Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 4

Founders
The article mentions two founders. There are four founders, and this information should be in the article. Here is a reliable secondary source: the Companies House information about the registered company. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12338881/officers You can see that the list includes Ann Sinnott. LGBA are trying to distance themselves from Sinnott since she resigned from LGBA. But this wikipedia article shouldn't be used for corporate PR, it should reflect the truth available in reliable sources.


 * Just wanted to amplify this point raised by 79.76.93.11. After checking on Autumnking2012's talk page, the user who removed Ann Sinnott's name from the article, they have been previously been noticed for editing articles disruptively to minimise allegations of transphobia. I suspect that their edits in revision 1027220839 to this article were similarly motivated. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd make this edit myself, but the article is currently semi-protected and my account hasn't been confirmed yet. The LGB Alliance's incorporation filing with Companies House lists four founders; Beverley Jackson, Ann Sinnott, Katharine Harris, and Malcolm Clark. The current revision of the article only lists two of those founders, where ideally it should list all four. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks like digging into WP:PRIMARY sources to emphasize things editors want to emphasize, which is a form of WP:OR. You should not be making WP:ASPERSIONS against AutumnKing here. Talk page complaint can be made by anyone and are accusations. Crossroads -talk- 03:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If the Companies House document is considered WP:PRIMARY then surely tweets by the organisation would also be considered a primary source, as they would be "accounts written by people who are directly involved" and not an independent source. If you would prefer, I can also cite several other sources , which when used in this context would be consideredWP:SECONDARY as in other articles on Wikipedia they are considered a Reliable Source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sideswipe9th Please refrain from WP:UNCIVIL personal attacks on talk pages. I can assure you that in my 7 years editing this site, I have never received a single discretionary sanction. A few recent WP:POV motivated accusations on my Talk page are irrelevant, as is your opinion of my editing. Quite frankly, these types of bad faith accusations are growing pretty tiresome. Focus on the content not the editors. The Companies House document lists four Officers at the time of its registration. That does not necessarily make them all founders - an entity is inevitably founded prior to registration. The LGB Alliance cite that it was founded solely by Harris and Jackson [], and we have no reliable source that states otherwise. Sinnott is rightly noted, and sourced, in the article as a former director. That does reflect the truth available in reliable sources. AutumnKing (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * AutumnKing I apologise for the personal attack. I disagree however with your assertion that there are no Reliable Sources. A tweet by the organisation, which is currently attempting to distance themselves from Ann Sinnott should be considered as WP:PRIMARY and borderline unreliable as it is not from an independent source. In my other reply above, I have listed three sources that could be considered as WP:SECONDARY in the context being discussed, all of which list Ann Sinnott as a founding member of the organisation  at the time of her resignation.
 * Apology accepted. As to the secondary sources, the HSJ piece doesn't qualify as it is an opinion piece. Conversely to the other two sources you listed, we have secondary sources here and here  claiming Barrister Allison Bailey is also a co-founder. Should we also include her? My answer would be no on both accounts. The problem is that this is such a new organisation that there is not enough sound sourcing on their foundation. Having a quick look at other organisations, there is a tendency for the founding to be sourced either to the organisation themselves, which the Stonewall (charity) article does for example, or to a historical retrospective, as the ACLU article is an example of. The latter is clearly not applicable at this time, hence unless we have consistent agreement from multiple RS, we have to rely on the former. As already stated, the article is explicit in naming Sinnott as a former Director. Your suggested reasoning that the LGBA are trying to distance themselves from Sinnott constitutes WP:OR and is not relevant to considering what should be included in the article. AutumnKing (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * For Allison Bailey, you are correct that those two sources list her as a co-founder. An argument for including her could be justified, as the judgement of Bailey v Stonewall makes reference to her involvement in the launch of the organisation. In addition, as a primary source, Allison tweeted at the time that she was involved in the launch which would also lend credence to her being a co-founder. I would however say that including or not including Allison is a separate discussion on whether we should or should not include Ann Sinnott as a founder and one I would be happy to contribute to.


 * For Ann Sinnott, as the secondary sources Gscene and PinkNews articles are reflected in the Companies House filing I would continue to maintain that she should be listed as a founder. I would query as to what point you consider an organisation old enough to rely solely on historical perspectives. While the LGB Alliance was only formed in 2019, there have been a number of articles in the media listing several co-founders, several of which are backed by the initial filings of the organisation with Companies House. Although an argument could also be made for listing Ann separately as a Founding Director, and perhaps in a style similar to how the Stonewall article lists the former directors of the organisation, I believe the merits of founder versus founding director terminology to be largely semantic. In the case of Stonewall article however, three of the founding members; Michael Cashman, Ian McKellen, and Lisa Power, are additionally cited in the list of founders through secondary sources. While the Stonewall website does list them as founders and does not dispute that, their website would be considered a primary source, and those three names are correctly cited through secondary sources.


 * I do also appreciate the difficulty in making sure this is accurate. Per the Spectator piece on the first meeting as a primary source, there was a degree of confidentiality and anonymity over who was present, and it is possible that everyone who was present may never be published. In the lack of other primary or secondary sources of that meeting however, we should not rely on a sole tweet from the organisation as the definitive answer as to who was or was not a founder. Especially as another tweet from the organisation states that Ann had a "vital role in getting us started". As such I believe we should defer to the secondary sources I have previously cited that Ann was a co-founder. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem is that too much of this reasoning falls into WP:OR. There is a danger of extrapolation by pulling together differing sources to prove a point. The fact that multiple people were involved in the early stages of an organisation's set-up does not necessarily make them founders of said organisation. As Bev Jackson states here she and Kate Harris founded the organisation in October 2019, the same month the launch was held. It was not registered [ ] until November. We don't know the mechanics of how this all came about, Taking the Stonewall example, I have actually gone back and edited that article, because the source itself doesn't call all those on that list founders. My recollections is that a number of those people were at that original meeting in 1988, and founded the organisation that became Stonewall, and that others were bought on board. Hence the wording. With the LGBA, from interviews I have heard, it appears Jackson and Harris decided together to form a new organisation, and then worked with others to launch and build upon that. All of this is largely irrelevant, as it is not Wikipedia's job to cobble together the back story here. The organisation refers to its founders as Jackson and Harris. In addition to the two examples for Allison Bailey above, Pink News also refers to Malcolm Clark  as a co-founder. This article  originally named Gary Powell as a founder (shows up on the Google search, but has since been amended). As well as Bailey, this article  still refers to Powell as a co-founder. Do we include all of these based on these few sources? WP:BLP is a factor here, both in terms of the individuals and the organisation itself. We would need a greater number of reliable, and preferably more balanced, sources that stated anyone other than Harris or Jackson were founders. Personal opinions on the motives of the LGB Alliance with regard to Sinnott is all OR. Again, as stated, she is and will continue to be, present in this article, rightly named as a former Director. Nobody here is trying to erase that association. AutumnKing (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I would disagree that this reasoning falls into WP:OR. The sources for which you are relying on that Sinnott is not a founder are both WP:PRIMARY and not WP:RS as they are from people directly involved. While we can verify what the tweet says, and what Jackson said in the podcast, we cannot verify that they are statements of fact per the WP:PRIMARY policy point 3 and 4. I would also like to point out that the tweet is explicitly WP:SELFSOURCE, both due to it's nature as coming from a social media source related to the organisation, and by falling afoul of points 2, 4, and 5 of that policy. Comments made as part of a podcast, where a person is representing the organisation in some manner would also be WP:SELFSOURCE. Per the examples listed on WP:IS, as we are writing about a business that is also a charity, employees of that organisation are considered non-independent sources. Furthermore per the example section in WP:IS Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source.. Tweets by the organisation and podcast comments by one of its directors do not meet this test.


 * Conversely we have WP:SECONDARY WP:NEWSORG sources that are also WP:RS, as they are not WP:RSEDITORIAL and run counter to the previous two unreliable primary sources. WP:PSTS as a subset of WP:OR is pretty clear that wiki articles should be based on WP:RS WP:SECONDARY sources, over WP:PRIMARY and WP:TERTIARY. As such deferring to WP:SECONDARY over WP:PRIMARY is not WP:OR as you claim, but is instead standard Wikipedia policy especially when a WP:RS WP:SECONDARY source is in conflict with WP:PRIMARY WP:SELFSOURCE. Giving precedent to WP:PRIMARY over WP:SECONDARY, in the event of primary and secondary sources being in conflict would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to an unreliable source, which runs counter to Wiki policy. Furthermore these two articles meet the criteria set out in WP:IS for both being from a third party source, and for being from organisations that are considered WP:RS. As such, they should be given precedent over the WP:PRIMARY sources.


 * I do not agree that WP:BLP applies here. WP:BLP refers explicitly to persons, not organisations. Furthermore, even it it did apply WP:BLP states to avoid both WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. Tweets from the organisation, and the podcast content from Filia are both primary and self source, as discussed above. As such, per both WP:BLP and WP:OR we should defer to WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS like the GScene and PinkNews pieces.


 * I am not going to comment on your recollections and memories. Those are obviously not citable or verifiable in any manner.


 * Finally the merits on whether we should include other people on the founder list, like Bailey, Powell, or Clark, is a separate discussion as to whether we should include Sinnott on it. While there is some crossover in terms of sources used, we should first address the issue of making sure we're using WP:SECONDARY WP:RS sources over WP:PRIMARY WP:SELFSOURCE. Once we have a consensus on that, we can then use that as a template towards separately looking at the merits of including those three other people. Let's deal with one issue at a time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Pending any further objections by AutumnKing or any other editors in the next 24 hours, I'm proposing that I be WP:BOLD and restore Ann Sinnott's name to the founders list. Reasoning for why is detailed in the sections above, where we are deferring to WP:RS WP:SECONDARY sources over unreliable WP:PRIMARY. Additional talk sections should be added for any other founders, like Malcolm Clark or Allison Bailey so that we can establish a consensus for them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless I am overlooking something, the only sources supporting this are GScene and PinkNews. PinkNews' reliability is highly questionable, and they clearly are biased against the organization. I have not heard of GScene, but the presumption for tiny outlets is that they are not RS and hence don't factor in to WP:DUE. This is in contrast to whom the mainstream, unquestionably reliable press names as founders. Crossroads -talk- 04:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Your argument about PinkNews' reliability, and them having an editorial bias against the LGB Alliance is WP:OR and unverfiable. Wikipedia has a searchable indexed list of reliable perennial sources, which lists Pink News as being reliable. WP:RS also has a searchable noticeboard of discussions on reliable sources. The most recent discussion of Pink News' reliability happened in July 2020, and I can see from that archive that you were a contributor to that discussion. Despite your contributions at that time that the source was unreliable, the consensus was that PinkNews is a reliable source, and is reflected as such in the reliable perennial sources list. As such your claim against using this source is faulty.


 * A discussion as to the reliability or unreliability of GScene has not happened on the WP:RS noticeboard. However I cannot see any policy point in WP:RS or related pages that says that we should treat small media outlets as unreliable. If I have missed that, can you please cite it? That you haven't heard of the outlet is immaterial to the discussion as to their readership size or its reliability, as it is only a reflection on the media that you consume. GScene has been used as a reliable secondary source on other Wiki articles, such as the entry for Brighton Pride.


 * Furthermore, your argument to WP:DUE fails for two additional reasons. Firstly, at the moment, the list of founders is based on WP:PRIMARY sources which as discussed previously is not Wiki policy. Secondly, while Wiki articles are required to be WP:NPOV in content, that is not necessarily true for sources used in the article. Quoting from WP:BIASED Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.. In this context, as we are relying on PinkNews for a simple factual statement, that Ann Sinnott was one of the founders of the organisation, and not for any other content in the article, it does not fall afoul of WP:DUE, WP:NPOV or WP:BIASED.


 * I can add another reliable secondary source in favour of adding Ann Sinnott to the founders list, Yahoo News . Yahoo News has been established as a reliable source on the WP:RS noticeboard, with the most recent discussion happening in March 2021. Yahoo News is also considered WP:NEWSORG supporting its position as WP:RS. As such it fulfils all the criteria upon which you are arguing for excluding both GScene and PinkNews.


 * Finally I just want to address your last sentence This is in contrast to whom the mainstream, unquestionably reliable press names as founders. I have said before that I want to limit the scope of this discussion to the merits on whether or not to include Ann Sinnott as one of the co-founders of the LGB Alliance. Largely this is so that we can work out any issues on whether or not we use a source in advance of discussions on including other names. So while I don't want to discuss the merits of adding this person directly, as I feel like it deserves its own talk section, I am only bringing this up because it disproves your point. I know of at least one article in the Times that lists Allison Bailey as one of the co-founders of the LGB Alliance. AutumnKing also cited an article from i News above in support of Gary Powell being added to the list of founders. As such, your argument that the mainstream news only refers to Bev Jackson and Katharine Harris as the only two founders is wrong. As I said though, whether we should include Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, Gary Powell, or anyone else, deserves separate and thorough discussions for each person. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * A word of advice about Yahoo News: It might produce some content of its own but it republishes a lot from other sources. When it is republishing it is best to try to find the original article and use that as the reference instead. In this case, you will see a (not exactly prominent) PinkNews logo just above the headline indicating that the article actually comes from them. It's quite easy to miss. If it wasn't that I recognised the author's name I think I might have missed it too. That's not to say that it is bad, just that Yahoo isn't the actual source here and the reference stands or falls on its actual source and that Yahoo has nothing to do with it. Yahoo, helpful as ever, doesn't link to the actual source article but if you Google Search the entire headline you can easily find that it is this. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Good catch! Thanks DanielRigal, I'll be sure to keep an eye on that for the future. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the current statement as to who the founders are is cited to The Times. WP:RSP also states about PinkNews that "additional considerations may apply and caution should be used." This is certainly one of those cases, given their strong stance against this group. That, coupled with GScene being a very small outlet even within the LGBT topic area, is why it is not WP:DUE for inclusion compared to what The Times reported. Crossroads -talk- 03:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * So I've just rechecked the article. In the infopanel, two founders; Bev Jackson and Kate Harris, are listed uncited. Their names then appear again in the second paragraph of the History section. The citation for Bev Jackson is an article from Pink News, the citation used for Kate Harris is from CNN. Another name is mentioned there, as supporter rather than founder, Simon Fanshawe which uses Feminist Current. So we are already using PinkNews as a proper citation source for one of the founders. The PinkNews citation for Bev has been in the article since the infobox was added in January 2021. While the number in the reference list has changed over time, it has not as far as I can see been challenged due to any bias PinkNews may have against the LGB Alliance. As such, using PinkNews as a citation for another founder is appropriate in the circumstances.


 * I strongly disagree with assertion that additional considerations may apply and caution should be used from WP:RSP applies in this case. I've looked at the archive discussion for the RFC, where that qualifier was added. As before, I can see that you contributed extensively to that RFC, where you made many comments to the unreliability of it as a source. The consensus at the time was that PinkNews was a reliable source, except where it comes to comments on a person or character's sexuality. In those circumstances, and those alone, extra caution should be used. If you wish to challenge reliability of PinkNews as a source, then I would suggest you open a discussion or RFC on the current WP:RS noticeboard. As it is right now however, it is inappropriate to use that extra criterion against using PinkNews as a source for including Ann Sinnott as a founder.


 * As for GScene, again you're asserting that it's not WP:DUE due to the size of the publication, but you have not proved why it is so. Can you please cite the exact part of WP:DUE that supports your argument? I have re-read WP:DUE while writing this reply, as well as the linked email from Jimbo Wales. By my reading, WP:DUE is referring to Wiki article content, not criteria for excluding sources. The email from Jimbo makes it very clear that this is to be used for article content to avoid fringe interpretations of articles.


 * At the moment we have two sources that Ann Sinnott was a founder for the organisation. One from PinkNews, for which another article of theirs is cited in support of Bev Jackson being a founder. The other is from GScene. You are asserting that Ann Sinnott is not a founder. Quoting from Jimbo's email in WP:DUE If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. As such, the onus is on you now to provide a WP:RS WP:SECONDARY to prove that point per the challenge laid by Jimbo cited in WP:DUE. If it is the mainstream view that Ann is not a founder, it should be easy for you to provide a WP:RS WP:SECONDARY citation. Otherwise, given that PinkNews is already an acceptable source for one founder, it is therefore also an acceptable source for another. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to say, I have just double checked the current reflist for the article. The Times is in the cite list twice, entries 2 and 12. Neither of those entries mention either Bev Jackson or Kate Harris by name. Ref 2 does mention Simon Fanshawe and Miranda Yardley by name, but in the context as being speakers at the organisations first public meeting. The only other names mentioned in both Times articles are the respective journalists responsible for each piece. The refs used to cite Bev and Kate as founders are those listed in my last reply. Also I going to go through and clean up a few of the citations in the reflist later. Not to remove them, but to make it clearer where they are sourced from, as a few do not mention their respective publication names. Examples I'm going to fix are ref 37 and 38. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I've just gone through and clarified on the existing reflist the sources for references that were missing source (website name, author, article name, date) for any that were missing. While doing so I discovered that reference #55, as of the current revision, is from GScene. It was added in this revision, on June 3 2021 and has not been disputed since addition per your interpretation of WP:DUE or WP:RS. Given that GScene is an acceptable source for a piece of information currently in the article and has been for some time, it should also be acceptable source when used either in conjunction with or in place of the PinkNews article as a valid source for adding Ann Sinnott's name to the founder list. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Going to give another 24 hours for any more objections, as we've not seen any counter arguments made in the last three days, before adding Ann to the founders list in the article. I'll also open new discussion sections on the talk page for Alison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Gary Powell as well, now that we've hopefully established some acceptable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , you haven't commented in this discussion recently, thoughts? Crossroads -talk- 21:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 24 hours have passed, I've not seen any further objections. I'll add it to the article now, and if there are objections forthcoming we can look at removing it. I'll also open the talk page sections for the other names I listed before shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, Ann's name has been added in the lead, info panel, and with citation in the history section. I've only used the PinkNews citation for the moment, to avoid WP:TOOMANYREFS but we can also add the GScene citation from here if needed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the details here. If we have RS sources that specifically describe her as a "founder" then I think a single mention of her as a founder is fine. I know that RSes can sometimes get stuff wrong but, unless we have a clear indication that they are incorrect, we need to go with what the RSes say. In general, I don't think we should be placing too much emphasis on the non-notable individuals behind this organisation, beyond listing the key ones where obviously relevant. I'd like to see the red links removed. I doubt that they will ever turn blue and they can always be put back if they ever do. To a limited degree, I do understand the interest with what goes on inside this strange organisation, which sometimes seems to have more Twitter accounts than active members. Nonetheless we should not be using Wikipedia either as a soap opera or as a tool for investigative journalism. Maybe somebody will write a book about it one day, but not here. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Add Malcolm Clark as founder in article
Following on from the discussion above in Founders, I've added this section to discuss adding Malcolm Clark as founder in the article.

A previous discussion on Malcolm's relevance to the article was held in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGB_Alliance#Relevance_of_Malcolm_Clark? April 2021]. Summarising that discussion briefly, it appears there was some concern about PinkNews being a reliable source, similar sentiment was also discussed in Founders when adding Ann Sinnott's name, however much of the discussion appears to have been surrounding the content of the PinkNews piece being cited in a different context to what I am proposing here. As such, and if we prefer to use them I've also found articles in Spiked and The Times which name Clarke directly as a co-founder, as well as one editorial in The Spectator, although for reasons mentioned in the Allison Bailey section I'd prefer not to use The Spectator as the source for this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Add Gary Powell as founder
Following on from the discussion above in Founders, I've added this section to discuss adding Gary Powell as founder in the article.

So unlike the other two discussions on Allison Bailey, and Malcolm Clark, there appears to be conflicting WP:SECONDARY WP:RS as to whether Gary was or was not a founder. The only source that currently states that Powell was a founder is from iNews, as mentioned by AutumnKing in the discussion on Ann Sinnott. Conversely, there is a PinkNews article detailing Powell's involvement with the foundation of the organisation, which although heavy, also appears by my reading to make great strides not to mention him as a founder. Additionally AutumnKing stated previously that an earlier version of the PinkNews article did state that Powell was a founder, and that it had been amended post publication.

While I'm happy to support adding the other two names, I am not so when it comes to Powell. We currently have two WP:SECONDARY WP:RS in conflict, and I am unable to find any more secondary sources listing Powell's name in connection with the organisation that could break that deadlock. While we could do an analysis of WP:PRIMARY sources that would put us in violation of WP:OR. As such, I'll leave it open for discussion if there are other sources that editors may be aware of that could help in this circumstance, but in the lack of any further sources I do not feel as though we can add Gary's name as a founder in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Add Alison Bailey as founder in article
Following on from the discussion above in Founders, I've added this section to discuss adding Allison Bailey as founder in the article.

The article already mentions Allison as a co-founder in the Media coverage and criticism section. This was added to the article in this diff back in February 2021 although the text has been changed slightly since the addition. It currently uses a citation from The Spectator, which I've copied the citation over from the article. I'm a little uncomfortable using this as the source for information in the History section, as WP:RSP lists WP:SPECTATOR as primarily containing opinion pieces. While I believe the Media coverage and criticism is acceptable as it is currently written and cited, as the sentence is referring to an opinion piece written in defence of the organisation, I think a more reliable source would be appropriate for use in the History section. As such I think we should use an article from The Times for this purpose. If needed I believe the full text of the article is on Archive.is, which we can add to the cite note. The Media coverage and criticism is I think acceptable as is however, as the sentence is referring to an opinion piece written in defence of the organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's now been two weeks since I opened these sections on the other founders. If there are no complaints within the next twenty four hours, I'm proposing that I be WP:BOLD and add both Alison and Malcolm to the founders list and in the article text. I won't be adding Gary due to a conflict between reliable sources, as detailed in his section. If you have any objections or words to add, please add them to the relevant sections. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I've now added both Alison and Malcom as founders to the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Section on Ofcom
Hi

Currently the section on Ofcom states

Dame Melanie Dawes, chief executive of Ofcom, agreed, saying quoting the group was "entirely inappropriate". Rob Jessel and Helen White of lobby group Fair Cop responded with an article in The Critic, in which they called Nicolson's characterization of the LGB Alliance "lazy slander". The LGB Alliance later published correspondence from Ofcom in which the regulator said 'on the issue of Ofcom's interactions with Stonewall and the LGB Alliance, Ofcom has never stated or otherwise implied that "it is appropriate to talk to Stonewall and inappropriate to talk to LGB Alliance"'.

A couple of questions:
 * 1) Should all of these opinions be given equal weight?
 * 2) The reponses are not supported reliable sources and I've been unable to find any reliable sources which include the same information. The first is a British website which appears to transphobic (see the reference used 'Stonewall take another hostage', Why does Ofcom pander to the lunatic fringes of transgender activism? and From self-ID to no-ID, You’ll be amazed what they’re trying to get away with now, there are a lot more also), the second is from LBG Alliance's own website. What should happen with these sentences if no reliable sources are available?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * With respect to the sources, The Scotsman is as far as I can see a reliable source per the most recent discussion. The Critic however is not. While the discussion on The Critic seemed to veer pretty quickly off onto a discussion on Intelligence (journal), there were concerns about its notability and publication of fringe views. A full discussion on it might be merited the reliable sources noticeboard due to the issues you point out. The statement from the LGB Alliance website is WP:PRIMARY and the quote being used is somewhat long. Unfortunately I can't seem to find any WP:SECONDARY sources from around that time period that covered their response. WP:NPOV says that we should include it to ensure neutrality, but it is hard to balance that as it's from a primary not a secondary source. As such I'd lean towards removing it, but I'd like to hear from other editors first. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Critic is a perfectly reliable source for what it is being used for, as would be anything: it's being cited as where the Fair Cop reponse to Ofcom appeared and what it said. A primary source is always reliable for the bare fact of what the source itself says.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair Cop are a relatively fringe group, whose notability in reliable sources is for a series of court cases surrounding language and hate speech. WP:RS applies not just to secondary sources, and the very first policy point of WP:PRIMARY is that a primary source must be WP:RS. The Critic fails that test. If there are reliable sources that discuss it, they should be brought here for discussion. But at this time, it would be inappropriate to add the statements from Fair Cop. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Should the group be described as a hate group in the lede?
Hi, and others

Yesterday I added that several groups and individuals describe the group as a hate group to the lede, which was then removed. Looking at the edit history this desciption has been added previously and removed. I thought it would be helpful to have a discussion here instead of this being a thing that keeps happening.

For reference here are the sources I'm aware of that describe the group as a hate group:
 * https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/01/05/lgb-alliance-labour-councillor-dave-ward-transphobic-hate-group-colliers-wood/
 * https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/12/labour-leadership-row-over-support-for-trans-rights-charter
 * https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/01/21/lgb-alliance-support-t-shirt-polo-lounge-reported-police-glasgow-anti-trans/
 * https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/04/27/good-law-project-jolyon-maugham-trans-rights-uk-keira-bell-puberty-blockers-lgb-alliance/
 * https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/02/05/kemi-badenoch-lgb-alliance-meeting-anti-trans-backlash-transphobia/

I guess the main questions are:
 * 1) Should this be included in the lede?
 * 2) If so how?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is easily sufficient sourcing to say that they have been referred to as a hate group by others, but not enough to call them a hate group in Wikipedia's voice. But since you did attribute and didn't attempt to put it in Wikivoice I think your edits were good (if sourcing was added). Loki (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted the removal of "hate group" pending this discussion per WP:BRD. MOS:LEAD is pretty clear that the lead should summarise the body of the article with appropriate weight. The criticism that the LGB Alliance is a hate group is substantiated and supported in Media coverage and criticism section. It is made clear that it is a cited quote, and not said in Wikivoice. An argument could I think successfully be made for rewording the sentence "and by others as a 'hate group'" to include some of the others who state this. Examples can be drawn from the criticism section, like John Nicolson MP, LGBT+ Lib Dems, and/or Labour Campaign for Trans Rights. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I mean, there's been dozens of LGBT+ groups, multiple trade unions and progressive groups, multiple prominent (usually progressive) public figures (journalists, politicians, lawyers, artists, etc...), multiple academics, etc... that have described the LGB Alliance as a hate group or an anti-trans campaign group. It's hardly trivial or sporadic criticism - especially considering that the large majority of LGBT+ groups who have mentioned the group as part of an official statement have done so to condemn it. NHCLS (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The description of hate groups in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group does not match against LGB Alliance (LGBA), who are being described as a hate group by their political opponents. Using the description 'hate group' amounts to using weasel words which should not influence the voice of wikipedia. Should not editors be looking for balance, rather than assembling a 'vote' of opponents? Mattymmoo (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that the way that the group's opponents characterise the organisation fit within the description given in our article Hate group quite well enough. One may dispute these characterisations but it is not linguistic trickery or weasel wording. When they say "hate group" they do mean "hate group" in broadly the same sense as anybody else using that term and which aligns with what it says in our article on the subject.
 * I think it is reasonable to mention that they have been described as a "hate group" somewhere in the intro. We should not do so in Wikipedia's own voice and we should not overegg it. It probably should not be in the first paragraph. I think the addition that was removed was mostly OK (i.e. not in Wikipedia's own voice, not too verbose or sensational) and should be reinstated with the vague word "others" replaced by something more specific but not too verbose. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks very much, , , , , , , , , my follow up question would be if we do include the fact that many individuals and organisations describe the group as a hate group in the lede, what should the sentence say and which references should be used? Thanks very much, John Cummings (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. PinkNews is an advocacy source that obviously lacks independence from the "TERF wars" subject, and The Guardian article indicates high-level ministerial conflict over the same question that this organisation has taken one side in.  So, no, there is nowhere even vaguely closely to enough sourcing for Wikipedia to use such a bias-laden term.  Independent, reliable sources would need to be quite consistent in such labeling, same as we approach that and similar labels and their application to any other group.  There's nothing magically special about this case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC) PS: The present wording as of this writing is still problematic: It has also been described by Labour MPs and many LGBT activists as a hate group..  This should be something more like It has also been described by some Labour MPs and LGBT activsts as a hate group.  It is not true that all Labour MPs, or the Labour Party (i.e., "Labour MPs" as a collective unit) have so labelled, nor is "many" a legitimate adjective given the sources, which name only a few such activist groups.  While the lead would get bogged down with it (and is already name-dropping too much), the body of the article should identify these MPs and organisations by name.
 * SMcCandlish, you don't get to just overrule the RSN's judgement of PinkNews because you think it is an advocacy source. That isn't the way anything works. That PinKNews has expressed more bias than The Guardian on "TERF Wars" topics is, ahem, unproven, and the former has certainly offered more accurate reporting than The Times. Newimpartial (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pink News has been considered a reliable source at RSN multiple times before. You're just wrong, SMcCandlish. And I also disagree with your sentence change there. The LGBA has been called a hate group almost universally by the LGBT community groups and organizations and multiple Labour MPs. Silver  seren C 23:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PinkNews used to be listed at WP:RSP in red, until the 2020 RfC. The entry even now says in part, additional considerations may apply and caution should be used, based on the RfC closure. It certainly is not a neutral soure and cannot be used to overrule the mainstream media because of ILIKEIT. Crossroads -talk- 05:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It may not be a neutral source on this issue, but neither is The Times or The Telegraph. Caution is appropriate in each of these cases. Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * this is the second time on this talk page, and the third time I've had to point out this misrepresentation to you. The additional considerations for PinkNews only apply to when they are writing about a person's sexuality. If you wish to challenge their status as a reliable source, or to extend the additional considerations, then open a discussion at the appropriate noticeboard. At this point, it seems like you are objecting to the source because WP:IDONTLIKETHEM. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not what WP:RSP says. You are conflating two different sentences. And I don't recall you ever making this claim before. Crossroads -talk- 02:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The first time, the second time. Both in the talk page for this article, now in archive 4. No I am not conflating two sentences, the WP:RSP entry itself is slightly unclear. If you go back to the most recent RFC, which I can once again see that you contributed to, the only sustained complaint that wasn't refuted was that they were only unreliable for statements about a person's sexuality said that such claims had to be based on direct quotes from the subject. All other complaints were refuted, and the RFC notes that Several editors cited the PinkNews's editorial policy and reputation for making corrections. At this stage your continued objections to PinkNews are reading like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you believe the source is unreliable, then I'd suggest opening a discussion at WP:RSN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Only the second diff contains the claim. Anyway, you are reading the closure through your own preferred interpretation and acceptance of the arguments made there. Only the closure has authority. That the arguments of those who pointed to flaws in the source were "refuted" - rather than unsatisfactorily contradicted - is a matter of opinion. If the closure meant that caution applied only in that circumstance of sexual identity claims, it would have said that. What it says is broader than that. Crossroads -talk- 03:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. What it says is not broader than that. That is your interpretation of it and it is far from universal. The quote additional considerations may apply and caution should be used is used as a prelude and provides context to the next three sentences in the closure, and the next one sentence on WP:RSP. Using the closure version as it is longer, the second sentence references editorial policy and reputation for corrections. The first sentence mentions concerns about clickbait and opinion content, and that editor discretion should be used for that. The final sentence mentions some unreliability about sexuality of article subjects. That's it. It is not broader than that context, and certainly not to the broadness you are interpreting the statement to be. If you wish to challenge that, or seek clarification as to the scope of that descriptor then open a discussion at WP:RSN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion is falling prey to the "this is a reliable source for X so it must be a reliable source for everything imaginable" fallacy. When PinkNews labels something a hate group, it is issuing an opinion, i.e. it is a  not a secondary one for that label, because it's producing its own viewpoint based on its advocacy positions. It is editorial material, not news.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing that it's not only PinkNews who are reporting this way. John Cummings list included The Guardian, and I can also add The Times, The Scotsman, The Herald, and The Telegraph who all either use the term in their own voice, or use MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:LEAD The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. We don't need to elaborate in the lead all of the individuals or organisations who call the alliance a hate group, and the first paragraph of the "Media coverage and criticism" section already goes into the detail of who does, we just need to summarise that section. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)