps there are some double standards being applied. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

In and of itself, it doesn't matter what other article pages do. Please see WP:OTHERCONTENT on this. Arguments about consistency of approach need to be made at a higher level (policy, manual of style, project etc.). The specific address here is relevant substantively. OsFish (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to keep on topic there's a separate section above for discussions about the handling of the address. This section is intended specifically for the category "Tufton Street", whose history, hierarchy (Brexit) and usage indicated its was not straightforwardly a geographic marker, and whether it was itself correctly named and applicable. Void if removed (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussions on how the Tufton Street category is organised are off-topic for this talk page, and should take place elsewhere. I think Wikipedia talk:Categorization is the correct venue for such discussions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Same sex marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. So, that is a yes?

A. Yes."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Negative coverage of trivia

- Negative/neutral/positive coverage of just existing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name of the organisation

Newimpartial: How is it Wikipedia policy to refer to the organisation by the wrong name? And what do you mean by saying that the [correct] name has been ‘forced’ into the article? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand the claim that "the LGB Alliance" is incorrect. Unless this is an Engvar issue, it is standard English to use the uncapitalized defined article to refer to organizations generally, and not "wrong" to do so. This is what this article's sources almost invariably do, and I can't find any actual RS that don't do so, setting quotations aside. Wikipedia policy calls for us to name topics the way sources name them, and that is "the LGB Alliance" - not "The LGB Alliance", and not "LGB Alliance". Newimpartial (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

So we actually have guidance on the use of definite articles like "The" in article titles. While this isn't an article title issue, because the article title doesn't contain a definite article, some of the guidance reasoning seems applicable here. I find the argument presented under Names of groups, sports, teams and companies convincing here. Gramatically to me it makes more sense to write a sentence as One month after the publication of the open letter, it was announced that a new group called the LGB Alliance had been launched. than One month after the publication of the open letter, it was announced that a new group called LGB Alliance had been launched. as the use of a definitive "The" before the title makes the sentence flow more naturally to me in British English than the avoidance of it.

A interesting comparison is with The Who or The Coca-Cola Company. While officially the band is called Who, and the company is Coca-Cola Company, sources overwhelmingly use The Who or The Coca-Cola Company. When looking at the the first use of the name in this article, we say "The LGB Alliance" and not "The LGB Alliance". We have a similar situation here where most sources that I'm aware of would phrase a sentence like in a press release the LGB Alliance said "..." and not in a press release LGB Alliance said "...". Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

LGB Alliance is the name of the company registered at Companies House and with the Charity Commission. I just did a search on the Guardian’s website, and all the results refer to it without the ‘the’. e.g. [6] Looking at the references listed in the article, they all seem to name it without ‘the’. What Wikipedia policy is breached by giving it the correct name, as used in RSs? And I have not had an answer to my query about what Newimpartial means by ‘forced’ into the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Guardian article that you refer to contains the text Most of the letter was devoted to Owatemi’s criticism of the LGB Alliance, which is entirely typical of the sources and is the kind of formulation I'm supporting in our article text. I am only seeing "LGB Alliance" (without "the") in headlines, which is clearly an artifact of headline writing (and which appears in the titles, but not the text, of other sources). Have you mistaken this headline convention as being relevant to our article text? Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure on all articles from The Guardian? Because I've found the following quotations from several non-opinion articles over the last two years:

• 12 February 2020 Transgender activists have also criticised the LGB Alliance as transphobic.
• 3 October 2021 Several Conservative figures have called on the party to reverse its decision to offer a place at conference to the LGB Alliance and Some members said they felt concerned about the impact of the LGB Alliance’s presence on trans people attending conference.
• 13 October 2021 Most of the letter was devoted to Owatemi’s criticism of the LGB Alliance, saying that the group
• 3 November 2021 Stock has been criticised for being a trustee of the LGB Alliance
• 12 November 2021 Citing the 2010 Equality Act, the staff called on Davie to stop offering a platform to the LGB Alliance organisation
• 19 June 2022 In the one corner is Bailey, a lesbian and founder of the LGB Alliance and It reflects the fact that for the LGB Alliance and its allies
• 20 June 2022 In 2019 Bailey co-founded the LGB Alliance group
• 9 September 2022 Mermaids, which supports transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse children and their families, launched an appeal last year against the Charity Commission’s grant of charitable status to the LGB Alliance. and The legal discussion will set the LGB Alliance’s position that there are only two sexes and that gender is a social construct against Mermaids’ position that transgender people’s gender identity should be affirmed.
• 22 September 2022 Football has also been urged to do more by the LGB Alliance’s Kate Barker

Do we really want to do a full survey, of every reliable source that has ever published an article on the organisation? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This is misleading - the most substantive one from the last 6 months - the Amelia Gentleman piece - flatly contradicts your claim. In 20 mentions in that article, only 2 are prefixed "the". The balance in recent, reliable sources goes against use of "the", and we should favour recent sources when it comes to developing terminology. Void if removed (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The World Health Organization article may be a relevant example. I also note that a google search for '"the lgb alliance" site:https://lgballiance.org.uk/' finds examples of them using that about themselves. I also searched the guardian '"the lgb alliance" site:https://www.theguardian.com' and found loads of examples of them using "the", so I don't know why you claim they never do. Nobody is saying that when writing "the World Health Organisation ..." we are claiming that their name is "The World Health Organisation" like is is for "The Beatles".

I note that on matters like this, our sources and the organisations own writings can be a guide, but they do not compel us to write the same way. We have our own house style on many things, see WP:OUROWNWORDS. If we aren't sure what to write, then asking at MOS might help. -- Colin°^Talk 20:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

to Newimpartial:The Guardian article has LGB Alliance activists and supporters… and LGB Alliance was formed two years ago… And this more recent article [7]refers to it as ‘LGB Alliance’ throughout. I’d like to know why you think it is so important to refer to the organisation by the wrong name.

I wasn’t intending to waste people’s time in having a long discussion about this fairly minor point. But I’m still wondering what policy you were referring to, and why you spoke of the change as being ‘forced’ into the article.

Sweet6970 (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In the article you initially linked, why do you suppose that LGB Alliance was formed two years ago is correct and Owatemi’s criticism of the LGB Alliance, incorrect? (LGB Alliance activists and supporters says nothing either way, since the group's name is used adjectivally.) Why do you prefer the usage in that one September 2022 article to that of other articles the Guardian published the same month that refer to "the LGB Alliance"? And why do you think that name is wrong - a question you still haven't answered. That's like saying "the WHO" is wrong and we should always simply use "WHO" on enwiki. Newimpartial (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, why do you claim we "refer to the organisation by the wrong name" when we do exactly the same at World Health Organisation. -- Colin°^Talk 21:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Because, as I have said, the registered name is ‘LGB Alliance’. Policy? ‘Forced’? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

'Forced' was my reference to edit-warring without explicit consensus or policy support. The policy basis for how Wikipedia treats the proper names of organisations has already been provided to you, with examples. Why should we treat the Alliance any differently? Newimpartial (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the registered name for "World Health Organisation" doesn't have "the" in front of it, yet our article consistently puts it there. I seen now Void has reverted though not said why or contributed to this discussion, which doesn't seem helpful. Sweet6970, you said that The Guardian always avoids "the" but that has been shown to be false. This is the point where you admit you were wrong.

This isn't the sort of thing we shouldn't be edit warring over or saying untrue things over. It is a minor detail and I'm not at all sure what the objection is. It isn't like sticking "the" in front of an organisation makes it a hate group, WHO being an example. -- Colin°^Talk 22:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That isn't the actual name of the org and while secondary sources are mixed, many more recent ones are favouring without the "the", eg. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/07/lgb-alliance-provides-public-benefit-court-hears-in-case-brought-by-trans-group

Do we really have to count the usages of "the" in secondary sources going back 3 years? Void if removed (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

You have not addressed the policy basis provided. We do not need the official name to include "the" to use the definite article in our text - this is a matter of enwiki style. That a minority of RS have occasionally omitted the article is not really supportive of your crusade. Also, I wonder whether your assertion that the Alliance prefers not to include the article is an original supposition, or have you heard it from the principals? Newimpartial (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I have never said anything about what LGB Alliance prefers. I have said repeatedly that their registered name is ‘LGB Alliance’. This is the registered name at Companies House – this means that it is the legal name of the company. And, as I have said before, it is also the name under which the organisation is registered with the Charity Commission. I have heard nothing from the principals on this or any other matter. It sounds like you are accusing me of COI. I think you need to re-read WP:NPA. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, my comment was addressed to VIR. Please check the threading. Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In terms of style, there isn't a consistent one. There's no basis for explicitly adding the definite article when it is unneeded, and plenty of precedent for either approach.

For example the page for Open Society Foundations is inconsistent, as are sources. Some of the text uses OSF, in other parts the OSF. It is clear the org themselves favour without the "the", and I would say that having the "the" is no big deal, but taking it out is preferable.

Going through and explicitly adding it back in though doesn't make sense to me. Void if removed (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, most editors appear to disagree with you. In absence of consensus in favor of your preferred style (of which it is clear to you that the org themselves favour - I know not how), I suggest that you not resume your "corrections". Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It is quite easy to know how. The primary source of their website is consistent on this point, despite the representations made in this thread. Eg. https://lgballiance.org.uk/about/ has 11 non-titular mentions, all of which omit "the". I don't think it takes more evidence than that to establish the org's preference. That eg. one outlier exists on a random news story from months previously is hardly a weighty counter-example. For another primary source, in the original Charity Commission decision, of 54 mentions of "LGB Alliance", only two are prefixed "the".

Then taking into account the secondary sources I have already provided two quite recent ones that follow this convention, one from the past week. Amelia Gentleman's coverage of the Tribunal in the Guardian in September and November favoured this form, eg here (20 mentions, only two prefixed "the"), here (16 mentions, none prefixed "the") and here (10 mentions, none prefixed "the").

So it is clear they prefer it, and it is clear at least some secondary sources respect that, especially more recent ones delivering more serious coverage.

What you are arguing for is not that the actual weight of sources agree with you, but that your preference should win out, and cherry-picking only the sources that agree with you in support.

There is no policy for explicitly disregarding an org's preferred naming convention. Void if removed (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any policy support for Wikipedia following an org's preferred naming convention concerning the use of the definite article? Your argument that we should do does indeed ignore the actual weight of the sources while relying on cherry-picking only the sources that agree with you in support (notably recent WP:SPS, to which you apply an original interpretation rather than allowing RS to make these determinations for us.

The fact that you have identified one Guardian reporter who is now not using "the" is still cherry-picking on your part, unless you are arguing (1) that this reporter has correctly identified the Alliance's preference and (2) that we should follow the Alliance's style preference against enwiki style norms, for some reason. I would like to see evidence not originating in your own opinion foe both of those claims. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no policy for explicitly disregarding an org's preferred naming convention Actually there is; WP:COMMONNAME and the previously linked WP:NCTHE. If the balance of reliable sources use a specific formulation, even if the article subject does not, then we generally follow what the sources use. This is why, for example, our article about the Coca-Cola Company is titled The Coca-Cola Company, despite the organisation's official name being Coca-Cola Company, as the most commonly used name for that company is The Coca-Cola Company.

I would also point out that for articles like the Ramones, the World Health Organization, the National Health Service (England), and countless others, we use a definitive the in general prose because it makes grammatical sense. When reliable sources write about these subjects they will almost always write sentences like "making the Ramones one of the greatest bands of all time", "today the World Health Organization released a statement", or "the NHS is under tremendous pressure due to".

There are a few exceptions and oddities like FIFA, where if a source uses FIFA they will not use a definitive article, but if they are using the formal name of Fédération internationale de football association they generally will. Or in the case of the Northern Ireland Assembly, they will use a definitive the when using the formal name, but not when using the more colloquial Stormont (unless they're using Stormont Assembly or Stormont Government). Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: WP:COMMONNAME is about titles of articles, and not about how the subject is referred to in the text of the article. So it does not apply in this instance. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That is an overly simplistic reading of COMMONNAME, as it applies in principle to both the article title and its prose. Outside of redirects where an article has been moved/renamed, the first few words of an article's lead will generally restate the article title, and that name will also appear many times within the body of the article. The arguments behind COMMONNAME will apply to those uses. This also applies to the arguments behind NCTHE.

And to expand upon the examples given in my last reply; for the Ramones, outside of the references and notes the text the Ramones appears in the article 78 times, for the World Health Organization the text the World Health Organization and its acronym the WHO appears in the article 120 times, and for the National Health Service (England) the text the National Health Service and its acronym the NHS appears in the article 107 times. This is despite all of those examples not containing the definitive article in their official name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles. That is simple. Not ‘simplistic’. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so if COMMONNAME only ever applies to article titles, and nothing more than article titles, then which policy, guideline, or information page details how we refer to article subject in article lead and body text? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

There probably isn't one. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

So then in absence of specific guidance, would it be fair to say then that this is up to editorial discretion and handled at a local consensus level? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'd still argue to simply follow the clear preference of the org itself in its own published materials when that is backed up by the recent evidence of reliable sources following that style. I don't see what harm it does. For another example, the similarly named LGBT Foundation. The wiki article has mixed usage, but overwhelmingly omits the "the". Void if removed (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I can’t find a policy referred to in this discussion which says anything about how we should refer to a limited company. (I don’t know what the registered name is for the company which produces Coca Cola, and the section which mentions this is obscure.)

Colin – what statement is it that I have made which you wish me to admit was wrong?

Newimpartial has reverted 2 editors (me + another) on this change. They should not be suggesting that other editors are edit-warring.

Sweet6970 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)  

You mean because you dont think tag-teaming is edit warring? I'd like to hear the policy basis for that.

So far, I'm seeing rough consensus on Talk in favor of the version before the edit-warring started. Newimpartial (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If you are saying that if 2 editors agree on a point, and you disagree, that the 2 who agree are tag-teaming, then this is a misinterpretation of how Wikipedia works. I am not on a crusade, and you should not be covertly accusing me of edit warring. See WP:TAGTEAM and, of course WP:NPA .Sweet6970 (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I am saying that two editors who alternate reverts on one side of a dispute about the text, in the absence of consensus for their BOLD changes on Talk, can be tag-teaming. You were participating in a revert war whether you saw it that way, or not. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Excerpts from WP:TAGTEAM :It is always better to comment on content rather than on contributors, so calling someone a member of a "tag team" should be avoided as it is uncivil.; It is often difficult to tell the difference between tag teaming and consensus-based editing. Consequently, some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team". ; Tag teaming that clearly falls under the narrow definition in this essay generally violates other guidelines and policies such as disruption or canvassing (which are guidelines). A group of editors acting in unison does NOT in itself constitute tag teaming. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to chip in on one side, it seems very obvious to me that "the LGB Alliance" is normal style as per Newimpartial's and Colin's evidence and reasoning. While it's not a universal rule (we don't say "the UNESCO" or "the FIFA"), it's a very common pattern, and one which you can find used on none other than the LGB Alliance's own website in addition to lots of RS. Adding "the" carries no connotation whatsoever, so no bias issues.OsFish (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Claiming that this is how they refer to themselves on their own site is highly misleading.

The site search alluded to by Colin, above, returns multiple hits, but almost all are adjectival uses like "the LGB Alliance management team" or "the LGB Alliance Conference". Some are quotes from third parties, eg the hostile witness statement of John Nicolson. I may be missing something but from a quick look at the top results I only saw one actual genuine usage like this, in a news article about James Esses, and it was immediately contradicted by three further uses without the "the" in the same paragraph. This is in contrast to dozens of contrary examples.

This is not compelling evidence.

And usage in sources is mixed, eg. here from this week without the "the" : https://archive.is/f0bNb

From a quick scan, it seems like recent news sources which feature a quote from a representative usually to drop the "the", while opinion pieces and critical sources which don't feature comment from the organisation have a greater tendency to use the "the" (eg. https://www.mcgilltribune.com/opinion/platforming-hate-is-not-a-debate-01162023/). Void if removed (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You haven't produced even a modicum of policy support for your personal preference (or possibly the preference of the Alliance's principals) on this matter. I suggest you give it a rest. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why people get so heated about the presence or absence of "The", but Ohio State University, er, The Ohio State University, makes a big deal of it, leading to lots of talk page debate there. Although old habits are hard to break, it seems the world has managed to get the "The" taken off Ukraine in common speech. The band The The (not to be confused with the band The Band... Who? No, The Who was on first) can't lose that word without becoming a null string. But has LGB Alliance actually expressed a preference one way or the other on this? *Dan T.* (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I cleaned this up about 10 days ago, here. There was mixed usage, and even some references to "the Alliance" as shorthand, which is confusing and not at all justified. This latest reversion is by the user who originally (briefly) reverted that claiming that this was "Undue deference" and that RS do not support this. That is simply untrue. Primary sources are near-unanimous, and most recent HQ secondary sources favour this style, and we should favour recent sources. Also "undue deference" implies recognition that this is, indeed, their preferred term of address. Void if removed (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You didn't "clean this up" - you have edit-warred to impose a preference that you imply (or assert) is that of the organisation, based on primary sources and apparently the usage of one, single reporter. You haven't offered a policy-compliant reason to ignore the BALANCE of RS coverage and the norms of the English language and enwiki style. Newimpartial (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I also linked a Telegraph article from 8 days ago. Void if removed (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, your position is that the norms of the English language and the balance of external source usage outweigh the self-identification of the entity being discussed. I'll make note of this for future disputes. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You are aware that, in spite of the fictions enacted in certain jurisdictions, Wikipedia treats individual human "entities" and organizational "entities" according to different policies and principed, yes? I do the same, and hope not to see you construct arguments in the future based on a false equivalency between these two kinds of "entities". Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

So. We're on the talk page of an article about a rather controversial organization; just LGBT issues are somewhat controversial in themselves, transgender issues are probably even more controversial, and this organization was specifically founded to differ from the "more mainstream" LGBT organization, on transgender issues. So one might think it only reasonable that there would be a long and heated discussion on the article talk page. Even one that's tens of paragraphs long, and comparable in length to the whole article itself, would not be out of the question. But that the discussion would be focusing entirely on whether or not to capitalize or include the word "The" in front of their name? Wow. Of all the things that could be found to argue about about this organization, this is really the most important one? Folks, I've got to say, this is in danger of being added to WP:LAME. --GRuban (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@GRuban: Welcome to GENSEX, where a difference of opinion is often characterised as misconduct. There’s a more substantive dispute in the section above, on Same sex marriage. You may think that commenting on that matter would be more constructive than what’s going on in this section. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

For me, it is an example of how even trivial improvements to this article are near impossible. The "views" section is mostly trumped up social media drama, but attempts to remove the worst parts have been repeatedly overruled. If you want a real rabbithole, read the discussion on "founders" above. Void if removed (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Excising the word the before LGB Alliance is not an improvement to the article. Leaving aside the arguments on whether or not the organisation prefers use without the word the, which we clearly cannot reach an agreement on, this is one of the organisations where omitting the word the does not make grammatical sense in British English.

Additionally we are not saying that the name of the organisation is The LGB Alliance. The only instances for where the word the is capitalised is where it appears at the start of a sentence, again because that follows the syntax rules surrounding use of capitalisation in the English language. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

See my comment below, despite the representations made in this thread, by my count recent sources (last 6 months) favour omitting the "the" by a factor of 4:1. So we should do what those sources do. Void if removed (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The count offered below includes adjectical constructions as though they supported your view, when actually they simply reflect a feature of English syntax. Your calculations are therefore unusable in their present form. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, GRuban, this isn't actually a discussion of the name of the organisation (in spite of the framing Void and Sweet have attempted). The dispute concerns whether standard syntax of English language - concerning use of definite article - applies to the organisation or not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is whether we should follow balance of recent sources (both primary and secondary) in referring to them with or without the definite article, or whether we should go with your personal preference to not do so.

Here's a selection of references to LGB Alliance in the last 6 months. It is not comprehensive, but it is representative, spanning supportive, critical and neutral coverage.

From these, I count (though I may have missed some, so feel free to check) 139 non-headline references to LGB Alliance, and of those there are 30 that use the "the", with many of those being direct quotes from third parties. Some sources do both, but in most cases even when they did mix and match, the "the" was in the minority.

That means that in the last 6 months there is almost 80% in favour of omitting the "the". If you throw in headlines and exclude direct quotes, that percentage becomes higher in favour of omitting the "the". There may be some variance with a different sample there but in recent months it isn't even close to 50/50, let alone a majority in favour of "the".

And for this sort of thing we absolutely should favour recent sources per WP:RSAGE since more recent coverage is more likely to reflect current terminology, while older ones are more likely to be inaccurate.

The sources along with my eyeballed count of non-quote body mentions with / without the.

https://www.fundraisingregulator.org.uk/more-from-us/resources/lgb-alliance-september-2022 0/1

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/15/lgb-alliance-co-founder-breaks-down-in-court-when-asked-to-define-lesbian 0/12

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/tribunal-hears-charity-appeal-to-remove-lgb-alliance-from-register.html 1/21

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/lgb-alliance-removed-as-approved-charity-on-twitch-after-complaint.html 0/8

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/mermaids-appeals-charity-commission-lgb-alliance-status/ 4/2

https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charities-await-landmark-ruling-lgb-alliance-tribunal-ends/governance/article/1804546 1/0

https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/09/14/lgb-alliance-transphobia-charity-history/ 4/17

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/14/lie-of-gender-identity-spurred-founding-of-lgb-alliance-court-told 0/9

https://www.vwv.co.uk/news-and-events/blog/charity-law-brief/lgb-alliance-charity-registration-challenge 1/9

https://www.thenational.scot/news/21164776.watchdog-rules-lgb-alliance-promoted-misleading-information/ 4/6

https://archive.is/Ui7WE 1/11

https://diva-magazine.com/2022/09/15/mermaids-lgb-alliance-legal-battle/ 2/1

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/jk-rowling-was-right-lgb-28006236 0/3

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11406993/Mermaids-bid-strip-gay-rights-group-charitable-status-homophobic-tribunal-hears.html 6/6

https://www.gscene.com/news/mermaids-appeals-against-lgb-alliances-charity-status/ 2/1

https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/surrey-pcc-denies-shes-transphobic-25578910 3/1

https://archive.is/f0bNb 0/1

https://archive.is/Vx1iF 1/1 Void if removed (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, if we're really doing this, over the next few hours I will prepare a table for containing links to every article published between 1 January 2022 and today, covering the main reliable sources from the UK; The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, iNews, BBC News, Pink News, OpenDemocracy, Civil Society and any others I can think of. The table will have counts of how many times each article uses the LGB Alliance, or LGB Alliance, links to each article so that other people can verify the counts, publication dates for each article, and notes where a source uses the name in a way that is unclear (eg as part of a list of several other organisations). I will limit this to factual reporting only, excluding opinion articles and letters to the editor. I will only count usage of the two terms in the article text and image captions, and not in headlines, titles, or embedded social media links (ie Twitter quotations).

This seems like an absolute waste of time over something that is a standard grammatical rule in British English, but there seems no other way to handle this impasse. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Which I just did a fair sampling of, for the last 6 months, but of course your 1st of January cutoff will have the effect of omitting extensive coverage of the tribunal in September and November, which was the last time LGB Alliance were in the news in any serious way, and the event that generated the most coverage across a variety of HQ sources.

Will we then have to redo this when the judgment comes in? Void if removed (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

1 January 2022, not 1 January 2023. The coverage of the tribunal was in September/November 2022, so it will be included in this collection. This will contain every article published in the last 12 months and 3 weeks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry! I forgot what year it was, my mistake...

I genuinely think a random sampling is enough (actually I think all of this is total overkill but hey), and that going through every possible source going back a year is needless. I also think that if it turns up a substantially different result than a 6 month window (ie, it reverses from 80/20 in favour to 80/20 against in 6 months), then that will be reflective of a direction of change, and when the tribunal result comes in (which will no doubt generate similar levels of mainstream coverage to last September and November) we'll be here again. Void if removed (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to address your inclusion of irrelevant adjectival constructions in your counts, or just ignore the issue? It seems fairly fundamental IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I've done simple word counts The Telegraph, Times, Guardian, Independent, BBC News, and PinkNews. So far the only pattern is that it seems to be authorial choice, with a minority of authors like Amelia Gentleman preferring LGB Alliance, and most others preferring the LGB Alliance.

If you really want the table, you'll have to wait for a while as there's 149 separate articles across those publications in it. That number will increase if/when I add iNews, OpenDemocracy, Civil Society, and anyone else that springs to mind. Given the sheer number of articles, I'm really not going to do a full analysis of adjective uses versus noun uses for filtering at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, Sideswipe9th, there is no point in doing any counts unless you can exclude the adjectival uses, since they will generally produce misleading outcomes ("LGB Alliance representatives" is a construction that won't reflect the same editorial decision as "the LGB Alliance"/"LGB Alliance"). Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I did say "at this time". That filtering would be required before a definitive answer could be determined, but if we're actually going to do it (and that's a big if), given the sheer number of articles involved I would post the list first, so that everyone here could share that cognitive load. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI when I omitted the adjectival uses, there were so few (4 I think in my sample) it was the difference between 78% and 78%, so not a margin of error worth losing sleep over for a rough count like this. Void if removed (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I challenge the accuracy of this statement - I found more than four adjectival uses in the single source that I checked. Newimpartial (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Void, you appear to be counting adjectival uses of the org's name (e.g., LGB Alliance members) as though they were in support of your preferred construction, rather than simply following the conventions of English syntax. I assume that you are doing this out of laziness, rather than duplicity, but it does invalidate your "counts". Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop everyone. Just stop. Sideswipe9th, go find something better to do with your weekend. Void, stop this right now. -- Colin°^Talk 19:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is any call for calling me lazy or duplicitous, or following me to other articles and reverting my edits there. This is a contentious article, can editors please remain civil. Void if removed (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If you have an explanation for why you included adjectival uses of the org's name, besides not being bothered to fix the known issue, I would be happy to hear it. And if this discussion is going to inspire you to visit other articles and make similarly dubious syntactical edits, you can't reasonably expect other ediors not to notice or react... Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

to Newimpartial: per WP:NPA Comment on content not on the contributor. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

As I requested above, we should close this section, especially now it has descended into insults. The origin of this dispute is an edit and post (above) that has misunderstood having a lowercase "the" before the name as "Wikipedia getting the organisation's name wrong". That misunderstanding seems to have become compounded in another mistaken belief that the basic grammar of sentences (the, and, a, of, in, that, etc) is somehow dictated by our sources and compels us to write likewise. Hence the descent into google searches and lists of newspaper and other potential sources.

Firstly, it is easy to discover, if one goes to examine even a handful of other organisation articles, that sticking "the" in front of an organisation's name in body text is very common and does not imply "The" is part of their name or formal title. Examples include World Health Organisation, BBC and Eiffel Tower. Indeed a lower case "the" very much implies that it is not part of their formal name. Quite why we do this for what I'll call "descriptive titles" (the previous examples), and not for what I'll call "identity titles" ("Stonewall, Mermaids) isn't entirely clear, but does seem to be a grammatical convention. But the one thing about English grammar is that it doesn't stand up to rational analysis; it can only be observed. We have the Labour Party but not the Plaid Cymru. Nobody sticks "the" in front of that, even though the Welsh literally translates as Party of Wales, and we'd write "the Party of Wales" if it had an English name, just as we write the Scottish National Party. For us English speakers, I guess Plaid Cymru looks as opaque as a given name. That some writers don't (or sometimes don't) stick "the" in front of LGB Alliance is not clear, but could be either to do with pronunciation (that initial 'ell') or the opacity of "LGB".

But secondly, what matters, after we realise that nobody is claiming "the" is part of their name, is that such concerns about sentence components are entirely up to us, just as it is up to me whether to write a really long sentence like this one. Or to write short stubby sentences. Like that one. And that one. By all means look at how other people are writing it, as that is how we all learned how to write, and that can be very influential. But we don't need this kind of mistaken bickering, where instead of admitting that these choices are stylistic preference or an obscure grammatical convention, folk have claimed that there is a policy/guideline algorithm that absolutely compels us to write a certain way. That kind of fighting, over imaginary invented rules, is very unhelpful. And we'll end up with posts like GRuban's where people wonder if we've all lost our minds and are incapable of concentrating on important things. -- Colin°^Talk 10:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Plaid Cymru...literally translates as Party of Wales - no, the literal translation is the Party of Wales, because Wales is definite. 😁👍  The Tewdar  10:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar interesting. Other party examples are Sinn Féin and Reform UK, neither of which tend to get a "the" prefixed. The latter came from "Brexit Party" which we do tend to write as "the Brexit Party", and from "UK Independence Party (aka UKIP)" which we write as "the UK Independence Party" but don't ever write "the UKIP", because we say "UKIP" like it's a word. The latter example is probably a good one to demonstrate that this is a stylistic convention with multiple influences such as whether it is (or appears to be) descriptive and whether it is (or appears to be) an opaque name. If one thought there was an algorithm, we'd have to write "the UKIP" but it just sounds all wrong (and "the BBC" sounds absolutely fine). -- Colin°^Talk 11:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Celtic grammar, such as genitive constructions, are a bit strange if you're used to English...I've heard older folks say "the Plaid Cymru" actually.  Tewdar  11:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, people say "PIN number", so ... Colin°^Talk 11:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"PCA analysis"...  Tewdar  11:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

RAS syndrome. Ha! -- Colin°^Talk 11:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• I remember a Senator once asked me "when we talk about CIA why we never use the word 'the' in front of it." And I asked him, "do you put the word 'the' in front of God?" - The Good Shepherd  Tewdar  11:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't quite understand that claim. Do some people not stick "the" in front of "CIA"? And while we might not write "the God" we do write "The Lord God Almighty" or "The Lord is My Shephard". I guess all this shows how inconsistent we can be and it is foolish to get angry about such trivia. -- Colin°^Talk 12:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Erm... it's basically a joke from a film, about how powerful the CIA are...  Tewdar  13:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I get that it's a joke, I just don't get the initial question. Surely the setup has to make sense? -- Colin°^Talk 13:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  The joke is that, internally, the CIA refer to themselves as 'CIA' without the definite article, unlike the rest of us. Go watch the film! 😁  Tewdar  14:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ah. I missed the emphasis on "we". So what you are saying is that a couple of editors here have subtly outed themselves as members of the LGB Alliance. Or as members of the CIA, who are pretending to be members of LGB Alliance. :-) -- Colin°^Talk 14:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  That is exactly what I'm saying here, Colin. 😂  Tewdar  15:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on the sequence of events, I tidied up (IMO) references which used the "the" on January 12th because they were an inconsistent minority and because recent coverage was increasingly using the style of dropping the "the".

This was immediately reverted with a claim that it was unduly deferential. That revert was immediately undone and stayed like that for a week.

It was then reverted again on January 20th and not only re-added the "the" but introduced more than a dozen new instances in the process, claiming this was better reflective of the balance of reliable sources. I believe I have shown this to be at the very least debatable, and it was this reversion and the reasons for it which triggered this discussion.

I agree this isn't about getting the org's name wrong per se - but your counterexamples are not persuasive, since there is actually no hard and fast rule for this. There are many adjective+noun type of organisations where naming points in the other direction (I've listed Open Society Foundations and LGBT Foundation in this thread). Obviously since there are examples of both, providing more and more of any of them doesn't help with the question of whether it is right to address this organisation in that way. Is "the WHO" or "LGBT Foundation" a better guide? You cannot say.

So ultimately whether we should favour/avoid "the" when addressing this specific organisation comes down to how they refer to themselves (ie, they actually have a favoured style at all), and whether RS generally support that.

But if the majority aren't going to be persuaded by either of those things, there's not much point arguing about it. Void if removed (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

In almost any other topic area, such "problems" would be almost self-resolving. This section is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.  Tewdar  15:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. This somehow manages to be simultaneously utterly trivial and yet deeply important, but that's Bikeshedding for you. Void if removed (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Those two examples are unconvincing. There are plenty examples of people and Wikipedia sticking "the" in front of their name -- LGBT Foundation's alt-text for their logo says "logo of the LGBT Foundation", which is literally the first thing on the page. And joking aside Tewdar may be onto something when it comes to self-referral. Maybe some organisations and their web sites make an effort to drop the "the" as a way of emphasising their name and avoiding people thinking "The" (note the case) is part of their name. -- Colin°^Talk 16:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd much rather see people here arguing about the proper use of the word "the" than the more usual battles that happen on this page; the former is a good old-fashioned nerd argument, harkening back to the old-time academic Internet, while the latter is a Culture War Clash carrying overtones of it being Literally Genocide if people get it wrong. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Somehow, though, even this dorky discussion is rather unpleasant...  Tewdar  15:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Mmmmm. Begun the Grammar War has. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yoda word-order is rather like Kernowek, actually, but a bit more consistent...  Tewdar  15:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

How about this: team Newimpartial is heads (use 'the'), team Sweet6970 is tails (don't use 'the'), I'll go to https://flipsimu.com/ and flip a virtual coin, and everyone abides by what I tell you the result is. Deal?  Tewdar  16:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar, please don't encourage any more. Grammar is somewhat important ... you wouldn't go the the UKIP article and expect editors there to be happy with a 50/50 chance that Wikipedia is going to call them "the UKIP" from now on. But the way it has been approached here is all wrong. Better to have started with questions. Should we refer to LGB Alliance this way or that way? And for editors to admit their opinions about what sounds best are just their opinions, and not some kind of authority or algorithmic decision tree that the other side is too stupid or too obstinate to accept. It really is time to just put this one to bed. -- Colin°^Talk 16:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I quite fancy an RfC, myself. 😐  Tewdar  19:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Tewdar, there are people here you don't realise you are joking. -- Colin°^Talk 22:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hearing transcripts available for Mermaids v Charity Commission and LGB Alliance

Hi all

There is a full list of hearing transcripts for the case listed on the Mermaids website here

• https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance-hearing-transcripts/

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

While I'm certain it will make for interesting reading, I'm not sure there's a lot we can do with the transcripts for now. They are inherently primary sources, and identifying relevant quotations is I think very much into the realm of original research. And while they might be useful for verifying quotations in secondary sourcing, taking quotations from individual tribunal days and made by the parties involved was already discussed back at the start of December.

As I said in the December discussion, we're best off waiting for the tribunal judgement to be released, and including commentary at that time from legal scholars and pundits as to the impact of the ruling, and any advance notification of intent to appeal if that is an option. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Could we use the raw transcripts to perform a frequency analysis of 'LGB Alliance' vs 'the LGB Alliance', perhaps?  Tewdar  18:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th maybe we could start a 'further reading' section and have them in there? John Cummings (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It's also in the LGB Alliance site. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure not the transcripts are suitable external links. They are a bit too much at the "raw data" level, with all sorts of tedious chat about microphones and not having heard what someone just said. Let's leave that for the journalists and writers to digest and focus on what they will say when the judgement comes. There's bound to be some analysis on what this means for other charities and religious groups as well as for the future of this group. -- Colin°^Talk 15:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

So one example of this is the OpenDemocracy reporting, which doesn't seem to tally with the transcripts. They are the source of the following quote from Paul Roberts in the "Media and criticism" section: "they exist to oppose free, safe and empowered trans lives", which I cannot find in the transcripts. In fact, unless I'm missing something, I can't find any of the quotes attributed to him in that article in the September 12th transcript. Void if removed (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The "they exist" and "sows distrust" quotations appear in this press release from when the appeal against the charity's status was announced. As we only have access to the transcripts, and not the evidence bundles the tribunal has which are referred to in the transcripts, I think it's a reasonable assumption that pre-tribunal press releases from both parties would have been entered as evidence. The "denigrating the rights of transgender people" quotation is from paragraph 47 of Robert's witness statement. The "It has done nothing" quotation is on paragraph 46 of the witness statement. The "rooted in misinformation", "dangerous and predatory" and "some of the most marginalised" quotations are on paragraph 16. The "our rights are intrinsically linked" quotation may be a misquotation of paragraph 47, which instead uses "inextricably linked". Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Sideswipe. We need to remember that only the Court Service can record the proceedings, and any journalist is going to be relying on shorthand and scribbled notes, and no doubt lean heavily on handouts and printed material. And the transcript makes it clear that not everything gets heard (or indeed perhaps was meant to be heard). -- Colin°^Talk 10:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

So what that means is that while Eileen Gallagher, Kate Harris, Bev Jackson and John Nicolson are all quoted from the tribunal - and I can find all of their quotes or similar in the transcripts - all of Paul Roberts' quotes (which are presented in a similar way alongside them) aren't actually from the hearings, but are a mix of pre-prepared witness statements and a press release from before the tribunal. That really isn't the impression given in the article at all. Void if removed (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I read the first two transcripts yesterday. I get the impression that the bulk of the material that the judges will have to examine was already delivered in printed form at the start. The court sessions only examine "a percentage" of the issues, and which issues they present does not in any way diminish the importance or mark as "settled" those that weren't examined in court. So it is entirely possible the case may turn on something that was not talked about in court.

I found the first examination excruciating. What a strange way of trying to discover "the truth". One person has complete control of the "conversation": they get to ask all the questions and the other person is totally unable to ask questions or steer things in another direction. There's no opportunity to go "Hold on a sec. I see where you are going with this. There's a huge gaping hole in your line of argument and further more, would you stop being so offensively stereotypic." I guess that is a matter for the judges to spot. And then there's the embarrassment of of a non-medical person questioning another non-medical person about medical matters. Anyway, I just thought it in total contrast the the very open approach we have on Wikipedia where, for good and for a lot of bad, anyone with an opinion and a thought can chip in and make a point or ask a question. -- Colin°^Talk 09:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Edits by TheTranarchist to Conversion Therapy section 3 February 2023

@TheTranarchist: Your edits are not supported by the sources. You should self-revert.Sweet6970 (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Which part is false/unsupported exactly? You should probably read the sources again. Just be glad the sources say they oppose bans on trans conversion therapy instead of putting two and two together and saying they support trans conversion therapy. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You should also revert that last change to "gender identity" because what was there was fine, what's there now mixes in history (distracting from the views), the irrelevant opinions of Mermaids, and an unsourced reference to "gender ideology". Void if removed (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What was there before was an overly long winding quote from one person followed by another quote from her about how she thinks lesbians can't have penises. What is there currently are sourced statements expressing their views on gender identity directly. A clear improvement. The fact she used the thought-terminating cliche "gender ideology" is indeed sourced, you can check, that's what the references are for. Generally, people say things in places at times, not in a timeless locationless ether. Claiming that noting when the statement was made makes it history instead of a view is an argument I'm not going to even pretend to understand. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist

"Gender ideology" does not appear in the source, Mermaids' opinion is irrelevant, and a selection of "quotes" with dates and places when they were said is not the clearest way of presenting an organisation's views. It doesn't come across as encyclopaedic. There are plenty of quotes peppered throughout this article, but I think that here should strive for a more general phrasing with sources to substantiate it. Something that tells you their actual view without getting bogged down too much in quotes. Void if removed (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The term in the sourced quote from Kate is "transgender ideology", so I have piped the link accordingly. I don't see any merit to your other preferences, which smell like some combination of SYNTH and WHITEWASHING. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The quote in context ("this peculiar transgender ideology") is not a synonym for what is discussed on the page "gender ideology" which you have inappropriately linked to. This is like linking an inline quote about being a "social democrat" to the page on the US Democratic Party. The whole section is lacking in encyclopaedic tone with an over-reliance on selected quotes. Having a neutral section straightforwardly explaining what the views of the org actually are without this dependence on selective quotation does not preclude having the extensive section of criticism chock full of quotes later in the article, as there is right now. Void if removed (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources say that transgender ideology is used as a synonym for gender ideology. Why do you disagree?

And as I have pointed out previously, we are not supposed to privilege the organisation's rather topiary account of what its views are against what independent, reliable sources say its views are. And so far, your proposed "straightforward" paraphrases have had a selective emphasis that borders on WHITEWASHING. Newimpartial (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Please direct me to the part/s of the source/s which you are relying on, and explain how it supports your edits.

Also, you should explain why you have made other changes to the wording of this section.

And also explain why you did not come to this Talk page to justify your edits, instead of reverting.

And there is no ‘Canadian chapter’.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Sweet, Canada's national broadcaster - probably our most respected news organization - refers to a Canadian chapter. Where is your sourcing to suggest that their reporting is in error?

Also, your explain how it supports your edits...you should explain...And also explain reads to me as SEALION and/or STONEWALLING behaviour. Do you have any specific objections to this sourced content, apart from your skepticism with the CBC's reference to a Canadian chapter? I have quoted passages from two RS below, and genuinely cannot see anything in the new text that is not generously supported by the sources. Newimpartial (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

One reliable source has noted that:

LGB Alliance is widely regarded as an anti-trans hate group because it only recognizes sex as a binary, invalidating the identities of transgender and non-binary people. The LGB Alliance has also lobbied to exclude transgender people from legislation that would shield them from conversion therapy in the U.K.

Another RS pointed out, concerning Canada's law adding conversion therapy to the criminal code, that

A Canadian chapter of the LGB Alliance lobbied against Bill C-4, which put an end to conversion therapy, demanding it remove the term "gender identity" from the offence.

This seems fairly straightforward. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Since the source thinks there is a ‘Canadian chapter’, it is ignorant and therefore unreliable on this matter. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You didn't provide a source suggesting the contrary. Also, would you dismiss a BBC report if it made a similar statment about a "UK chapter"? Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

But you know, you haven't even produced any evidence of an error, much less that the source is ignorant and therefore unreliable. And I doubt very much that you are better apprised of LGB Alliance activities in Canada than is the CBC, so I'm disinclined to accept an argument from your personal authority. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

And the first excerpt does not mention Canadian legislation. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

So what? The CBC is the source for the Alliance's opposition to C-4 in the article text. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Regardless this belongs - at best - under "international", if anywhere at all. Void if removed (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to combine references to all LGB Alliance opposition to bans on trans conversion therapy regardless of jurisdiction into one consolidated treatment? Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the article is about the UK organisation. Tiny, barely notable international offshoots get their own section - we dealt with all this when the GPAHE report was discussed. I think the same applies to whatever's going on in Canada. Void if removed (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that the coverage of LGB Alliance activities outside the UK has expanded, and that the purposes and views of the Alliance appear the same in all jurisdictions, I don't agree with the treatment you propose. Perhaps it is time for an RfC on the structure of the article? I don't see consensus on it, even in prior discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It is definitely due in the article, not sure why you'd think otherwise. You are welcome to your opinion that a section on their views on conversion therapy shouldn't mention one of their chapters opposing a ban on conversion therapy, but I don't think many will support that view since that's the most logical place to put it. It's also not like it's a marked departure from the main branch's views. If the main branch actually opposed trans conversion therapy there'd be a valid argument there, but that's not the case. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. The only substantial issue here is whether or not to use the term "chapter". I know the CBC uses it, but that word choice isn't a hill I would die on. The most accurate term would of course be "cell" or "groupuscule", but the sources don't use those either. "Chapter" implies, without formally asserting, a degree of formal organization that the Alliance in Canada probably lacks, but FOLLOWTHESOURCES and the best possible description may be at tension in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that the source has unfortunately used the word "chapter" when we know that LGB Alliance in the UK is not some parent international organisation with regional chapters. This about page tells us they are "LGB groups" that are "separate organisations from us but with similar aims and beliefs". The fact that the source used an unhelpful and misleading term does not make it "ignorant" but nor does boasting about it being a national broadcaster magically change the reality that they are not a chapter of the UK group. If we describe them at all, we can do no more than say they are an organisation with similar aims and beliefs, that is based in Canada.

I don't think we should mix what these "separate organisations" get up to or are criticised for along with the main body of the article on the UK group. If their activity warrants coverage it should be in their own sub section in the international groups section. -- Colin°^Talk 17:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with what you say in your first paragraph, Colin, I think you are conceding too much to the self-description offered by the LGB Alliance in the UK. The idea that LGB Alliance activists outside the UK typically represent an organisation with similar aims and beliefs but that they are otherwise independent - sharing only a name and IP in the form of slogans and online branding material - isn't sourced to anything but SPS, I don't think. This doesn't seem like a plausible description of "organisations" that are actually, by all accounts, somewhere between groupuscules and astroturf phenomena. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the second paragraph, I disagree - there is far more consonance to LGB Alliance activities in Canada or Australia to UK activities than dissonance, and I think readers will benefit from seeing LGB Alliance activites presented, well, globally, as the Alliance becomes more active outside the UK. Setting aside the GPHAE description of various national orgs as "hate groups", which only apply to those orgs, and the fact that AFAIK none of the Alliance groups outside the UK have sought charitable status, I am not aware of any reason to treat the "views" or "activities" of Alliance activists differently by country.

I do recognize that imposing any new structure on the article would be best achieved by RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If our article is in any way to suggest some kind of formal association of "LGB Alliance" organisations, whether centrally commanded or independent peer groups, then let's see the evidence for that. That they explicitly deny a link is not irrelevant. It means if you want to say there is one, we need a source. Thinking that "LGB Alliance Canada" could be a "chapter" of an organisation called "LGB Alliance", based in the UK, is likely to be a common mistake, and one that Wikipedia should not follow.

I faced similar issues at ketogenic diet with editors thinking that it would help readers to discuss both the medical diet for treating severe childhood epilepsy in the same article as discussing weight loss / life-extension / body building diets. Those were called "ketogenic diets" too. Just as the Canadian group decided to call themselves LGB Alliance too. But none of our sources discuss the epilepsy diet as well as the weight loss diet, and in fact the diets are quite different other than one adjective. If you look at all the existing text and all the existing references, they are about the epilepsy diet. We may have sources saying the epilepsy diet has to be monitored to check the child is still growing properly, and those don't apply to some 50-year-old trying to lose a bit around their waistline.

In exactly the same way, all our existing text, from lead, to sections to subsections is about the UK group. If you start mixing in what any random LGB-anti-trans group has said or done, then it changes this article entirely to be one about, I don't know, "LGB anti-trans groups" and good luck getting consensus on a descriptive title for that one. And the focus then would be what do sources say about such groups in general. By all means try to create some kind of umbrella article if you think you can get consensus for a name for it and if you think such a concept would survive an AfD.

Before launching into an RFC, I suggest you gather some expert opinion on article topic guideline and policy. @WhatamIdoing: do you have anything to offer here or could point at relevant advice or some other experienced editor. You see, I suspect that once someone explains the consequence of what you propose, you'll agree it isn't going to work. -- Colin°^Talk 17:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

But Colin, it has already been agreed previously that this article include information about non-UK groups and activites (and the scope of this article has extended beyond the UK essentially since its creation). The question is how, not whether, to include this reliably sourced material.

No I don't think that our article is in any way to suggest some kind of formal association of "LGB Alliance" organisations because I don't think that reflects reality, even though some of our sources would support that framing. But please don't construct a straw goat about mixing in what any random LGB-anti-trans group has said or done - this article is about the views and activities of groups and individuals labelled by reliable sources as LGB Alliance groups. Nobody is proposing that we shoehorn in non-LGB Alliance Twitter accounts organizations. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It was previously agreed to include information on related organisations in the section on International Organisations. The claim "this article is about views and activities of groups and individuals labelled by reliable sources as LGB Alliance groups" is not true even if one section does that. The article lead sentence says The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in the UK in 2019, in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues. Its founders were .... and the percentage of that statement that applies to the other groups is zero. Indeed, there is nothing in the lead that applies to the other groups, and (recent edit aside) nothing in the rest of the article outside of the International section that applies to the other groups. So to claim it is about them doesn't hold up to examination and certainly isn't a goat, straw or otherwise.

An example may help (fingers crossed). The article BBC is about "the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom, based at Broadcasting House in London. It is the world's oldest national broadcaster, and the largest broadcaster in the world by number of employees..." In that article we have a section on Britbox which is a paid for streaming service setup in "partnership with fellow UK Broadcasters ITV and Channel 4". The article mentions Britbox, has a section on Britbox, but the article is not about Britbox. We have a section on international groups, which explains they have "similar objectives and branding" but that is the the degree of linkage we can make.

We need to be particularly aware that the word "alliance" means "a union or association formed for mutual benefit, especially between countries or organizations" so the risk of people thinking it is a parent group is very high.

If the other organisations were each significantly notable, then we'd like have several articles on them individually and some kind of category or see also linking them. Unless there are enough reliable sources talking about such groups together and making comments about them all together, then it is very likely that an umbrella article is a non-starter. It would fail OR quite badly without that. At the moment then, a section briefly describing the related groups is a reasonable compromise. -- Colin°^Talk 18:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but my own reading of the article history is that the current lead sentence is a result primarily of POV-pushing by a minority of (activist?) editors to limit the scope of the article, rather than anything supported by most of those who have edited the article over time. I understand that, for some time now, the article lead section reads as though the article were about the UK group only, and the international section contains "Britbox"-like appendages, but I don't see either formal or informal consensus to back up that scope and/or structure. I certainly believe that a new structure could be decided through a fairly simple RfC.

I would also point out that many sources, like the CBC source cited above, discuss LGB Alliance activities in more than one country. They may not make comments about them all together, but when enough sources address UK+Canada, and UK+Ireland, and UK+Australia, that seems to me to be enough justification to treat common topics in common while treating distinct topics - like the Alliance's founding and the dispute over charity status - separately. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

For record:

• Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 6 discusses the opening sentence, and all the options refer to the UK organisation singular.
• Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 8#Are the international versions notable enough to include in the lead paragraph? concluded "no".
• Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 10#Founded in Britain, now international? discusses the intention of the International section, and notes that some of these international groups might be little more than a twitter account.
• Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 12#Inclusion of GPAHE evaluations asked if allegations about two of the international groups should appear in the lead, and the consensus was no, with a point being made that the article wasn't about them.

The lead sentence has been singularly about the UK group since it survived AfD and was overhauled by many editors including yourself. The state of the article when it got sent to AfD is probably best forgotten and certainly not relevant.

I don't think it helps to blame "(activist? editors") for the lead sentence, the lead paragraphs, and all the rest of the body (excluding the international section) for being 100% not about the international groups. The title of this article is the name of the UK group, and the article is about that group. I think we should accept that and move on. -- Colin°^Talk 18:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

But the name of the UK group is also used by other national groups, and they claim to be affiliated. For example, LGB Alliance Canada describes itself as a chapter of lgballiance.org.uk and LGB Alliance USA refers to itself and other international LGB Alliance groups as chapters. In fact, if anyone within the UK mother ship has denied these international affiliations, I certainly haven't seen them do so - this non-affiliation appears to be something editors have said simply to win arguments at this Talk page, without any relevant evidence. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I find your reading of the archived discussions to be highly implausible.

• the first bulleted discussion did not discuss either the scope of the lead or the scope of the article.
• how you can assert that the second bulleted discussion concluded no, I have no idea - it looks to me like a textbook instance of no consensus.
• I don't see any consensus in the third bulleted discussion to restrict the article to the UK group.
• You appear to have misread the fourth discussion, in which I asked whether the GPHAE evaluations should be mentioned in the article and the consensus was yes, but not in the lead.

On the last bullet, in particular, I am at a loss to explain why your paraphrase, that I asked if allegations about two of the international groups should appear in the lead, and the consensus was no, is so different from what actually happened according to a calm reading of the discussion. (Also, as far as I can tell, you were the only one in that discussion making the point that the article wasn't about the international affiliates, so I wouldn't consider that to be especially relevant to the state of article-level consensus.) Newimpartial (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I'm not going to argue with you about what I said, or care if you find any of it implausible. Been there, done that, achieved nothing. So, if I ignore some of what you've written, that doesn't imply you've "addressed" anything or that I concede anything.

It is interesting that the front page of the document submitted to the Canadian gov called itself a "Canadian chapter of lgballiance.org.uk" but other than that, and the document filename, I can't find more. That could well be where the broadcaster got that term from. But just like you dismiss LGB Alliance's own denial of any formal link, I can't say I'm much impressed by a wannabe claiming to be their love child in the front page of a single PDF.

The tweet you link says "LGB Alliance USA does not have state chapters; our sole affiliation with organizations using the LGB Alliance name is with the founding organization in the UK, @ALLIANCELGB, and any chapters explicitly listed on our website." I don't know what that tweet was in response to, but perhaps the preceding tweet used the word "chapter". It doesn't explicitly say they call themselves a chapter of LGB Alliance UK. I searched for chapter and chapters at https://lgbausa.org/ and https://www.lgballiance.ca and found nothing with google.

To create an article on Wikipedia you need some agreement on what to call your topic and sources that call it that. Plus some idea of the scope of the topic. There are lots of anti-trans groups. Not all the groups linked to by lgballiance's About page call themselves an "LGB Alliance". So what is it? "Organisations inspired by LGB Alliance"? "LGB anti-trans groups?" something else? You can't call it "LGB Alliance" as that's the name of one UK organisation and our sources do not use that name (singular) to describe these groups. You say there are "many sources" but I think probably there are just sources that mention these other-country group individually alongside brief mention of the UK group. Are there many that mention the Canadian, the Irish, the Australian, the UK and other groups together. If not, you don't have an article.

I think you should try creating a draft in userspace. Look at what our sources are saying about these organisations as a group. Have they got a name for the group. Can you even define who is in the group and who isn't. Do you have enough to make an article. Until then, an RFC proposing we radically rewrite this article about one organisation into an article about lots of wannabe organisations, is premature. I mean, even the UK organisation's web site is only a dozen pages, which probably costs about as much to run as a takeaway meal. All of these groups are remarkably unremarkable, frankly, outside of the hate they generate, mostly on twitter. -- Colin°^Talk 20:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, apart from the Norwegian account that uses "2019" in its name, all the other groups/accounts linked at lgballiance.co.uk are near-enough translations of "LGB Alliance" into target languages. So I don't see any problem with an umbrella article titled LGB Alliance, particularly since I have seen many recent RS referring to the original as LGB Alliance UK. I really don't see how the different name choice by the Norwegian affiliate casts any doubt on the scope of the topic.

Nor do I see any reason why we need to find sources discussing LGB Alliance Australia with LGB Alliance Ireland, or LGB Alliance ÙSA with LGB Alliance Canada, to have a common article topic. If we have many RS defining LGB Alliance Canada or LGB Alliance Australia as being related to the UK group, then I should think that would suffice. And that certainly accords better with this article's history than your periodic (and perhaps Quixotic) insistence that only the UK group is within the article's scope. Newimpartial (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Profound disagree. The charity is noteworthy in its own right not least because of being at the centre of a controversy over whether it can even exist as a charity, the judgment for which may appear at any time. That there are international semi-affiliates that may or may not be defunct or resurface at any time is barely worthy of a footnote. Has anyone heard anything from LGBA Ireland in years *other than* the GPAHE reports? No.

Today's edit war has made this article substantially worse and it should all be reverted. Void if removed (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Google translate tells me the Icelandic one is "LGB Team". The Polish one is "LGB Coalition". The Serbian one is "Lesbian and gay solidarity network". The Spanish one is "LGB Network". The Finnish one is "LHB Union".

That the UK group is the article topic is so patently apparent and longstanding that I'm finding claims to the contrary to be at an "alternative facts" level of disruption. Please stop. We get that you wish the article to include all such groups. Please argue on that basis and we could make progress towards agreement. You will find that WP:SYNTH is an insurmountable barrier that will prevent editors from including factoids concerning other international groups intermixed with text that is focused on the UK group.

The idea of calling them all "LGB Alliance" and forcing the UK group to rename itself, is, em, interesting. Perhaps you should email the UK group and see if they are up for it. Until they invent some parent organisation and spend some of their charity money on a rename/rebrand, it's a non-starter for Wikipedia. I think you've fallen into the trap of thinking "alliance" means an alliance of organisations, and that that would make it a great name for some yet-to-exist international organisation. It does make it a great name, but it isn't reality. -- Colin°^Talk 10:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

. Perhaps you should email the UK group and see if they are up for itI'm not sure how familiar you are with the actual activity of translation, but translatng the English "alliance" with the Spanish "red", which carries connotations more like "phalanx", or the Polish that is more like "coalition", are not especially unusual moves in the act of translating brand material. But I would be happy to continue as this article has been, and only to discuss the international affifiates that are named "LGB Alliance" and where the RS describe them in relation to the UK group.

In spite of your claims, LGB Alliance activities have been included in this article most of the time it has existed, and were there even before the AfD. That is a fact, not an "alternative fact", and it cant be SYNTH to say what RS stay. To be clear, I am not proposing that Wikipedia attribute to the Alliance a SPECTRE-like hidden structure (that wouid he hilarious but against policy); I am suggesting that we discuss the international affiliate activities the way RS discuss them, and not to imply that they represent totally separate topics in a way RS don't. And I am not proposing to just do it, but to have an RfC on a new structure - your opposition to my trial balloon is noted, but given the rhetorical harpoons you are using to shoot it down (Perhaps you should email the UK group and see if they are up for it? Really?), it seems a bit overegged. Newimpartial (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the reference to LGB Alliance Canada to "international". This seems like a lot of fuss over a submission from 2020 suddenly becoming "notable" because it was mentioned in passing in coverage of the protest of Robert Wintemute in 2023, someone not actually connected to LGB Alliance Canada. Void if removed (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Please pardon my history from below, but the connection between the LGB Alliance UK speaker and the LGB Alliance Canada submission is made first by the activists on the street and then by the reliable sources. Your idea of what is actually connected is less important, IMO, than what relaible sources actually connect. Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"LGB Alliance activities have been included in this article most of the time it has existed" Well there's a rare moment of truthfulness. I suspect you tripped up on your own imagined alternate reality where "LGB Alliance" was the name of some international group, or a name one could use to describe all the groups. You did it earlier one when you wrote "I think readers will benefit from seeing LGB Alliance activites presented, well, globally, as the Alliance becomes more active outside the UK" again assuming "the Alliance" is a name we could use for all these groups. Back on planet earth in Feb 2022, these are groups that are inspired by the UK one, and certainly often have chosen similar names, have similar aims and beliefs, but the same could be said for various political parties in the word. We have a very tiny quantity of sources that mention these other groups and yes when they do mention them they may also note they were somehow related to the original UK group, but that's the limit of it.

It is a messy and misleading route to go down to start combining the activities of the UK and other groups, like the Canadian one, it the same sentence. A line like "The LGB Alliance and its Canadian chapter..." is extremely misleading for our readers. None of the offered sources mention both groups wrt conversion therapy. Two of the sources only mention the groups together because a trustee of the UK group, Wintemute, was due to give a speech in Canada, and there was a protest where students dug up as much dirt as they could find on the internet. The two Canadian articles aren't even about conversion therapy, but about a protest against this professor. That the Canadian group opposed conversion therapy is very much a by-they-way comment, in one source it is entirely within a quote of our student. The link between the UK and Canadian group in these articles is therefore due entirely to a UK professor's travel and speaking arrangements and the fact that a student spoke to some journalists and mentioned the conversion therapy factoid wrt the Canadian group. -- Colin°^Talk 18:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I meant "LGB Alliance activities outside the UK have been included in the article most of the time it has existed", and I believe you understood my meaning in spite of my brain toot. (The rare moment of truthfulness comment seems unduly hostile to me, but perhaps you are working your way yp towards a topic ban).

And in spite of what you say here, reliable sources on various national "LGB Alliance"es do refer to them simply as "LGB Alliance" at times, without the national moniker. I am not proposong that there is one, right way to write about Alliance activities, but we do need to follow the sources rather than leading them. And there is no rule requiring Wikipedia to base the scope of an article on the boundaries of a jurisdiction or a legal organization: we topically follow the sources in defining the scope of articles, and we also aggregate up to clearly notable topics from borderline notable ones about which verifiable information acumulates. What is un-wncyclipaedic and against the ethos of the projwct is to argue that "this specific topic is outside the narrow scope of one article, and can't be part of another because there isn't enough to say" - that kind of motivated reasoning just isn't the way we are supposed to scope out articles. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Nah, just commenting on the words, lots of which turn out to not be true. Anyway your reworded "LGB Alliance activities outside the UK" still isn't correct, unless we all agree that "LGB Alliance" is an adjective that applies to all the groups, or that the UK group has started activities outside the UK (which unless you count that professor's visit to Canada, doesn't seem to be the case).

Your second paragraph opens with a claim I did not make. Sigh. That individual groups might lose their national moniker occasionally in casual writing doesn't in fact magically make journalist's text one about some international coalition of LGB anti-trans groups, and doesn't allow us to develop this article as through there is one. On the LGB Alliance Canada website, the header contains the words "LGB Alliance" and then a red leaf signifying Canada. It seems both LGB Alliance Canada, and Newimpartial, want our readers to think they are as one. They aren't.

That editors have from time to time tried to shoehorn similar groups from other countries into random bits of the body or even the lead, doesn't change the fundamental that this article is about the UK organisation, and mentions those other groups really as an aside. One day, mention of those groups might become no more than a sentence listing groups inspired by the UK group, and we have separate articles on those other groups. But they haven't annoyed enough people yet to be notable enough for that. I think we're done. -- Colin°^Talk 19:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• "LGB Alliance" is an adjective that applies to all the groups - yes, this is what I am saying about the groups outside the UK; it is also what RS say about the groups and what the groups say about themselves.
• text ... about some international coalition of LGB anti-trans groups - that is not what I'm saying or implying; let's not construct any straw goats.
• editors have from time to time tried to shoehorn similar groups from other countries into random bits of the body or even the lead - that's one way to read the page history, another being that editors have tried from time to time to exclude affiliated groups of the same name arbitratily from the lead or even the body. Tomato/tomato.
• I think we're done - I can only live in hope.

Newimpartial (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Stop this, Newimpartial. The very reason that the comments about the Irish/Austrailian groups were removed from the lead were, as one editor put it "To me it reeks of biased editing." I get that this article, like most in this topic domain, is built by editors finding shit on the internet and throwing it onto the page and fighting to keep some of it. And I get that if you imagine that "LGB Alliance" is more than just the UK group that is the topic of the article, you can draw that shit from all over the world, but editors can smell it. RS are not doing what you say, in fact, they are by and large not talking about the other groups at all. The sources that were desperately added to the sentence about conversion therapy were actually about a protest against someone from the UK group visiting Canada. These other groups are essentially irrelevant, and deserve little more than passing mention in the relevant section. There's nothing "arbitrary" about the removal of these groups from the lead and the rest of the body. It is quite policy based: we don't just juxtapose random other groups into text on this group because they happened to be inspired by them. They are different people, different funding, and they have their own voice. -- Colin°^Talk 09:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The content of this article is supposed to be based on the way the topic is treated by the highest-quality relaible sources we have, not on your personal opinion about what is essentially irrelevant and what deserves removal...from the lead and the rest of the body. To give a concrete example, there was clear consensus on Talk to retain the GPHAE material about the Australian and Irish groups in the body, so I would suggest that you not follow through on any proposed expulsion of that material no matter what temperature your blood might reach in this Talk discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead says that The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in the UK in 2019. If editors are claiming that this is incorrect, and that in fact (the) LGB Alliance are an international organisation with regional 'chapters' (or subsidiaries, or franchises...) then reliable sources that explicitly state this should be added to the article and the lead should be changed.  Tewdar  10:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The source for the "international" section makes it clear these are "LGB" organisations not "LGB Alliance" organisations, and also that they are separate organisations. Void if removed (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

One also wonders if such a primary source would be deemed acceptable for an organisation's own name, or the founders of that organisation.  Tewdar  16:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

> or the founders

/eye twitches uncontrollably Void if removed (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe that myokymia may be stress-related. Perhaps staying away from articles that Newimpartial edits might alleviate the symptoms.  Tewdar  17:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

One wonders how the insertion of a claim like a number of ---- groups have been formed internationally with similar objectives and branding, 'supported' only by a primary source that links to the website of one such organisation, would be received on other, more scrupulously constructed articles?  Tewdar  11:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Colin here. With the exception of the Irish organisation, which has a large overlap with the UK organisation due to the geographical closeness of the two islands, and is largely believed to be run from London, and the shared branding across most of the non-UK organisations, the other organisations are to my knowledge separate from the UK organisation. I don't see why we would want to conflate them in this way, in the absence of reliable sourcing stating that the LGBA has ceased to be a UK only advocacy group and is now an international one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That source resolves to a completely unverified tweet in 2020 from someone claiming to have spent 35 euros to discover that the LGBA Ireland twitter account was set up from a London IP address. I don't think it is actually possible to find out the IP address of a twitter account. Void if removed (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

In spite of Colin's straw goats, I don't anyone is suggesting that the LGBA has ceased to be a UK only advocacy group and is now an international one. I for one do not find that distinction meaningful, as it concedes more organization to the Alliance than I believe it ever to have had. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist: You are edit warring and deleting longstanding material with no consensus. You've reverted the same content 3 or 4 times. Void if removed (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Scottish Gender Recognition Reform

The majority of the section on Scottish Gender Reform is given over to complaints about an advert.

This is WP:UNDUE because a) no regulatory action was taken, b) the actual reason given that the advert was "potentially" misleading was that the legislation was still under consultation and therefore the concerns raised by the advert might be addressed, and c) 2 years later the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls made the exact same warning about "predatory men" days before the passage of the bill and continued to criticise it after its passage because those concerns were never addressed.

It is impossible to balance the historical reportage so I suggest removing it as it is making a mountain out of a molehill. Void if removed (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree – a complaint to the ASA which did not even warrant a full investigation is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Frankensource or synthesis inline tagging

@Tewdar: at the risk of opening Pandora's box again over the designation of co-founders which has been discussed nearly endlessly here and in the archives, could you elaborate briefly on what your synthesis inline tagging is referring to please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would we prefer a hodge-podge Frankensource cobbled together from an unholy Octernity of passing mentions from PinkNews, The Times, CNN, Feminist Current, and Twitter that even contradict each other? And why don't we mention that the organisation itself and The Guardian disagree with our Frankenfounder text? And yes I have read the interminable discussion above and in the archives.  Tewdar  19:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Having done this to death I have no wish to be the one to reopen it, but I completely agree that the current list is a result of synthesis, and it would be far simpler to just believe what's on the website. One of the knock-on issues with having disregarded the charity's website as a source of information on these things is that everything from the founders to the date the organisation was founded are potentially inaccurate. The "history" section starts with a letter to The Times in September 2019, and thus the "about" box puts the formation date as September 2019. However, the timeline on their website puts the inception several months prior with the meeting of Kate Harris and Bev Jackson, and then the actual founding at the meeting at Conway Hall on October 22nd 2019. I understand that these were the best sources available at the time, but I think it is impossible to incorporate any of this more comprehensive narrative without acknowledging that they are the two founders. I think that the disagreement sources on this is best chalked up to the fog of confusion in reporting on a tiny new organisation. Void if removed (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Inception of an idea to make a group does not then make the actual founding members of said group not count as founders. If someone has an idea for a group and then gets someone else to help them create it, both count as founders, not only the ones with the initial starting idea. And in terms of an actual recognized organization that is registered, the founders are the original members listed during that official creation. Silverseren^C 19:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Could we not solve this problem by moving of wikivoice, with a construction like "the group credits its founding to ..." ?Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This strikes me more as a summary of the many reliable sources on the co-founder question, than a Frankenstein's monster synth of the reliable sources.

I'd also point out at the risk of agitating the Pandora's box, that while the organisation does disagree, The Guardian as recently as July 2022 stated Allison Bailey is a co-founder. There's a list of sources for each co-founder in my reply at 21:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC).

Given that we on this talk page seem fundamentally unable to agree on this despite the strong sourcing for each member, I would be happy to see this raised at WP:NORN, as synthesis is covered under the NOR policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian disagrees with itself, then. NORN sounds good, you gonna do it? I'm a bit busy right now...  Tewdar  19:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I can, I just need to think of a way to summarise this problem such that it either keeps everyone happy because it's as neutral a way to phrase it as possible, or gets everyone angry because it's as neutral a way to phrase it as possible. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Just say something like the current text has a list of founders that is derived from a range of sources that don't mention them all at once, and that this is contradicted by the organisation itself and other sources... Tewdar  19:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

And make sure to link to a long, messy Talk discussion in which I participated little, if at all. Perhaps to all such discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, the Guardian has multiple reporters on this beat who communicate quite different through-lines about the Alliance. I think it's an interesting case study, of something. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)