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.

Two grammar errors

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

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

Recent Edits

@Antitransphobe You have added the following twice now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Describing LGB Alliance as a hate group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)