Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Does the GPAHE "Irish Far-right Hate and Extremist Groups" report describe LGB Alliance as a far-right group?

@Hashimashadoo has removed the phrase term "far-right" from "In August 2022, the Global Project against Hate and Extremism released a report in which it classified LGB Alliance Ireland as a far-right anti-transgender hate group." I believe this is because they're interpreting the report title of "Irish Far-right Hate and Extremist Groups" to mean it covers "Far-right Hate" groups and also "Extremist" groups and so don't think that all the groups covered by it are being stated to be far-right. This seems a misreading of the report and Irish Times article to me. Both sources says that the report is in a series "covering far-right movements" and repeatedly use the terms "far-right extremism" and "far-right extremist" when describing what the report covers. The GPAHE's description of the report at https://globalextremism.org/post/release-ireland-report/ is that it covers "12 far-right groups in Ireland". There are only 12 groups in the report, so they must mean they consider all 12 far-right, including LGB Alliance.

Any opinions on this? JaggedHamster (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from the source/s which actually says that LGB Alliance is far-right. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I already provided quotes for this. If a report is entirely about far-right groups, which the GPAHE say it is, it doesn't then need to say in the individual entry for each group "This group is far-right" in order for it to be labelling the group as far-right. Anyway, I've found an additional reliable source that directly states that the report is labelling them as far-right, so have updated the article to include it. JaggedHamster (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

No, you haven't provided any quote saying that LGB Alliance Ireland is far-right, and I can't find any such quote in the texts of any of the sources which supposedly support your statement. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion in a list of far-right groups is an assertion (by the author/publisher) that a group is far right. It doesn't have to be stated in the form of a sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you being purposefully disingenuous, Sweet6970? The group's report is on what they classify as "far-right extremist hate groups" and they include LGB Alliance in that list of such groups. If you can't understand that, then I have to question your competency with the English language. Silverseren^C 18:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

to Newimpartial: the list is of ‘far-right’ and ‘extremist’ groups. I repeat: I cannot find anything in the sources saying that LGB Alliance Ireland is a far-right group.

to Silver seren: No, I am not being disingenuous: I am being careful and cautious with the sources. And the only people who have ever questioned my competence with the English language have been editors on Wikipedia who disagree with me on a content matter. Please stick to the point.

As I said above, the list is of ‘far-right’ and ‘extremist’ groups. These are different things. I gather that in the USA, some people regard advocacy for homosexual rights as far-left extremism. The fact that some people regard advocacy for homosexual rights as extremist doesn’t mean that advocacy for homosexual rights is far-right. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Neither the original report from GPAHE nor the secondary source provided by JaggedHamster supports the distinction you are making, which seems to be entirely original. Both sources support the interpretation that all the listed groups are "far right", as is shown for example in the sentence (second paragraph) The report, Irish Far-right Hate and Extremist Groups, details 12 far-right groups in Ireland, of which the LGB Alliance is one. All the groups are far right, and they may be hate groups and/or extremist groups, depending on the context. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with JaggedHamster here: while it might not be clear from the title of the report alone, it's clear from the secondary material. Loki (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

As I explained to JaggedHamster in the edit logs, in reading the actual GPAHE report (https://globalextremism.org/ireland/), rather than just the summary, there are no allusions made that LGBAlliance Ireland is politically affiliated with the far-right in any way, shape, or form, whereas in describing other orgs, they do make that affiliation fairly clear. I cannot find a single secondary source that describes members of this particular org as far-right, except for Pink News, which directly references and misinterprets the GPAHE summary in the exact same way that JaggedHamster has, and individuals quoting that Pink News article. In fact, in that Pink News article (https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/08/23/lgb-alliance-far-right-extremist-group-gpahe/), they point out that far-right hate groups in Ireland sprang up in direct response to Irish marriage equality legislation in 2015 - which is something that, despite LGBA's abhorrent views on trans people, the LGBA actually supports. Hashimashadoo (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources:

- https://www.irishcentral.com/news/ireland-far-right-hate-extremist-groups - somewhat tabloidy but is used in other articles as a source, says "The Irish Far-right Hate and Extremist Groups report details 12 far-right groups in Ireland"

- https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/christian-group-iona-institute-branded-extremist-and-hateful-considers-legal-action-c8rhzp8gx - includes a quote from the "National Women’s Council of Ireland" saying the “report identifies at least 12 far-right groups. Eight are categorised as anti-immigrant, four as white nationalist and eight as anti-LGBTQ+ or specifically anti-trans.”

- https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-40947116.html - opinion piece disagreeing with the report but which says "LGB Alliance Ireland take issue with theories around gender dysphoria, and as a result they are labelled in this report as transphobic and by extension a far-right group."

I'm not opposed to including content in the article, with appropriate sourcing, saying that some people/orgs disagree with the report classifying LGB Alliance as far-right, but I think it's clear that sources regard the report as calling all the organisations in it far-right, and that's what the article needs to reflect.

"Pink News, which directly references and misinterprets the GPAHE summary..." - It may be your opinion that they are misinterpreting it, but that is not relevant when it comes to what we include in the article unless you have a reliable source saying they are misinterpreting it, otherwise we need to go with them over your opinion. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional sources. The Irish Examiner article that you link to very much illustrates my point though. Transphobia is not an intrinsically far-right issue, and calling them a far-right group by dint of being transphobic is fallacious. While it's true that the far-right are responsible for the majority of transphobia in the world, it far from unique to them - many Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists and their related groups are clearly left wing in nature, while still being bigoted. When citing a report, we should be actually citing the content of the report, not a summary of the report which could be generalising the report's content for summation's sake. The report itself does not, in any way, describe LGBA Ireland as a far-right group. Hashimashadoo (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with you about whether the report says they are a far-right group but that isn't important here one way or the other, our individual opinions as editors interpreting the primary source aren't a basis for the article, we need to use what reliable secondary sources say.

It would be useful to have a read of Wikipedia:No original research, particularly the section WP:PST, which starts "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

(I think you're also conflating two separate points here, which is whether the report calls them far-right, and whether they actually are far-right. The text we're discussing is "In August 2022, the Global Project against Hate and Extremism released a report in which it classified LGB Alliance Ireland as a far-right anti-transgender hate group." It is fully possible to disagree with the report classifying them as far-right, as the Irish Examiner opinion piece does. That doesn't mean that's not how the report classifies them.) JaggedHamster (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you're entirely missing *my* point, where the *report itself* doesn't call them far-right, but the *summary of the report* lumps them in with groups that are purely for the sake of summation. Hashimashadoo (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you proposing that we use editors' own interpretations of primary sources to overrule the secondary sources, then? Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm merely saying that primary sources trump secondary ones - as is the case in all historical research. Hashimashadoo (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not engaged in historical research. Primary sources do not trump secondary ones, here. Please see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Full protection

Due to ongoing edit warring and the controversial nature of the dispute above, I have full-protected the article for a few days. Please work together, civilly, to achieve consensus before using an edit request to request changes. Many thanks — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 11:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems like the previous edit war over the lede returned after the full protection expired. I'd greatly appreciate if all involved editors avoided changing the lede from its previous status quo while discussion is ongoing in the talk page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

LGB Alliance is a British organisation

@Newimpartial: This article is about the British organisation. Your edit which makes it say The LGB Alliance in Ireland has been listed among far-right extremist groups by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism is making the article say that LGB Alliance Ireland is part of the British organisation. It is clear that this is not the case, per the section International groups lower down the article. Please do not make edits which contradict the sources, and which cause the article to not make sense. You should self-revert, and in any event, you should have raised this matter on the Talk page, instead of reverting Crossroads and myself. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you and Crossroads raised entirely different concerns (neither of which is valid in context). As to your claim that this article's scope is limited to the UK group, that view has not had consensus for some time - the main concern raised in the most recent discussion of this was that the article not give a misleading impression of actual existence to "chapters" that might consist of a single Twitter account. The status quo text on this was misleading, so I have made appropriate adjustments, and have also (I hope) removed any impression left by the first paragraph that the Irish group is part of the UK organisation. Newimpartial (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you and Crossroads raised entirely different concerns… For heaven’s sake, Newimpartial – did you not read Crossroads’ edit summary? – Revert, WP:UNDUE in lead. Refers only to Ireland offshoot; also the group making this claim appears to be non-notable and by two researchers who left the SPLC (why?). Unclear if they are reliable or their opinion is noteworthy. We both raise the concern that the ref only refers to ‘the Ireland offshoot’.

And I agree with Crossroads that your addition is UNDUE for the lead.

You have now made various references to the UK. I don’t wish to get involved in discussions of Irish politics, but Northern Ireland is legally part of the UK. ‘Ireland’ may refer to the whole island, or it may, and very commonly does, refer only to the Republic. So it is now unclear whether Wikipedia is saying that LGB Ireland is part of the ‘UK’ organisation.

And I don’t agree with your change in the wording of ‘International groups’ from ‘similar’ to ‘shared’. This is an overstatement, and I prefer the wording by DanielRigal.

Sweet6970 (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Not to split hairs, but you were claiming that LGB Alliance Ireland is out of scope for this article; this was not one of the issues Crossroads raised.

Also, the only information we actually have about the relationship between the UK LGB Alliance and LGB Alliance Ireland must be either from RS or ABOUTSELF sources. The UK group links it among the other international groups, and the NGO lists it alongside other hate groups operating in Ireland. If you think any text in this article wades into Northern Irish politics or makes any assertions about the (rather opaque) structure of the Alliance that the article does not support.

Incidentially, the "British" that I removed from the lead sentence was unsupported by sources, as far as I know, and implied that the scope of the original UK campaign group excluded Northern Ireland - if you have any evidence supporting that, I would very much like to see it. Newimpartial (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

No, you’re certainly not splitting hairs – you are claiming I said something I didn’t say. My edit summary was It does not make sense to say ‘ It has been listed among far-right extremist groups in Ireland….’ when the article is about the British organisation. The previous wording is correct. The article used to start: The LGB Alliance is a British campaign group founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues. i.e. the subject of the article is the British organisation. I have accepted the addition of the section on International groups, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the article is about the British organisation.

As regards the organisation being British – the company is registered as a limited company with the Registrar of Companies for England & Wales. Similarly, it is registered as a charity with the Charity Commission for England and Wales.

You have not justified mention of the Irish organisation in the lead.

You have not justified your change in the wording of the International groups section from ‘similar’ to ‘shared’.

And it really would be better not to change the wording of the first sentence of the lead whilst there is a discussion going on about this.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that a charity registered in England (and Wales), rather than Scotland or Northern Ireland, is correctly referred to as British but not UK? Now that seems counterintuitive. Newimpartial (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like we have different intuitions. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit by John Cummings [1]– neither the Irish nor the Australian organisations should be mentioned in the lead. This article is about the British organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to you that the scope of this article has, for some time now, included LGB Alliance organisations outside the UK. Per LEADFOLLOWSBODY, this is now reflected in the lead. As with the Irish case, the designation of LGB Alliance Australia as a hate group has received independent, RS coverage. Given your insistence in prior discussion on Talk that we should not follow the RSs as they report on the GPAHE reports, this looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The reference to the foreign organisations is UNDUE in the lead – since the article is about the British organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Further, you have not replied to my objection to the change from ‘similar’ to ‘shared’. ‘Shared’ is inappropriate, because it suggests a close connection between the organisations, which are in fact independent of each other. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the sourcing for the "independence" of the chapters? Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

If you want to say they are connected to each other, you need to provide a source for this. I don’t know what you mean by ‘chapters’. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"Chapters" is a term some RS use for LGB Alliance Ireland, Australia, etc. - tbe RS certainly see them as connected to each other. :) Newimpartial (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

From GPAHE:

Ireland: The Irish LGB Alliance (LGBA) was founded in 2020 and is an offshoot of the UK LGB Alliance ... In general, LGBA opposes gender-identity education in schools, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform. ... Irish LGBTQ+ activists contend that its membership is mostly UK-based, though the Irish chapter insists “all our committee members are living in Ireland.”

Australia: In general, LGBA and its international chapters oppose gender-identity education in schools, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform.

From independent coverage:

Pink News: LGB Alliance Ireland is an offshoot of the UK pressure group, and like it claims that trans rights are in conflict with LGB rights while devoting the vast majority of its efforts attacking advancements to trans rights. ... It dedicates much of its report to the UK group, which has, among other things, campaigned against life-saving gender recognition reforms, gender-affirming healthcare for young people, and letting trans people use single-sex spaces and services. ... LGB Alliance Ireland fell onto GPAHE’s radar after its UK counterpart compared LGBTQ+ inclusion to “bestiality”, said co-founder Heidi Beirich.

Star Observer: According to GPAHE, the UK-based anti-trans group LGB Alliance’s Australia chapter has supported Jessica Hoyle’s case seeking exemption under Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination laws to hold some singe-sex events that would ban trans women.

In short, LGB alliance Australia and Ireland are chapters of the UK group, and we have ample reason to include their classification as hate groups in the lead. Perhaps even to note, as independent coverage has done, that most of the reports center the actions of the UK branch. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the fact the Irish chapter/offshoot has been listed as a hate group was already in the intro, all I did was add that the Australian version has also been listed (along with some small grammar changes). Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

There’s a confused edit history on this – the ref to the GPAHE report was first added to the lead on 21 October[2], and was written as if it applied to the British organisation. This was subsequently amended to refer to the Irish organisation. I disagree that the references to these foreign organisations should be in the lead, since the article is about the British organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Raising the major issue of categorisation in this article, hate group?

Wikipedia has an objective to make the most informative statements that adhere to objectivity to serve the public civil purpose of contributing to knowledge. While statements can never be completely neutral, they are clear categorisations that we have established in the current literature and should adhere to them when discussing matters of public interest.

The LGB alliance is opposed to protecting the category of gender identity, and is publicly promoting the gatekeeping of medical resources for gender-affirming care and supports conversion therapy for trans people, and is considered transphobic by major human rights organisations and activists . I would like to bring attention to the editors the current wikipedia definition of hate group that includes discrimination against members of a certain nation, race or gender identity. The part of gender identity here is crucial. Thus, it seems imperative to correctly identity the LGB alliance as a hate group, rather than a campaign group. This is to be objective and neutral, rather than integrate biased views of the transgender population in editing practice. The other option to resolve this contradiction would be to edit the wikipedia entry of what constitutes a hate group, as it currently includes hate against people based on gender identity.

Proposed minor edit:

From:

The LGB Alliance is a campaign group founded in the UK in 2019, in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.

To:

The LGB Alliance is a hate group founded in the UK in 2019, in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.

OR

The LGB Alliance is a campaign hate group founded in the UK in 2019, in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveBiology (talk • contribs) 14:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 6#RFC on opening sentence, where adding hate group as a descriptor in the lead was question 2. You'd need some strong sources that support calling the LGBA a hate group, and another RfC before it could be added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Just came here to do this. I think I'm going to pin this on this page. Thanks for linking it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

> current wikipedia definition of hate group that includes discrimination against members of a certain nation, race or gender identity.

People discuss removing protection for religious beliefs and/or rolling them into a broader protection of personal beliefs. That isn't hate speech, it's a reasonable discussion of the specifics of laws required to protect the most people. Even if you are correct that the LGBA wants to remove or prevent gender-specific protections, your suggestion that this is from "hate", this wouldn't be an action that hurts anyone - it'd be a protected political opinion about the proper scope of protected categories.

This, and other panicked calls for action here and and in other articles, are generally because we refuse to actually quote the subject's words (LGBA here) in criticisms. So many of the "reliable sources" in this topic refuse to actually examine what was said and aren't, in all honesty, reliable at all. If they can't quote someone in context then they don't deserve to even be referenced, let alone in a meta-call for Wikipedia itself to explicitly label people a hate group. InverseZebra (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments on behalf of the Charity Commission at the resumed hearing

The hearing about the challenge to charitable status has resumed. [3] The Guardian’s report includes:

“The creation of LGB Alliance has promoted constructive debate on “difficult and problematic issues” of sex and gender, the Charity Commission told a court on Monday, during final arguments over whether the gay rights group should have been given charitable status. “

and ““An institution whose purpose is to promote the rights and fair treatment of lesbian, gay and bisexual people will be acting for charitable purposes,” he said. “The issue is whether LGB Alliance was actually established to pursue the pro LGB purposes it set out or whether it really has anti trans purposes.”

Any comments about adding something about these comments on behalf of the Charity Commission?

Sweet6970 (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are editors determined to include every bit of tittle tattle in a court case? And above, just select one side? The Guardian is incorrect in saying "the Charity Commission told a court on Monday", for the Charity Commission (as a government department) did not say that and could not say that. It was, as the subsequent sentences make clear, the opinion of Iain Steele, counsel for the commission, who, unlike the Charity Commission, is not required to make neutral statements but is explicitly employed to be biased on their behalf in this court case. The article goes on to say "he stressed that it was unreasonable to expect the Charity Commission to look behind the stated purposes of an organisation" which is an interesting opinion but quite evidentially false (even if it is an admission of failure). The Commission does investigate organisations, as editors here who have enjoyed piling tittle tattle in the Mermaids article will know.

Look, people say things in court. We don't have to report it all as much of it, on both sides, is guff. Could we just wait till we get a verdict and then write it up. -- Colin°^Talk 22:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Colin, I am not determined to include every bit of tittle tattle in a court case. The quotes I selected are not ‘tittle tattle’ – they are, as you are aware, because you mentioned it in your post, comments made by counsel for the Charity Commission. I highlighted them here because I found them somewhat surprising, and hence, interesting. I don’t understand what you mean by ‘selecting one side’. And I don’t know who you are referring to when you say editors here who have enjoyed piling tittle tattle in the Mermaids article.

I have not added anything on this to the article – I deliberately raised the question on the Talk page here because I wanted other editors’ opinions on this. I suggest you read/re-read WP:AGF WP:NPA

Sweet6970 (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Well you proposed adding it, and both articles are filled with tittle tattle about ongoing investigations by newspapers/commissions/courts, which presumably were added by "editors" rather than the pixies.

An encyclopaedia is not about giving a running commentary about everything that those who appear in court have said. It is quite obvious that some parties in the case will describe LGB Alliance in positive terms and some will describe it negatively. And we already state the basis of the case, which is whether the LGB Alliance purpose is not what it claimed, and that true purpose does not deserve charitable status. We don't really need some random counsel to add to that. By "selecting one side" I mean that you took the arguments made by one side on yesterday's day in court and neglected to propose including anything from Mermaids' counsel's summing-up comments, which included 'LGB Alliance’s “worldview and objectives are based on conflict and confrontation. This makes its approach fundamentally unpleasant, aggressive and corrosive of public discourse.”' That view of LGB Alliance is diametrically opposite to the one ("LGB Alliance has promoted constructive debate") you proposed "adding". So, you proposed adding one side.

But we don't just dump random bits of what each side said about each other. If you want a running commentary of the case, go on Twitter or read your newspaper. Nothing encyclopaedic is going to happen till it concludes. -- Colin°^Talk 12:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I said: Any comments about adding something about these comments on behalf of the Charity Commission? because I was dubious about adding anything, and wanted comments from other editors as to whether something should be added or not. I was not intending to positively suggest that something should be added. However, I can now see that it might be reasonable to interpret my comment in that way.

I agree with your comments about not adding a running commentary to the article – for this reason I was opposed to adding the various comments made at the hearing which are currently in the article under Challenge to charitable status.

Regarding ‘side’ : one of the reasons I highlighted these comments was because they were made on behalf of the Charity Commission. You are referring to the ‘sides’ as LGB Alliance and Mermaids, which was how I understood it – but the Charity Commission is another ‘side’, and that was why I found the comments made by their counsel surprising and interesting.

So far, you are the only person who has responded to my post, and as you are opposed to adding anything, obviously I will not be adding anything based on the news report to the article (unless there are further comments from other editors).

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Goodness me. -- Colin°^Talk 17:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Colin's said much of what I would have. I'm not sure why we'd include mid/late case commentary from one of the three QCs involved, as ultimately what is more noteworthy will be the final judgement when it is issued. I think it's probably enough for now to just say that the case is still ongoing. Whenever the judgement is issued, then we'll likely have reactions from legal scholars and commentators to help us assess and document the significance of the case (if any beyond the confirmation or removal of charity status). Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)