Talk:LGBT Youth Scotland

Fair use rationale for Image:LGBT Youth Scotland logo.gif
Image:LGBT Youth Scotland logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential bias in 5.2 Misleading guidance for schools
I feel like this paragraph doesn't tell the whole story and the header is potentially problematic too. I'd cite this statement that was released by the Scottish Government during a period of time when there was mixed messaging about the guidance, some of it deliberate and due to ill will from groups opposed to affirming trans young people. The guidance remains available for download on the LGBT Youth Scotland website and still has the Scottish Government logo present on it. Do you have any thoughts about how to approach this edit, Donna? LGBTYS2020 (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the LGBT Youth Scotland section? If so what would you like to see changed? Please provide reliable sources to support the change or addition of new content. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 13:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes that's right, Donna. I'd like to see the word "misleading" removed from the subheading as there is some debate as to whether the Schools Guidance is misleading. I believe this is an example of bias from the original writer of this paragraph. Secondly, the paragraph does not tell the full story, as the Scottish Government later stated that they are not opposed to the use of the Guidance in schools, cited here. I think this statement must be included or referenced in the section in order to tell the full story. LGBTYS2020 (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence for this: "This claim would include children as young as four years old, and allegedly breaches parents' human rights to be kept informed of their child's development.[14][15] The citations 14 and 15 do not provide evidence. AddyK1981 (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Remember not to edit the article if you have a conflict of interest. Your suggested edits have been ✅ in the article. Most of it was WP:COATRACK content anyway and was partially removed by another editor earlier. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 14:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Organisation and Funding section: Irrelevant and duplicated information
I suggest that the text: "James Rennie (also known as Jamie) was appointed its first chief executive in 2003, having worked with the organisation since 1997. Rennie was jailed for life for child abuse in 2009, resigning from LGBT Youth Scotland upon his arrest in 2008.[4][5] He was replaced by Fergus McMillan who served in the position for eleven years.[6][7]" is extraneous information that has been purposefully added in this section in order to quickly draw the reader's attention to crimes committed in 2009. The crimes are already mentioned in the Controversies section of this page. In most other Wikipedia pages about national charities, it is only the current Chief Executive who is mentioned in this section, if at all. I suggest the aforementioned text is removed. LGBTYS2020 (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅: The tenure of Rennie is notable enough to be mentioned in the article, however WP:COATRACK concerns has led me to remove his criminal charges per your request. Remember this article is ultimately about LGBT Youth Scotland not anyone member of its organization. For example if a directer of this organization was convicted of, say, tax evasion, it would go on their Wikipedia article (if they had one) – not the organization's. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 14:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While the inclusion of CEO Rennie's paedophile network might not warrant inclusion in two different sections, it is obviously completely inappropriate to remove all mention of the scandal from the article completely. Yes, it's true that the article isn't about Rennie himself, but as the face of the organsation (and a very prominent and well-known face at that), then the differences between the two entities become somewhat blurred and far less clear cut that is being implied. If we then consider the scale of his network and the fact that he was running utilising the LGBT Youth Scotland offices and resources to run said paedophile network, the connection between scandal and the organisation are simply impossible to exclude from the article. If you read the details of the case you'll note that the authorities traced the paedophile network to the LGBT Youth Scotland offices quite early on and and thus were able to track Rennie down via said link, so the importance just grows and grows. I do agree we should focus slightly less on Rennie himself and more on the direct links to LGBT Youth Scotland as an organisation, and I appreciate that it was regrettably an editor prior to yourself who removed some of the key information which demonstrated and link, thus perhaps giving an impression that LGBT Youth Scotland's connection to the scandal was less than it might seem. Your tax evasion analogy is also extremely wide of the mark here. The core business of this organisation is in fact to aid LGBT Youth, whereas the crimes in question involved the horrific sexual abuse of male Youth by other males. That's more like a youth cancer charity CEO giving a bunch of kids cancer, whereas tax evasion as a crime topic would have no link to the core business. Anyway. I'll restore the information as described above, albeit with slightly less of a focus on Rennie and more on LGBT Youth Scotland.Shakehandsman (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above, I'd like to inform LGBTYS2020 of a few pertinent Wikipedia policies. I note they complained of "uncensored details of a serious crime committed by a staff member in 2009". Firstly, said "staff member" was your CEO, a fact you conveniently omitted, and a highly prominent and long-standing CEO at that (in fact the orgasniation's very first CEO too). More importantly, Wikipedia is not censored. It doesn't matter how heinous Rennie's crimes are, all that matters is their notability in the context of LGBT Youth Scotland. Given that he was using LGBT Youth Scotladn Offices and resources to run the paedophile network, and he was caught as a result of using said offices to run the network, then the notability is indisputable. In fact, it's the scale of the network combined with just how heinous the crimes are, that make the material of of particular note - had he committed lesser offences using LGBT Youth Scotland resources while working as LGBT Scotland CEO, then they may be less of a case for including the material, or at least making the section briefer. As for your other claims, there has been no "vandalism" of the page at any stage, just attempts to work out the appropriate focuses and placement on particular content. All the most recent edits have been fully sourced, which is a big improvement from most previous long-standing additions to this page. Your comments about campaigning for "trans rights" also very much look like there's a potential for activist editing on your part, which again is against the rules. Furthermore, I note your pledge to "be adding substantial (accurate!) new content to the page over the next few weeks and addressing the factual errors", which is again completely at odds with Wikipedia conflict of interest rules and you should not be editing this article given said conflict on interest 9particcualrly given your activist-editor stance). Anyway, many thanks to the editor who tagged COI editors at the top of this talk page which helps to make the situation a little more transparent.Shakehandsman (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have re-added a sentence about this situation with reliable sources in the section. Anything that compromises the neutrality of the article, particularly by pushing a certain cause or event, is likely to be removed. Additionally, please review the COI editor's talk page and the article's talk page before making any comments about their activity. They have already been cautioned, I've added their usernames to the talk page banner, and I've spoken with them (as have others) about editing with a conflict of interest. Further warnings could be construed as bad faith or even badgering. If more is to be added about this controversy it must be well-sourced and not "make a point" of pushing the event. Thank you. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 03:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is here. I've already expressed my gratitude for the addition to the talk page banner. The content on the paedophile ring was the best sourced part of the article (hardly difficult to achieve given the extensive coverage by reliable sources), so that point is mute also. The fact that an editor from the organisation was able to have all traces of the scandal erased from this article is rather concerning to say the very least.Shakehandsman (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I think its "moot point" not "mute point." The mix-up was with another editor, as you pointed out, removing important context for the event. Please review the re-added content and discuss if anything should be added. You're right the more I look at this the more I'm convinced of its notability due to its direct connection to LGBT Youth Scotland.
 * I think this addresses the crime, relevant actors, scope, historic significance, its connection to LGBT Youth Scotland, and maintains balance by using a factual tone. If there is something missing, please discuss. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 15:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this addresses the crime, relevant actors, scope, historic significance, its connection to LGBT Youth Scotland, and maintains balance by using a factual tone. If there is something missing, please discuss. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 15:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Organisation and Funding section: Loaded language use
I suggest that the use of the phrase "The organisation is mainly funded by the taxpayer" is deliberately used to anger those who disagree with the organisation's mission. Indeed, all other large children and young people's organisations in Scotland are funded by a similar percentage of funding from taxpayer-funded organisations. I find no examples on Wikipedia of similar organisations' funding being described using this loaded phrasing. I suggest this paragraph is reworded in a more balanced manner. AddyK1981 (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅: The section has been re-worded in a more neutral manner. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 14:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * With the greatest respect, you've changed the text to such an extent that it no longer makes any sense. That's not an improvement by any sta Howndards.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your rewording of the section places undue weight on the tax burden of the program. Using language "by the taxpayer" and "non taxpayer" to describe its funding is undue. The latter phrase, in particular, is an inappropriate way to describe non-public funding. Our readership is smart enough that funding from the government is de facto tax payer contribution. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 02:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't reword anything, I just quickly reverted an edit which made the text have no sense (and reduced accuracy too). It just said "the organsiation is partially funded". That makes no sense whatsoever. Funded by whom? There's no information there. We can't have nonsensical text in an article. Perhaps you made a mistake? As for the term "taxpayer, that's what most sources use, but I suppose we can change that term. However, your introduction of "partially" is certainly reducing accuracy and undoubtedly a backward step. --Shakehandsman (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right that did reduce accuracy and was poor wording. So your recent edit about "state funding" was good but can you explain to me the difference between "non-tax payer money" and private funding? Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 03:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Children in Need would never really be classed as "private funding". That term has connotations of individuals or maybe corporations, whereas Children in need is basically a high profile charity distributing donations from the public. It would be inaccurate to class it as "private".Shakehandsman (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've changed it to "non-state funding" in line with your previous edit to the section. Thanks. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 03:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sidebox content: Chief Executive
It is clear to me that two previous Chief Executive names have been added here for the purpose of highlighting James Rennie's crimes in order to discredit the organisation. The standard practice on Wikipedia is to name only the current Chief Executive in this sidebox. For example: Stonewall and Scottish Youth Parliament. I suggest the two previous CE names are deleted. AddyK1981 (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅: The infobox should only have the current leader of the organization (please see Template:Infobox organization); it should not be a historical overview of its leadership like LGBT Youth Scotland is. Your suggested edits have been added to the article. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 14:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your work on this article, Donna. AddyK1981 (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Patrons section
The charity doesn't have patrons, and the three citations regarding these are either very old, biased or inaccurate. I propose this section is removed entirely. AddyK1981 (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅: The first citation was okay but Wikipedia articles are not for indiscriminate lists of supporters (or patrons). It does look like Rhona Cameron is a noted patron but this is already noted on her article. The second citation was from an unreliable source called "ukchristianparty.org" and the third source, while reliable, did not state that Richard Holloway was a patron. Donna Spencer talk-to-me ⛅ 17:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)