Talk:Stonewall (charity)

Criticism section re: Bindel
The Julie Bindel protest issue is controversial and currently being discussed over on Julie Bindel - the edits here claiming NPOV just seem to be a reaction to that and I do not believe are justified. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Edits on every article have to adhere to NPOV and RS policies. Likely the POV editing on Bindel will also be corrected soon enough. -- Banj e  b oi   00:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are again stating your opinion that the article violates wikipedia policies, could you please explain why you don't think this factual information should be included and not repeatedly edit out information that in your opinion should not be there. ZoeL (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "A storm of controversy" is hardly NPOV. We state what the sourcing supports not inflate for or against subjects. This is not particular to you, this content or this article. NPOV is a core policy. -- Banj e  b oi   03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Support (or lack thereof) for SSM
I have Pink News on my Google Reader list and there are a few articles every so often about Stonewall being somewhat reluctant to support same-sex marriage. Is this notable, especially given this statement by Cashman? Sceptre (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stonewall structure
The article says Stonewall admits it is not a democratic organisation. It is not easy to find out exactly who runs it. You can become a friend, or volunteer to do something, or donate, or apply for a job, but it is very unclear who is in charge. Any chance of the ownership/ corporate structure being part of the article? Tony164 (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Change trans rights activism/activists to a more neutral term?
The phrase 'trans rights activism' has been used to draw false comparisons to MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) to delegitimise all trans people apart from those cooperating with organisations seeking to rollback improvements in trans rights. To this end, please could 'trans rights activism' be rephrased to 'activism for trans rights' or a similar phrase? They should mean the same thing, but phrased slightly differently. Thanks! Amekyras (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be the end of the world to make a change, but is it really necessary? In general culture, we readily talk about "civil rights activists", "gay rights activists", "indigenous rights activists" (etc). "Trans rights activism" (and "men's rights activism", for that matter) are simply drawing on a very commonplace way of describing activist movements (and activists themselves) in the English language. Moreover, wouldn't making the change to "activists for trans rights" etc just come across as being clunky? I think that we'd need to already have a very good alternative term decided upon before making such a change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of your points are true, and I think we should definitely decide on a more neutral term first, but I think this is a special case because the term TRA, 'trans rights activist', is frequently used in the exact same way MRA (which is a charged acronym, though I agree it should be - whining about feminism does not help men's rights) is used, on certain forums including Mumsnet and the r/GenderCritical board on Reddit. Can you think of a good alternative for the term? Amekyras (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism occurring on the page by existing contributor
There have been a lot of edits made to this page recently by one contributor, whose updates introduce false and misleading information. It has not escaped notice that these edits belittle and exclude the contributions of transgender people, and appear to be attempting to frame transgender rights activism as a recent phenomenon, and one that acts against the rest of the LGBT community. This is of course, not true, and it seems reversions have been taken place to help protect the integrity of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoeloe (talk • contribs) 15:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
I have reverted a long series of edits by which removed sourced content (e.g.  and gave WP:UNDUE prominence to anti-trans critics.

I am aware that my revert has also removed some new referenced content, but these widespread changes need to be discussed in chunks. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This is pretty much what I was concerned about, apologies if any of my edits got in your way :/

The changes to the article over the last few days need properly scrutinised.

--130.209.157.50 (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV - Revisionist history
Hi,

This article has been significantly altered (beyond all recognition one may say) over the last few days, with an undue focus on Trans issues. In my opinion it appears to have been rewritten to suit the POV of anti-Transgender activists (also known by some as TERFs).

The editor responsible for this is repeatedly reverting any good faith attempt to alter or revert the changes he has made.

Clearly we need someone to look into this, and some form of dispute resolution here

--130.209.157.50 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I am the editor being referred to. I'm not a TERF; I don't subscribe to that ideology. I was trying to expand the article using the appropriate press sources to reflect the history of the organisation. Are there specific sections and/or sentences that I have contributed that people are having particular concerns about? How about restoring the sections that people don't have a problem with and then we can discuss the others further here at the Talk Page? I'm always happy to work with people who are interested in editing in good faith. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, from a post above I see that the concerns are about giving WP:UNDUE influence to certain critics of Stonewall. Fair enough. But how about some of my other edits? I don't think it's necessary to revert everything I added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You've made a very large volume of edits in a short space of time, including some which directly reverted alterations made to the page following your edits. So it's very hard to single out what is or isn't problematic here.


 * I guess we need to sort out the WP:UNDUE issue then work from there.

--130.209.157.50 (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

To give a rough guide to what I was generally trying to do, it was the following: get rid of everything that was either unreferenced or reliant only on primary sources; format the article chronologically, by introducing a "History" section that reflected the shifts in Stonewall over the past thirty years; and summarise what various media sources say about the organisation. Does anyone object to the structuring of the article on a chronological basis? I think it makes things far clearer for the reader than the current jumping back and forth in time that the article presently exhibits. Midnightblueowl (talk)
 * I think if you want to restructure the article as a chronology then it's more important to add additional information to the early periods of the charity's activities. The edits you made with a heavy emphasis on recent history meant the article shifted to looking like a newspaper article summing up recent events instead of a wikipedia article with a full consideration of history of the charity WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Tip.Stall (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The concerns were about the changes to information introduced with your edits, such as claiming Stonewall was started by "LGB Activists", and claiming they "shifted their definition of homosexuality", despite neither being true or verified. Many of these edits removed contributions from transgender people, and the work done towards transgender rights, despite those being prominent for the entirety of Stonewall's existence. I believe it may be sensible to require some extra scrutiny for edits made to this page. Hoeloe (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The web sources I used stated that Stonewall was founded to campaign for gay and lesbian (and bisexual) rights in 1989 but for a long time refused to campaign on trans rights issues, until eventually agreeing to do so in 2015. That's what I was trying to convey with initial reference to "LGB" activists - in that they focused on gay, lesbian, and bisexual rights issues but didn't focus on trans rights issues. Now, If i'm wrong on that, fair enough, and I don't want to add false information into the article. But it is what the sources I've come across state. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , without getting too deep into the weeds of which sources say what, I think there is a social context being missed here. The (very) recent rise to prominence of an "LGB alliance" organization muddies the water, but the fact is that "LGB" as a term expressly referring to cis queer people is ahistorical and should be treated as a neologism, which it is. It should be evident that it's also politically loaded, and using it in reference to Stonewall's activities before they fully embraced transgender activism may amount to original research (unless there are reliable sources that specifically use the term in that context). To summarize, it's divisive and misleading to use "LGB" to refer to LGBT activism in the time before transgender rights were emphasized, because the term "LGB" itself is an adaptation of the LGBT umbrella intended to exclude transgender people after the fact. We can look to contemporary sources for guidance, but generally people would have described that period of activism as "gay rights" or "gay and lesbian rights," which was later supplanted by the LGBT label in an effort to include a wider range of identities.
 * It's not obvious if you're not familiar with the issue, but using the initialism "LGB" outside of very specific contexts is a violation of NPOV, even if unintentionally so.
 * I don't know how much continuing attention this article will receive (especially while protected) but hopefully we can benefit from a productive dialog. Midnightblueowl is being called a TERF (and probably worse) on twitter, which I think is unfair, and I'd encourage anyone reading this to assume good faith. That said, I hope we can also listen to the people who don't regularly contribute to wikipedia but want to make their voices heard on this, and give due credence to their input. — Rutebega ( talk ) 18:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Another editor raised WP:Commonname with regards to LGB vs LGBT,--130.209.157.50 (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * My issue was that it had major WP:UNDUE issues regarding Trans issues. Half the new headings you inserted mentioned trans issues, mostly not in a good way. A big part of this was the so-called LGB Alliance split etc. "LGB Alliance" has yet to demonstrate that it's a functional organisation beyond a Twitter page and a couple of stories in the newspapers, the consensus among many is that it's simply an anti-Transgender organisation.
 * As for the chronological basis - is the organisation's decision to increase their campaigning for trans equality since 2015 really what defined this time period?
 * I could say more but I'll leave it at that for now..
 * --130.209.157.50 (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

One point which bothers me - and on which I'm not going to act unilaterally - is the mention of Ms. Johnson and Ms. Rivera. Not because I don't think they should be mentioned in the article about the riot, but because I'm not convinced the riot needs to be mentioned here at all (aside from as the charity's namesake). Knowing that Johnson and Rivera were in Greenwich Village that night... what does that tell us about the UK charity? DS (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , that also strikes me as odd. If it's true that "The Stonewall Riots had transgender individuals at their roots," but Johnson and Rivera weren't present at the outset, why mention them at all?
 * The article should explain where the group's name comes from, and it would make sense for the same section to explain that the UK organization did not have exactly the same composition, goals, or leadership of the movement taking place in the United States, and that trans women's involvement in the Stonewall Riots did not translate into their involvement in the founding and early direction of Stonewall the charity.
 * The tricky part is writing that without original research or synthesis. — Rutebega ( talk ) 19:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnson and Rivera should be mentioned because whilst they weren't there on the first night of rioting, there was a second, much bigger night of rioting afterwards, which was either triggered by or very quickly caused Johnson to 'throw the first brick [on that night]', more specifically to damage a police car by dropping a handbag of bricks onto it from a lamppost. Anyone who knows more than a little about the riots knows about Johnson and Rivera, and obviously about Delarverie. Amekyras (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether Johnson and Rivera are significant to the riots (there is absolutely no question they are), but whether they are relevant to the UK charity. My gut feeling, without having looked at sources yet, is that the most this article needs is something like "although transgender activists were instrumental in the Stonewall riots, the charity initially did not regard transgender rights as part of its remit." (please do not use that verbatim). For those who aren't already very familiar with the names of the people involved in the riots (which is likely to be the majority of readers) the current wording, although better than it was previously, still leaves a big "huh? why are these specific people being mentioned? how are they relevant to the charity?" feeling. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the 'LGB' issue, I note that Stonewall themselves used to use the term. For example you can see it on their old About Pages (I pulled one from 2010) e.g. here, here, and here. LastDodo (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * About "LGB", the fact is that the term simply does not mean the same thing in 2021 as it meant in 1991 - I was in and around "LGB" organizations in the 1990s, and trans people were generally included even before "T" or "Q" was added to the most common initialisms. On the other hand, the LGB Alliance in resurrecting the term is deliberately engaging in Trans exclusion, bringing back (as the Right so often does) an old term with a new and more oppressive meaning (q.v. all these 21st-century "People's Parties"). Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In general you might be right, but in Stonewall's specific case, I'm not so sure. We are not talking about 1991 here, but 2010. If you read those old About pages, you will see they were very specifically talking about Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (they use the term many times). The term 'LGBT' was in widespread use in 2010, yet they chose not to use it. This is the organisation that nominated Julie Bindel for Journalist of the Year in 2009, and in 2015 apologised for 'mistakes we have made in the past' and who 'apologise[d] to trans people for the harm that we have caused'. LastDodo (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I was reacting mostly to Rutebaga's comments, in spite of the indentation. I am not equating 1991 and 2010, or denying Stonewall's mistakes. Newimpartial (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess the point I'm making is that even if 'LGB' now has trans-exclusionary connotations, it would not be misapplied to Stonewall as recently as 2010 (and perhaps more recently than that). The non-use of the 'T' can only have been quite conscious by 2010. There is a reason they apologised. LastDodo (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a unhealthy resurrection of an ancient thread. Are we discussing this with any particular purpose when it comes to editing the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that somewhere in the article it should mention that originally, and for the first 26 years of Stonewall's 32 year existence, they were an organisation campaigning explicitly for gay, lesbian and bisexual equality and rights, and not on transgender issues. At the moment this can only be inferred from the article. This is not aided by the reference in the lead to the organisation's campaign against LGBT exclusion from the military, when in fact their campaign was only against LGB exclusion. Likewise with the description of their Diversity Champions programme, which refers to its present remit in the opening sentence describing its founding in 2001, without mentioning its original, more limited one. Despite my pointing out that Stonewall repeatedly used the term 'LGB' before 2015, it would obviously not be necessary to include the acronym if it causes confusion. LastDodo (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, any anachronisms should be fixed. Stonewall's own website describes the military ban, for example, as a "ban on lesbians, gay men and bi people". Crossroads -talk- 06:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

A) this discussion section should be renamed based on clarification of topic and issues here within, Eg “role of sexual orientation vs gender identity in stonewalls history”

B) IMHO these links settle the debate above. Stonewall was explicitly LGB and conducted a 201/15 internal consultation process prior to changing from LGB to LGBT. This was not just a change of name. It Culminatied in the Stonewall report “trans people and Stonewall”

On stonewall’s website they describe this turning point explicitly:  “ Until this point [2015], Stonewall had been firm about not campaigning for trans equality”



The report acknowledges the good faith POVs on both sides of the internal org debate.

It is not the role of WP to backfill history as authors wish it had been, but to reflect history as it was. “LGB” Referred to people oppressed explicitly for sexual orientation, and many organizations were created around this oppression, as distinct from GI oppression. Deciding to campaigning against both GI & SO oppression WAS the topic of the stonewall consultation (see above).

The POV that “LGB” is “transexclusionary” is new and controversial. At the time of stonewalls founding through into the 2000’s, SO and GI were routinely perceived as separate issues impacting separate minority constituencies.

As such SO was the founding focus of many historic orgs and of current LGBT orgs (for UK history see: IGA (now ILGA), stonewall, London Lesbian and Gay Center, Greater London council (LGB funding and support), london lesbian and gay center, project for advice counseling and education (PACE), London Gay Pride, london Dyke March, Pink Paper [historic London LGB newspaper, disambiguation: not Pink News] etc)

TG/TS people were largely not reflected or visible in the orgs above during that period, not due to transphobia, but because TS/TG people were perceived as a separate marginalized group, just as POC and women are, even though these groups overlap [note common use of named concept “intersectionalism” postdates this period]).

In my experience the LGB community largely assumed that TG/TS people were heterosexual, therefore LGB orgs did not see a common framing of issues, and campaigned solely on issues of law and discrimination as it specifically related to homosexuality.

From my experience Within these orgs we (organizers) experienced no backlash to this, and public demands from gender minorities for inclusion at that time were absent from the public dialogue or internal policy debates (the 80s or 90s).

It is not the role of WP to come down on the side of whether historic or current usage of “LGB” is “good” or “bad”, as implied in some comments above. The good faith argument of current use of “LGB” is the same as the viewpoints represented in the Stonewall consultation document of just over 6 years ago linked above: that sexual minorities and gender minorities are distinct enough to warrant separate organizing.

By saying this I am not arguing either POV, but holding this article to the same standard as say, abortion, where people passionate on both sides hold good faith and coherent beliefs as to their differing positions.

Stonewall was able to hold this balance in the above report just over 6y ago, so the WP article should also not “take sides” on terminology but reflect the facts.

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Diversity Champions into Stonewall (charity). I think that the content in the Diversity Champions article can easily be explained as a section in the context of the Stonewall article. Stinglehammer (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge –  Melissa Highton (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree to the merge. Thanks.  AndyGordon (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Klbrain thank you so much for your edit.
 * I merged the two distinct sections on Diversity Champions.
 * There is duplicate material about the events of May 2021 in the Diversity Champions section and in the Transgender Issues section.
 * Also, the Current Work section appears to be as of 2011.
 * I wonder about re-structuring the whole article into a Pre 2014 section with subsections on accomplishments and controversies, and a separate Post 2014 section similarly with accomplishments and controversies. The re-structuring would reflect the change of emphasis under Hunt and Kelley. I wonder what others think? AndyGordon (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tidying up the duplication; sorry I missed it. The idea of an update and discussion pre- and post-2014 sounds very reasonable to me. Klbrain (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

New Statesman piece
An interesting article by The New Statesman covers the LGB Alliance, Stonewall, the LGBT+ Conservatives and the broader Tory position on trans rights in some detail. Worth a mention here and maybe at a couple of other articles. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that is a useful piece indeed. AndyGordon (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Opposition section – NPOV
I changed some of the phrasing that was rewording Stonewall's guidance in a misleading way. I'm also asking for attribution for the "Campaigners" that are criticising Stonewall's guidance in, as I wasn't able to find them (probably wasn't using the right search terms or something). About to make some further changes to the section adding in some more of Stonewall's guidance that clearly contradicts with what these "campaigners" are claiming they said. I'll be linking to the latest version of this guidance (Sept 2021) but the wording of the relevant paragraph hasn't changed from the 2015 version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CupOfTea696 (talk • contribs)

I see you have entirely reverted the changes I made to the Opposition section. The last paragraph claims that Stonewall uses non-conformity as evidence that a child is transgender. First off, The Telegraph does not specificly mention Stonewall in this section of its article, it merely states "A large number of the organisations". Secondly, Stonewall's own guidance, which the article refers to, but you apparently don't see a reason to use, contradicts this completely. The only reason I can see to direct quote these claims by The Telegraph and falsely claiming these are specifically about Stonewall without mentioning what Stonewall's guidance actually says, is to intentionally mislead readers into thinking Stonewall is saying something that it did not say, and never has said. I am removing this entire last paragraph since it has no basis in truth and is just there to mislead. Feel free to add it back if you manage to fix these issues, otherwise I don't see how it is even relevant in the article about Stonewall. CupOfTea696 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is a paragraph from start of the Telegraph article (maybe you were looking further down in the detailed discussion?)
 * The teaching of gender identity, and in particular how to explain to children what it means to be transgender, has become highly contentious. As the number of children identifying as transgender has increased, schools have consulted trans charities such as Stonewall and Mermaids about how best to approach the topic. These charities have, however, come under criticism by campaigners, including Transgender Trend and Safe Schools Alliance, for reinforcing a rigid belief in gender roles, and for encouraging children who don’t conform to gender stereotypes to believe they might be trans. The aim of the DfE guidelines is to provide clarity to schools about what they can and can’t teach.
 * Here is the version of the paragraph that was deleted. These sentences do indeed summarise what's written above, no?
 * In 2020, The Telegraph reported that Stonewall's gender identity trainings in schools have used non-conformity to gender stereotypes as evidence a child might be transgender. Campaigners such as Transgender Trend and Safe Schools Alliance have criticised these trainings on the grounds that they reinforce rigid gender roles, and that they encourage non-conforming children to identify as transgender. In September 2020, the Department for Education issued guidance stating that schools should not use materials that point to gender non-conformity as evidence of being transgender, or work with organisations that produce them. AndyGordon (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That's indeed what those campaigners are claiming, but that is not what can be found in Stonewall's guidance for schools. This guidance explicitly says that while non-conformity to gender roles might be an indicator, that alone should not be used as evidence. They have been updated after the DfE guidance was published, however the particular paragraph that is being criticised by these grups has not changed from the 2015 guide. I don't think it's fair to repeat the claims of these campaigners without including what the guide actually says, because they are deliberately misquoting the guidance and taking it out of context by omitting important parts of the paragraph. These campaigners are trying to mislead the public by how they cherry-pick their quotes and slightly change the wording of them, and repeating that without admitting that is simply misleading the readers of this Wikipedia article about what Stonewall is actually saying. Especially given that campainers like these are known specifically for attacking the rights of trans people trans children in particular, and LGBT+ people in general.
 * Here is what Stonewall's An introduction to supporting LGBT children and young people – A guide for schools, colleges and settings actually says:
 * Coming out: Younger pupils may tell you they are LGBT differently. Often, but not always, it will be their parents or carers that raise their child’s identity with you. A trans child may say ‘I feel like a girl’ or ‘I don’t feel like a boy ’ rather than using the word ‘trans’. They may come to school wearing clothes not typically associated with their assigned sex. However, any child might change the way they look or dress for lots of reasons and this alone should not be taken as an indication a child is trans. 
 * The paragraph that I deleted directly quotes from a section of The Telegraph article that does not explicitly mentions Stonewall. The full sentence reads:
 * A large number of the organisations providing training and resources to schools on trans issues use non-conformity to gender stereotypes as evidence that a child is transgender. Mermaids, for example, regularly uses a chart showing gender identity on a 12-point spectrum from a Barbie wearing a pink dress to GI Joe in military fatigues. The Proud Trust uses a resource that talks about “Planet Girl” and “Planet Boy” and asks “What girly things do you like?”
 * CupOfTea696 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article does say about Stonewall, however, One typical claim is that, if a child likes clothes, toys or hobbies typically associated with the opposite sex, it is a sign that a child could be transgender. For example, Stonewall guidance says that one way to identify that a child is transgender is that they “may come to school wearing clothes not typically associated with their assigned sex.” Basically the same point, and any rewording needed would be minor. And when the Telegraph article speaks of campaigners, that is higher in the article, and I don't see the evidence that their criticism is merely about that one document. To say it is therefore seems to be original research. We should be going by and relaying how the secondary sources cover this topic. If Stonewall has an WP:ABOUTSELF response to this reporting, then maybe that can be included, but sources should not be used in such a way that the text is arguing against itself. AndyGordon, any suggestions for how to present this better? Crossroads -talk- 05:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing the original document @CupOfTea696. I see the caveat "this alone". But I also see @Crossroads point that we don't know the full basis for the complaints (eg what may have been said in other docs or trainings). But we are getting into original research rather than summarising the secondary source.
 * This is a separate point, but the Telegraph article doesn't use the word "training" re Stonewall, but it does use the words "resource" and "consulted".  So better for the opening sentence to use "resources for schools" rather than "trainings in schools".
 * So the key sentence we are concerned about would become:
 * In 2020, The Telegraph reported that Stonewall's gender identity resources for schools have used non-conformity to gender stereotypes as evidence a child might be transgender.
 * The words "evidence" and "might be" are summarising "one way to identify" from the source. To me, that's a reasonable summary.
 * We could try to quote "one way to identify" but it's clunky as we'd need to make clear these are the words of the Telegraph not Stonewall.
 * I'd also be happy with "indication" instead of "evidence":
 * In 2020, The Telegraph reported that Stonewall's gender identity resources for schools have used non-conformity to gender stereotypes as an indication that a child might be transgender. AndyGordon (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm good with either. Crossroads -talk- 20:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * that's pretty much what I was going for in my ', which changed phrasing from "evidence" and "is transgender" to "an indicator" and "might be transgender", but was reverted by . I guess the main issue was probably my ' that further expanded on what Stonewall's guidance said rather than talking about what the opposition is saying. It's tricky because on the one hand we have that criticism and the misleading phrasing they use, and on the other we have what Stonewall's guidance actually says. We don't want to further mislead readers of this article, but we also don't want to ignore the existing criticism. We just need to present it in a way that readers have the facts and can make up their own mind on wether or not they find this a valid critique. I think your second suggestion for the sentence does a decent job of removing the misleading language. CupOfTea696 (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks like we reached agreement on this, so the revised version has been added. Glad this worked out. Crossroads -talk- 05:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good. @CupOfTea696 I empathise with your concerns about, and probably frustration, about not being able to use material directly from Stonewall's site. I've had such an experience myself.  But it amounts to WP:OR which I think is a good policy, or else Wikipedia would never stabilise. AndyGordon (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do find it odd that it's fine to show criticism of a certain document without being allowed to actually show the original document, especially when said criticism is intentionally misleading and taking things out of context. In fact, I do not think this is actual policy. I don't think that's what was the problem with my edits, either, though. CupOfTea696 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we would be linking what the Telegraph calls "Stonewall guidance" to a particular archived document on the web. That linking is original research, and may be an incorrect leap, and would be against policy. Hypothetically, if the Telegraph had included a link to the document, then it would not be original research to include the link in our article. And then hypothetically it may be ok to include a textual quotation in the Quote field of the link, but I am not completely sure to be honest. AndyGordon (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been lurking and watching this discussion play out over the last few days. I'm wondering though, do we actually need to include this sentence from the Telegraph? WP:NEWSORG states Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis and there's no policy points that I'm aware of that say we have to cite everything a RS says about a subject. If the piece in the Telegraph is verifiably false, we don't have to include it or state why it's not included as far as I'm aware. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I don't think this piece of Telegraph disinformation reportage is due for the article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's no surprise. @, it is not "verifiable false", though. Even the document in question itself more or less confirms what the Telegraph article - which was reporting the criticisn of third party groups - wrote. Stonewall's document does not use the word "evidence", but what it describes is essentially exactly what the Telegraph article describes: that gender non-conformity is "evidence" of a child being trans. They follow that up with a caveat, which, to me, reads like a boilerplate disclaimer, "this alone should not be used as an indicator..." (emphasis mine). "Indicator" is not the same as "evidence"; indicator is absolute, evidence is contingent. Stonewall DOES present gender non-conformity as "evidence", they only tack on a token caveat that that alone should not decide the matter conclusively (and that caveat alone is for the most part meaningless, if that's all they have to say). Lastly, thus is an attribution to an attribution; it is not stated in Wikivoice, nor was it stated in Telegraph voice. NPOV requires us to include significant viewpoints (and I'm sorry, editors with a bias against a viewpoint covered in RS don't get to be the arbitrators of its significance). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6033:FF4F:6CE5:7BA8 (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV has no such requirement, especially as to do so would easily result in WP:FALSEBALANCE. From FALSEBALANCE Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. NPOV is also tempered by WP:ONUS which states While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. While I've not had time to verify if what the Telegraph states about the Stonewall guidance is or is not true, ONUS does allow us to exclude it even if it is verifiable if it is felt that it does not improve the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * (e-c) IP, I don't think indicator means what you think it means. I also don't think everything The Telegraph finds fit to print is necessarily a significant viewpoint in the sense WP policy demands. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2021
 * Ignore the IP, as he's been going around talkpages making long-winded posts, that aren't helpful. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The arguments to exclude the article seem to amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. FALSEBALANCE, as quoted, isn't unlimited in application; it refers to "minority views" and "extraordinary claims" in contrast to the "mainstream". So where is the evidence that so many sources on the topic of Stonewall contradict the Telegraph article on this specific matter such that mentioning it is undue or a false balance? However, if there are other secondary sources reporting on Stonewall's gender identity training in schools but stating so supportively, then feel free to add them to the article. Crossroads -talk- 07:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have coverage outside The Telegraph to make this mention DUE? I think the essential question is whether to mention the school material at all - when I tried to look this up, most of the RS oxygen seemed to be sucked up by controversy over the "diversity champions" programme. Newimpartial (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I think one of the things that bothers me so much about this paragraph is that it is based on the quote which is a bold claim that The Telegraph fails to back up, and I have yet to see any evidence of anyone encouraging children to believe they might be trans. Repeating this lie doesn't feel very NPOV to me, and The Telegraph being the only RS to even talk about this afaict lends me to agree with and  that this is not at all due. I certainly do not see how it improves the article given its untruthful misleading nature. — &#123;{u&#124; CupOfTea 696 }} [ talk &#124; contribs ] 04:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable news sources don't cite sources like an academic paper. That critics say that is not a particularly bold claim, and they name the specific groups that say it. The claim as I understand it is not that they directly encourage trans identification, but that their materials nevertheless lead gender non-conforming children to this conclusion.
 * Since you say you have yet to see evidence that "anyone" does this, this prop pack (for a book they still use) from the Proud Trust and meant for young children, and named by The Telegraph, states about those on "Planet Girl" for example that they "MUST like pink, MUST wear dresses, MUST be feminine". It then asks 'why can't we do what we want to do?' The only solution it gives is to cross over bridges between the gender planets, becoming transgender. This analysis blatantly tells young children that non-conformity to stereotypes makes you trans; it is literally impossible to be a girl who isn't stereotypically feminine.
 * Now, I know that the Proud Trust is a different organization than Stonewall, but it does rebut the claim that nobody does this. Regarding Stonewall, as said above by, "we don't know the full basis for the complaints (eg what may have been said in other docs or trainings)". Still, if you would feel better including an WP:ABOUTSELF rebuttal from Stonewall, this could perhaps be done. Crossroads -talk- 06:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a nonbinary person, I am deeply offended by any prop pack in which there are exactly two (and only two) planets. But I also haven't seen any evidence that Stonewall encourages rigid belief in gender roles - this is, in spite of Crossroads, a contentious claim, made by a biased source and supported (as far as I know) by no evidence. Taking that Telegraph claim, and watering it down into something that might possibly true, is not our job here - if the Telegraph makes an outlandish claim ("rigid belief in gender roles") for which no evidence exists, it is DUE to leave it out. Newimpartial (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * . Of course,, anything can be true when you lie. You claim this book says a bunch of things it simply does not say. But if you nit-pick a few specific things from additional resources that go with it without examining the book any further, or rather more likely, intentionally leave things out, you can make it seem that way. Look, I get it, a bunch of people, maybe you included, believe strongly that telling kids about trans and non-binary people is somehow the same as encouraging them to be trans, but as far as I'm aware telling kids about the existence of bears has never turned them into a bear, so I don't see how this would be true for anything else. There certainly isn't any science to back that up. But it does sound very reminicent of Section 28, which takes us nicely back to something I've said before that a bunch of these transphobic arguments are just recycled homophobia. Honestly, this whole conversation just has me more and more convinced that it is not DUE to repeat claims that at best we do not know the full basis for, and at worst have no basis in truth. I do not think including an WP:ABOUTSELF rebuttal is sufficient here.
 * both the prop pack and the book do include a 3rd planet, btw.
 * — &#123;{u&#124; CupOfTea 696 }} [ talk &#124; contribs ] 03:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't assume bad faith and accuse me of lying when I am just mistaken (possibly). Although, the prop pack clearly follows up "be who we want to be" and "we must do something" with 'building a bridge' between the gender planets so people can cross over. It may well be that since then, perhaps because of the new Department for Education guidelines stating that "Materials which suggest that non-conformity to gender stereotypes should be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity should not be used and you should not work with external agencies or organisations that produce such material", which the very same Telegraph article discussed, they revised the materials. This would explain why the previous version is archived. But who knows for sure.
 * Even though sexual orientation is of course distinct from gender identity, I certainly don't believe that telling kids about trans and nonbinary people somehow induces them to become such. I just don't see that the material in the article, making liberal use of in-text attribution, is somehow WP:UNDUE. If it is undue, then the bulk of other sources must be saying otherwise. I think WP:ABOUTSELF as a compromise is a good way to go. Crossroads -talk- 07:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What would an WP:ABOUTSELF rebuttal say, here? Quote from their guidance? AndyGordon (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, or maybe they made a statement in response to the DfE's new regulation or the Telegraph report? Crossroads -talk- 08:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In my short time being active on Wikipedia, I've seen your name around a lot and so far, most of what I've seen you do and say have given my absolutely no reason to assume you act in good faith. I do generally assume good faith, but I've also had enough experience to recognise when someone is not acting in good faith, no matter how good they are at colouring inside the lines. If you're genuinely expecting me to believe that while looking into the book you managed to somehow miss its main page and store page that both have clearly visible quotes that contradict the claims you are trying to make, I don't really know what to tell you except that I just don't.
 * More to the point, I want to reiterate the question that originally made: Do we have coverage outside The Telegraph to make this mention DUE? I can't find any, and if it does not exist I genuinely do not believe this section is at all DUE given that it only has one article from a biased source, quoting known hate-groups. — &#123;{u&#124; CupOfTea 696  }} [ talk &#124; contribs ] 13:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I had mentioned this book in a previous discussion, and I largely copied my points from there, but since then they have overhauled the website and added things that weren't there previously and that I didn't see. Well, good for them revising it. Crossroads -talk- 04:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying you weren't lying, you just sloppily relied on copypasta from an old argument and didn't bother checking whether what you claimed about your citations was still accurate? That still seems quite concerning, tbh. WP:V is somewhat at tension with my dog ate my homework "I forgot to check my source". Newimpartial (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I proved my point which is that some activist group materials have strongly implied that not identifying with stereotypes makes a kid trans. Have, even if this one doesn't anymore. Before mentioning it here I did poke around on their website, but didn't notice they added a "they tore them up" page. Anyway, this is incredibly off-topic. Crossroads -talk- 05:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The book itself has not changed at any point, there is only one edition afaict, so they didn't "add" that page, it's always been there. But yeah, this is getting off-topic. The question at hand seems to have either gotten lost again, or the answer is simply "no". I think if no one can provide any coverage outside of The Telegraph about this, I'm gonna go ahead and remove this paragraph in a few days. — &#123;{u&#124; CupOfTea 696 }} [ talk &#124; contribs ] 07:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the prop pack was quite clear, so I don't know what the deal is. But anyway, I'll look for sources. Crossroads -talk- 06:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Repeats between Diversity Champions and Opposition sections
I just noticed two paragraphs in the Opposition section are essentially just repeat information about orgs withdrawing from the Diversity Champions programme which is already mentioned in its own section. Is it common to have duplicate information in the same article like this? If not, how would we go about removing the duplicate information? I feel like it can probably stay contained in the Diversity Champions section. — &#123;{u&#124; CupOfTea 696 }} [ talk &#124; contribs ] 20:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Universities abandoning Diversity Champions scheme
You have added to the article: In 2022 it was reported that some UK universities had declined to apply for a ranking in Stonewall's equality league table. I don’t have access to the Telegraph, but it looks from the headline and the beginning of the article that the story is about Scottish universities only. Is this the case? Can you clarify, please. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Some Scottish unis are cited as following the earlier example of UCL. Melissa Highton (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The source briefly mentions University College London, but yes, it's near exclusively focused on Scottish Universities. "some UK universities" is technically true, but I think it overstates the position of the source. Firefangledfeathers 15:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a ref for UCL https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/dec/21/ucl-becomes-first-university-to-formally-cut-ties-with-stonewall I could add in that UCL was first, followed by others? Melissa Highton (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The UCL withdrawal is already in the article, under ‘Opposition’. Perhaps the final paragraph of the ‘Opposition’ section should be moved to the Diversity Champions’ section? And if it is only Scottish universities in the Telegraph article, the sentence should be reworded to say it is some Scottish universities which have declined to apply. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't move the UCL mention into the Diversity Champions section, as it AFAIK it refers to all of Stonewall's programmes and not just that particular scheme. I have access to the Telegraph source (and can email if anyone wants a copy), which says in part:
 * ... the University of Edinburgh has quietly declined to submit an application for this year’s rankings following a series of controversies, The Telegraph can reveal. Other institutions which have taken part in previous editions but have shunned the scheme this year include the University of Glasgow, the University of the West of Scotland and Robert Gordon University. The latter two confirmed that they are reviewing future participation. It follows University College London’s decision to formally cut ties with Stonewall in December, after senior academics voiced fears that membership of its programmes could stifle debate over sex and gender.
 * No other universities are mentioned, and the source explicitly says that Edinburgh is still a member of the Diversity Champions scheme.
 * I would probably move this information to the "Opposition" section after the already-cited UCL bit, and then add: Following UCL's decision, several Scottish universities declined to apply for a ranking in Stonewall's equality league table for 2022. —AFreshStart (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * University of Glasgow has said on their Twitter earlier today that Recent media reporting is misleading. UofG does not enter the WEI annually. not enter the WEI league table annually. Entering the WEI does not affect our Diversity Champion membership with Stonewall and we currently have no intention of leaving. I've not seen any similar posts for UWS or Robert Gordon University, but I've also not actively searched for those as well. I would not be surprised however given the Telegraph's recent track record on Stonewall if similar statements either do exist or will shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just done a brief check of both of the other two universities' social media and couldn't turn up anything from them directly. However the USWSU President has put out a similar statement to that of UofG. In light of this, I'd err on the side of not including this info in the articles as the source has seemingly been deliberately misleading. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The current wording reflects the source. I don’t think that the quote from the source is deliberately misleading. I would err on the side of keeping the current wording, but deleting ‘Following’, because this could be read as if the Scottish universities are following the lead of UCL. But I think the material should be moved - see new section below. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sections ‘Diversity Champions’ and ‘Opposition’ overlap
There is a separate section for the Diversity Champions scheme, and for Opposition, but the ‘Opposition’  section contains material which is about the ‘Diversity Champions’ scheme, as  has previously mentioned. For instance, Ofcom is mentioned in the ‘Opposition’ section, but the source refers to the Diversity Champions Scheme. Similarly with the BBC. The source on UCL says it has withdrawn from the Diversity Champions Scheme as well as the workplace equality index. The ‘Opposition’ section includes material on the criticism of the Diversity Champions scheme in the report commissioned by the University of Essex.

Also, it may not necessarily be the case that withdrawal from the Diversity Champions scheme represents ‘opposition’ to Stonewall. For instance, the EHRC said it had withdrawn because of the cost.

I propose that all the material which refers to the Diversity Champions scheme and/or the workplace equality index, should be moved from the Opposition section to the Diversity Champions section, which should be re-named Diversity Champions and workplace equality index.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That seems like a good idea, I don't see any reason to mention the same things twice in one article. — &#123;{u&#124; CupOfTea 696 }} [ talk &#124; contribs ] 00:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have made several changes to the article, deleting material which seems to me to me duplication, and moving some material to the Diversity Champions section. In some cases, the duplicated material has slightly different wording, and different sources. I would welcome a review of my changes to ensure that everything is now in order,and agreed by other editors. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Names
Since its original name was The Stonewall Lobby Group Limited, that name should be mentioned. Stonewall Diversity Limited appears to be the same organisation or connected to it, , and should also be mentioned. Mcljlm (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should mention that Stonewall Equality Ltd used to be called The Stonewall Lobby Group Ltd.
 * I can’t find Stonewall Diversity Ltd at Companies House so I think this is a mistake. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done as thorough a search into "Stonewall Diversity Limited" as possible. As far as I can tell, the first instance of that name appearing was in press releases from June 2020, made by Allison Bailey, as part of her legal case against Stonewall. There is no filing history for Stonewall Diversity Limited in Companies House, neither is there any reliable sources stating Stonewall have ever operated under this name.
 * From this, I conclude this to be an error on Allison's part, evidenced by the only appearances of it in any sources being derived from her press releases, and that appears to have been corrected sometime between the initial round of press releases for her case and the Tribunal hearing in Feburary 2021.
 * As for "The Stonewall Lobby Group Ltd.", that is evidenced by prior filings on Companies House. Just so that we can word it appropriately and give it the correct amount of weight, do we know of any other Wikipedia articles that mention previous filing names for charities or companies? We currently mention Stonewall's official name in bold, in the lead. Is past company or charity name equally weighted in article leads? Or is this something perhaps better served in the body, backed up by any reliable sources contemporary to the change to explain why the organisation changed names? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added the inf on the original name to the ‘History’ section. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the language of that sentence to flow a bit more naturally. It previously read as stilted and overly verbose to me. Feel free to revert though if you feel that it's not an improvement. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On a related note to this, do we have any secondary sources covering the name change? I've tried to do a Google search, but outside of the Companies House filing I can't find anything contemporary to the time period of the change in the media. I don't think it's a problem per-say, just that it would perhaps be stronger cited if we could link a news article on it or similar. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would a secondary source be stronger? Mcljlm (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In short, I refer to WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:SECONDARY. While there are circumstances where WP:PRIMARY sources, like a filing at Companies House, may be appropriate, where possible it is best to use secondary sources. Secondary soures better demonstrate the notability and weight we should give a statement or fact than a primary source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Safe Schools Alliance anti-transgender?
you reverted the IP's addition of the addition of "anti-transgender" as "inappropriate". The source for that paragraph explicitly calls the Safe Schools Alliance and "anti-trans pressure group". "Inappropriate" isn't exactly much to go by, so could you clarify what you object to there? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The source for that paragraph explicitly calls the Safe Schools Alliance and "anti-trans pressure group". There is only one source, which is PinkNews. This is not enough to call the Safe Schools Alliance ‘anti-trans’ in wikivoice. And since it is the only source for this, it would be undue and long-winded to say ‘which PinkNews has referred to as ‘anti-trans’. So it’s best to just leave it out. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We do need to describe the group to the readers since they are not well known. Rab V (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't describe them as 'anti-trans' in wikivoice. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If RS refer to them as that then it follows wikipedia policy. Every source about them is in regards to their positions against trans friendly policies. Rab V (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You say Every source about them is in regards to their positions against trans friendly policies. What RS refer to them as against trans friendly policies? What do you mean by Every source? There is only PinkNews and one source is not enough to say this in wikivoice. If you have other sources, you should provide them, and you should engage in discussion on this Talk page, instead of edit warring. The onus is on you to justify including the additional wording you want. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and one (or even a few) WP:BIASEDSOURCES are not sufficient to justify such a strong descriptor in Wikivoice. One would need to show agreement on that term from a wider spectrum of reliable sources. Crossroads -talk- 00:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment from the Economist
I suggest you discuss this here, rather than communicating via edit summaries. I think inclusion is borderline, but I do not have access to the full article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There's an archived copy of The Economist article here: https://archive.ph/7RHNv JezGrove (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I am not convinced that the addition ‘[t]he tide in Britain appears to be turning against groups who espouse the belief that gender identity trumps all else, and towards maintaining support for sex-based rights and evidence-based medicine" is actually a direct comment about Stonewall, rather than a general comment about trans-supportive organisations. But I would support the first part of the disputed text: ‘The Economist described Stonewall's response as putting "a very brave face on it"’, because this is directly related to Stonewall in particular. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds absolutely fine to me - I only added the rest of the extract to replace the slightly paraphrased wiki voice version with The Economist's own wording. JezGrove (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone!
 * Earlier in the article, we have: "In 2018 Allison Bailey, a barrister, sent an email to colleagues arguing that her chambers, Garden Court, should not join the “diversity champions” scheme of Stonewall, a lobby group that argues a person’s self-identified gender should override biological sex."  My read is that the Economist is saying that Stonewall is a lobby group that argues person’s self-identified gender should override biological sex.
 * So later when they talk about the tide is turning, it's clear they are including Stonewall in the set of groups they're talking about.
 * That's why I'd prefer the original phrasing: "because the mood in Britain appears to be changing against groups, like Stonewall, that hold the belief that gender identity is paramount and towards "maintaining support for sex-based rights and evidence-based medicine"" AndyGordon (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * PS @Sweet6970 Wikipedia editor question: how do get the nice green font for quotes? I can't find how to do it in the Visual Editor? AndyGordon (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To AndyGordon: I still think that there is not enough in the article to support us saying that the ‘tide in Britain’ comment is directly about Stonewall. Our article should be confined to material which is directly about Stonewall, rather than the position generally regarding the transgender movement.
 * On your PS: I have no idea how Visual Editor works – I only ever use the basic markup, which shows all the workings. In markup, you enclose the quote in 2 pairs of curly brackets {{ and after the first pair of brackets, you add tq|. (I assume that tq stands for ‘turquoise’.) I hope this is helpful. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip re markup. I will make a note.  Confirms my suspicion that it's not directly supported by the Visual Editor (which I highly recommend).
 * OK, I've read the whole piece again, and also No original research and I will go along with your proposal: "But I would support the first part of the disputed text: ‘ The Economist described Stonewall's response as putting "a very brave face on it" ’, because this is directly related to Stonewall in particular."" AndyGordon (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now added this wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)