Jump to content

Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24

Describing LGB Alliance as a hate group

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

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

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

Based on previous discussions here, I don't believe the preponderance of sources support the designation. Riposte97 (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Based on previous discussions here, and a wealth of well-supplied reliable sources, this is obviously not the case. This is clear POV, please stop. Void if removed (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Google news search, quick skim of the better sources that aren't self-published or opinion:
Independent, 24 October 2024: neutral quote (no designation): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/charity-commission-charities-nhs-england-lgb-alliance-society-b2634626.html
Standard, 12 October 2024 The LGB Alliance formed in 2019 to protect the rights of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals and are a registered charity.:https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/hundreds-flee-lgb-conference-protestor-dumps-crickets-b1187447.html
Telegraph, 21 July 2024 on behalf of gay, lesbian and bisexual people who disagree with Stonewall’s stance on transgender issues https://archive.is/QZC5L#selection-2795.47-2795.151
Metro 11 October 2024 Described by trans rights activists as transphobic, LGB Alliance says it supports the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people https://metro.co.uk/2024/10/11/thousands-crickets-unleashed-anti-trans-event-addressed-jk-rowling-21782166/ (WP:HEADLINE)
Express 11 October 2024 The LGB Alliance - which campaigns exclusively for the rights of homosexual and bisexual people [...] The LGB Alliance has previously found itself at odds with some proponents of trans rights, who claim the organisation is transphobic. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1960821/lgb-alliance-crickets-video
Scottish Express 11 October 2024 LGB Alliance aims to assert "the right of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men to define themselves as same-sex attracted" https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/celebrity-news/jk-rowling-sends-four-word-33872173
MyLondon 11 October 2024 n 2019 the group splintered from Stonewall, the gay-rights charity, with its declared mission of 'asserting the right of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men to define themselves as same-sex attracted'. The LGB Alliance says it believes that biological sex matters and that replacing sex with gender could lead to the dismantling of gay-rights. The group's stance on gender has drawn criticism, however, with trans-rights groups describing it as 'transphobic'. Hope not Hate, an anti-extremism group, and the Trades Union Congress have also described the LGB Alliance as as 'anti-trans'. https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-news/live-insects-released-protesters-lgb-30125935
Standard 11 October 2024 The LGB Alliance, a charity formed in recent years to support the rights of same-sex attracted people, confirmed in a statement that the crickets had been released. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/crickets-released-insects-lgb-alliance-event-london-westminster-met-police-queen-elizabeth-ii-centre-b1187419.html
Independent 12 October 2024 LGB Alliance, which was set up in 2019, promotes the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people who disagree with Stonewall’s stance on transgender issues. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lgba-conference-westminster-crickets-trans-b2628244.html
Telegraph 11 October 2024 LGB Alliance, which was set up in 2019, promotes the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people who disagree with Stonewall’s stance on transgender issues. https://archive.is/77Ktk
Pink News has taken an editorial line that LGBA are "anti-trans" since founding, so no change there, however even here "hate group" is attributed:
Pink News 3 November 2024 While the LGB Alliance denies it is transphobic, the group – which was granted charitable status in 2021 – has been repeatedly condemned as a “hate group” by numerous commentators and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, including Pride in London and Guardian columnist Owen Jones. https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/11/03/kemi-badenoch-lgbtq-rights-gay-trans/#page/4
Of 11 recent stories from a quick skim, exactly one outlet calls them "anti-trans" in its own editorial voice, and that is Pink News, who have always done so.
Not a single one refers to them as a hate group in their own voice. Two report that other people do, one of them being Pink News.
Strong statements of criticism like this can be included with attribution as they are now. Stating them in wikivoice - as you've been repeatedly told - is going to require a significant shift in neutral coverage, which there simply has not been. The evidence is overwhelmingly against this ridiculously POV change. Extraordinary claims - like a registered charity being a literal hate group - require extraordinary evidence. Void if removed (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Void. We've debated all this before. Describing LGBA as a "hate group" is taking sides in a divisive ideological battle in which there is plainly no society-wide consensus. Wikipedia is supposed to be "neutral" in such cases, as in "neutral point of view" (NPOV). -- Alarics (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed that an RFC was already done at the top of this talk page, but the problem is that a lot of these users appear to have anti-trans agenda, or at least are marked as such by the Shinigami Eyes browser addon. I'm not saying to withhold their answers, but rather that a bunch of trans-friendly users should be able to participate to counter WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Antitransphobe (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I suggest not relying on a doxxing tool to attempt to divine the political views of fellow editors, but rather to focus on content. In this case, we don't describe the LGB Alliance as a hate group because that's not how most sources describe it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Are you referring to Shinigami Eyes as a "doxxing tool?" It is nothing of the sort... pauliesnug (message / contribs) 01:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
The tool, and the original suggestion, blatantly violates WP:AGF and I would recommend dropping this. Void if removed (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the article will describe them as a hate group in 20 years time but, for now, we don't have the sources required to use such a strong label in wikivoice. I know that this is infuriating but we just have to wait for the sources to catch on. I think that the current opening which gives a factual description, rather than a label, is the best thing for now. It is a text that neither side can really object to. It's taken a long time to get to a stable wording that isn't constantly being pulled in one direction or another. Let's not open another can of worms on it. It won't help. DanielRigal (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent Edits

@Antitransphobe You have added the following twice now:

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

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

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

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

The "helpline" might, or might not, blow up into a genuine topic at some time in the future but if we lack RS sources for it at the moment then it is best to leave it out for the time being. I also don't think that it should be included under External links either as we do not know the actual nature of the "helpline" and it might, or might not, represent a safety risk to some of our readers. It is linked from their main website, which we do link to, so it is not like people can't find it if they want it, but we should not do anything to promote or to funnel people towards it. DanielRigal (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:ELMIN it probably shouldn't be in external links anyway on reflection. Void if removed (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I was actually considering starting a discussion if my changes got reverted the second time.
As for the date, I wasn't aware of the much earlier tweet announcing a helpline, as it didn't have much social media traction before.
I think that without the mention of criticism, keeping it on the page can actively help the group, as it will suggest more people to use their helpline run by volunteers with no related education or experience, rather than trained psychologists.
Overall, I think that the information would be better off taken down at all till the criticism appears from reliable sources as per WP:RS. I'll keep the information off the page until the consensus is reached. Antitransphobe (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
"volunteers with no related education or experience, rather than trained psychologists" -- do you have a source for this assertion? The LGBA website includes a page about the helpline: https://lgballiance.org.uk/our-helpline-is-open/ , which sets out its policies on the recruitment and training of volunteers: "We were able to select volunteers with decades of helpline experience between them gained at organisations such as The Samaritans, Crisis or the Lesbian and Gay Switchboard. In addition, in their professional lives, many worked in roles related to the safeguarding of children or vulnerable adults or were mental health or education professionals", etc. -- Alarics (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
It is difficult to argue it's due without any secondary coverage being presented here for evidence. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
We already have in the article a statement that LGBA received a grant for a helpline, which is sourced to PinkNews in June 2022. I think it makes sense to keep the current text saying that they have announced that they now operate a live-text chat service, because it is, in effect, a follow-up to the inf from June 2022. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I've just added criticism as pinknews has done an article about the criticism received. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I have attributed the inf to PinkNews, because this is a biased source, which does not provide any example of criticisms from any particular ‘gender-critical’ Twitter account. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I also think this is yet another strike in the "reliability" column for PN on matters pertaining to LGBA, since as anybody can easily verify, and as everyone here already accepted, the service launched in June. Void if removed (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Two grammar errors

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

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

Anti-trans assessments out of date?

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

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

Hope Not Hate and TUC

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

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

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

Thank you. 

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2025

Proposed Change: Update the first sentence to read: "The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group and registered charity founded in 2019 to advocate for the rights of lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men.'[1]"

Reason for Change: The current opening sentence is biased and misrepresents the LGB Alliance by defining it primarily in opposition to another organization. This framing reflects a perspective that aligns with critics of the group and is not a neutral description. The original text gives undue weight to controversies surrounding the LGB Alliance, instead of focusing on the group’s stated purpose, which is essential for a fair introduction. Additionally, NPOV and Undue Weight policies emphasize that articles should avoid framing that privileges one side of a contentious issue. The current wording appears to have been influenced by activists critical of the LGB Alliance, potentially erasing the context of LGB Alliance's focus on issues specific to same-sex attraction. The revised text offers a neutral and accurate summary of the organization's mission, as stated by the group itself, without editorializing or introducing bias. By focusing on the LGB Alliance’s self-described mission, this change improves neutrality and allows the body of the article to explore any criticisms or controversies in greater detail, where they can be contextualized appropriately. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:8CF7:CE04:ADDB:D27F (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_24&oldid=1295449541"