Talk:LGB Alliance: Difference between revisions

By /

Please see Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 6#RFC on opening sentence, where adding “hate group” as a descriptor in the lead was question 2. … The first part of the RfC found clear consensus on describing the subject as an “advocacy group” in the opening sentence as a neutral term. The second part also found clear consensus against describing the subject as a “hate group” in the opening sentence.

Notice how the body of the article has been substantially expanded with scholarly sources after this, sources that tend to describe it as an anti-trans group or in similar terms. Also notice the case Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Proposed decision, which suggests that this old discussion may have been at least partially compromised by systematic efforts to promote anti-trans views. It should therefore not be considered binding on how consensus might evolve on this article going forward. —Tataral (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I have already created a new discussion topic, but maybe looking at these is helpful when it comes to challenging the RfC. I personally think it shouldn’t really matter. We need to start over on most of this imo.
About the challenges to the old consensus: Wikipedia:Procedurally flawed consensus and Wikipedia:Fruit of the poisonous tree#Wikipedia processes might be relevant to this. Slomo666 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LGB Alliance merged with 17 other LGB groups to create LGB International. This page should be moved to a new LGB International page.

See: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/20/gender-critical-gay-rights-groups-unite-pro-trans-alliance/ Aesurias (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph article seemes confused: as far as I can tell LGB Alliance is a founding affiliate of LGB International, but isn’t merging into it. Given that it’s a UK charity it couldn’t do that. We should wait for wider reporting before making major changes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that if you go to LGB International you will find the LGB Alliance described as one of the National Affliates, and it’s completely clear that the 13 National Affiliates and 5 Associate Members all continue to have separate existences. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a very brief section about this based on [1] in the Western Standard which gives a better persepctive on the international nature of the new group in comparison with the UK-centric Telegraph article. 19:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC) Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source appears to be known for hoaxes based their anrticle annd talk page and the RSP thread from last year basically summarized them as GUNREL. So if that source is “better” than the Telegraph then that says something about the Telegraph. Raladic (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please revert the biased and non-neutral edits made by another user here. They even inserted completely unrelated trivia into the lead It shared its address 55 Tufton Street with several right-wing groups promoting climate change denial and anti-immigration politics. The last clean version should be restored. 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:C573:2876:F4E8:E36C (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This is a relevant piece of information for a lobbyist group advocating for rollbacks of trans rights. Snokalok (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited is completely unrelated to the topic and does not mention LGB Alliance 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:69D3:DE65:5BE7:BEE4 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source and it says
Another resident at 55 Tufton Street Charity is the ‘Lesbian, Gay. Bisexual Alliance’ (LGBA). Formed in 2019 to organize against the trans-inclusive agenda of the leading LGBT Charity ‘Stonewall’, As reflected in its name, the LGBA seeks to bracket off issues pertaining to lesbian, gay and bisexual communities from those of trans people: ‘LGB Without the T’ as the gender–critical slogan goes. Yet, over the five years since its founding, the LGBA has had very little to say about homophobia; giving weight to the arguments from the UK umbrella group of LGBT organizations ‘Consortium’ that the LGB Alliance was formed to ‘promote transphobic activity rather than pro-LGB activities’ (Gentleman, Citation2022).
Along with the same being quoted in the body of the article. Snokalok (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it say they “share its address with several right-wing groups promoting climate change denial and anti-immigration politics” ? – 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:B92E:EBEF:7677:6E55 (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tufton Street, a 17th Century Road in Westminster, London, sits outside of Westminster Abbey. Its notoriety, though, lies more with its housing of numerous right-wing lobbying groups and think-tanks than with its Georgian architecture. No 55 Tufton Street has come to public attention as the home of the free market think tank ‘The Institute of Economic Affairs’ whose catastrophic policies were adopted by the UK ex-Prime Minister Liz Truss, ultimately leading to the crashing of the UK economy in 2002 and Truss gaining record for the shortest serving British Prime Minister. No 55 is also the home of a range of other right-wing organizations, such as ‘UK020’, an anti-climate change policy lobby group that has been compared to the American ‘Tea Party Organisation’; the free-market economy pressure group the ‘TaxPayers Alliance’; and the ‘New Culture Forum’, a think tank that seeks to move cultural debates away from what it describes as the ‘liberal establishment’. As Sam Bright says in his New York Times piece ‘For the past decade or more, Tufton Street has been the primary command center for libertarian lobbying groups, a free-market ideological workshop cloistered quietly in the heart of power’ (Bright, Citation2002).
Computers in the modern day are manufactured with this magical new piece of technology. It’s called ctrl+F Snokalok (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn’t even the only thing. They inserted “anti-transgender”, when it was previously more accuractely titled “advocacy group” ! The current term is too contentious and should not be used in Wikivoice like that. A possible solution would be to say “has been labelled a anti-transgender group by […]” 2A00:FBC:EE21:DC3A:45FC:FD48:D176:3071 (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have also removed the support this group has received from a wide range of politicians for no plausible reason 2A00:FBC:EE21:DC3A:1D15:3E42:52DF:3491 (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I do agree with Snokalok (albeit with some personal bias), but at the minimum you should try and get a consensus before reproposing this change. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) Talk 23:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You agree to remove the support this group has received? Why is that? 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:198E:2D38:4CC0:C31C (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Description of group in lede” is the very first item on this Talk page, having been pinned, but Tataral arbitrarily changed the wording of the lede agreed therein without seeking a new consensus, so it should be reversed. It is notable that it is one amongst a total of 20 consecutive changes to the article by that editor, every one of which is critical of the subject group, in an article which was already heavily skewed in that direction, demonstrating a blatant bias by that editor. —Blurryman (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don’t hate Tataral’s edits. What do you find objectionable about them? Snokalok (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like he said, they go against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGB_Alliance#Description_of_group_in_lede which I didn’t even see at first 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:44D2:6459:A30:72BD (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been changed to reflect the scholarly consensus, following the addition of many more reliable sources in the body of the article that describe the topic in this way. See the reception section below for details, notably the academic reception. The lead is meant to summarize the body, and the body now supports this description as the mainstream view.
Also, I’ve noticed the ongoing case at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Proposed decision. It’s a bit long and confusing, but from what I gathered some of the editors are anti-trans activists who have systematically skewed coverage of related topics in ways that downplay or misrepresent scholarly and mainstream views on transgender issues. Some of those editors who have been highly active on this article and who were involved in that discussion are now on their way to being banned for their activities. See e.g. [2] where arbitrators justify their reasoning for banning that editor with “Hate is disruptive.” At least two editors who have been highly active in promoting this organization are proposed to be banned for such reasons.
Referring to a 4-year old old discussion that was really about whether to add “hate group” to the lead (which nobody did now!) that took place long before the article was substantially expanded with scholarly sources, that wasn’t actually about the current description and that involved users engaged in what arbitrators found to be hate editing and that should be considered severely compromised, is not an acceptable rationale for reverting, especially when not offering a substantial reason for the revert, i.e. how the lead relates to the content of the body per WP:LEAD, up-to-date sources, and so on. Also notice how consensus can change, especially over four years (but in this case, it’s not really about adding hate group to the opening sentence).
In light of both the improved sourcing and the clear scholarly consensus, and how the old version was influenced by POV edits, reverting to an older version that does not align with the scholarly view without any kind of substantial justification is not appropriate. —Tataral (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So edits of anti-trans activists are disruptive, which I agree with. But what about the edits of pro-trans activists, which you obviously are? 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:D0EE:9CBC:A3CE:6203 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a Wikipedian for 15 years. Of nearly 16,000 edits, only a tiny fraction deal with anything related to transgender issues, or more precisely, with the anti-trans movement. I don’t recall editing anything related to that until the last year or so, and it’s mainly part of my broader interest in right-wing politics. I’ve been called both a communist and an anti-communist before too. —Tataral (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are against the consensus/pinned talk page post which clearly states The first part of the RfC found clear consensus on describing the subject as an “advocacy group” in the opening sentence as a neutral term. They should be reverted. 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:44D2:6459:A30:72BD (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: That consensus is from 2021. The world has changed beyond recognition since then, I’m going to say that updating the article with a plethora of what appear to be good sources to match the current times after four years of significant developments that have drastically reshaped trans rights in the UK, is not unreasonable. It’s good encyclopedia maintenance. Snokalok (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done: Obviously not going to revert that entire edit, but I did restore the previous version of the opening sentence. While consensus can change, that would need to be established first through discussion here on the talk page and likely a new RfC. Day Creature (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The “registered charity” part should also be moved back. “advocacy group and registered charity”, instead of “,[…]and is a registered charity in the UK” 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:44D2:6459:A30:72BD (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And these stray refs can be removed <ref name=Duffy/><ref name=Klapeer/><ref name=McLeanStretesky/> 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:44D2:6459:A30:72BD (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. Day Creature (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are against the consensus/pinned talk page post which clearly states The first part of the RfC found clear consensus on describing the subject as an “advocacy group” in the opening sentence as a neutral term. (and NOT an “anti-transgender advocacy group”) They should be reverted. 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:D0EE:9CBC:A3CE:6203 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and that consensus is from four years ago. That’s like in 1942 saying “Consensus achieved in 1938 established that we would say the Nazis only intended to stop with the Sudentenland and that they were good friends of the Soviet Union who would never, ever invade.” The world is unrecognizable from those four years ago. It’s not unreasonable for editors to keep articles current. Snokalok (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can establish a new consensus. Until then, the current one should be reflected in the article. 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:D0EE:9CBC:A3CE:6203 (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do call it an advocacy group in the lead, so that consensus is still held. The lead just now describes what they advocate for. Snokalok (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says The first part of the RfC found clear consensus on describing the subject as an ‘advocacy group’ in the opening sentence as a neutral term, which “anti-transgender” isn’t 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:D0EE:9CBC:A3CE:6203 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t agree with the argument “consensus can change” without anyone actually requesting consensus. It was referenced above also, and it seems misleading to repeatedly state that, without actually going through the process. I would agree with IP here re: “neutral term” based on the last RfC. Nubzor [T][C] 19:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nubzor, how? I get not wanting to let editors undermine the talk page consensus, but this attitude towards written consensus that is so old… I cannot really agree with that.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting consensus/discussion has an expiration date. I am trying to say that when the facts outrun the consensus, the (written) consensus would either change (explicitly or implicitly) or become irrelevant.
I think that if someone thinks this is the case, as @Snokalok appears to, then that person should clearly explain how the facts underpinning the previous consensus have changed and how the previous consensus cannot cover the current facts. Alternatively, an argument could be made that certain things, based on the existing consensus, have changed and require change but within the confines of the previous consensus. (Essentially a reinterpretation of the decision for the current situation.)
Those are the two avenues I think can be taken without directly starting a new discussion.
There is a third, which I think might be a bit more controversial, which would be that the incremental changes to the article individually based on the second avenue, would form a novel consensus on their own, especially if they remain unchanged for a long time. (The more classical model of consensus formation on Wikipedia.) I think this is also supported by Wikipedia:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE.
Either way, I think this merits a discussion on its own.
Slomo666 (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Slomo666 I think that Tataral did a good job above explaining why they made the change, based on the evolution of the article. I would tend to lean in favor of the change based on their justification if proposed. My main issue is with the “the RfC was 4 years ago, things change–this is now the consensus” argument being made by two involved editors.
Ultimately, a change was made to the article, an editor disagreed with the change, another editor defended the change, another disagreed, and so on. That would not constitute consensus. Can it change? Absolutely. But just saying it has changed doesn’t make it so. Nubzor [T][C] 20:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok clear. That fits into my vision as well. Slomo666 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this issue out, however the diff you have provided includes 29 intermediate edits. Your call to revert them cannot be simply honoured. It would require review of every one of those edits.
On top of this, I don’t fully agree with your conclusion. The post you are referencing also supports the inclusion of the term anti trans.
[ As a caveat to this, however, I do not know if we can honestly link transphobia on this instance of the term, (I think that pretty clearly *would* be calling it hate or hoodwinking at it, violating the consensus indirectly) despite personally finding the descriptor (not the descriptor “hate group”, but of transphobia) accurate as a euphemism. (This does not need to be in the lead as wikivoice) ]
The consensus did not oppose the inclusion of a descriptor/qualifier for the kind of advocacy involved. (Obviously, since the post is about the inclusion of the word anti-trans.)
What I am now mostly thinking about is what the remedy will be. If you propose a simple, clear and specific change as required for edit requests, we can honour that. If not, I think we should open a new discussion on this. (I think that’s a good idea either way because there are multiple editors involved in these changes).
Slomo666 (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nubzor and @Snokalok do either of you object to setting the request to answered and nfn because we cannot currently revert thirty edits, many of which are not part of the top section at all?
As I’ve previously stated, I think we need to open a new discussion instead of trying to resolve this within an edit request.
(Potentially by first establishing a temporary consensus/format while that discussion is ongoing, and prohibit/discourage edits contrary to the subject of that discussion during the course of discussion, but that can be the first issue to discuss.)
Slomo666 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Tag me when it starts. Snokalok (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve  Done this change back pending this discussion. It’s certainly possible that consensus has changed. But what’s clear from this discussion is that there’s no clear new consensus that would be just do it territory rather than holding a new discussion.As such, the past consensus at Talk:LGB Alliance § Description of group in lede stands – namely The second part also found clear consensus against describing the subject as a “hate group” in the opening sentence. If there is a clear consensus against describing them as a “hate group” then describing them as an “anti-transgender advocacy group” when “anti-transgender” is virtually synonymous with “hate”… putting makeup on the pig by changing it to “anti-transgender” doesn’t change the fact it’s a pig (and had a clear consensus against it).I note the comment by User:Tataral above at that consensus pin – while that’s certainly a view that you’re entitled to have, you would need to seek consensus that the closure was so wildly inaccurate as to deserve being overturned. You can’t just declare it to be void and then impose the view you want – you aren’t uninvolved at that point, so you aren’t a neutral third party to determine that it should be overturned.I think it would be ideal for someone to start a formal RfC to add anything if they think it should be discussed, but if nobody wants to right now then the discussion can just continue here. But it shouldn’t be readded without clear consensus to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Could you also restore the list of policians that have supported this group that was removed with spurious reasoning: diff – 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:D0EE:9CBC:A3CE:6203 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe that reasoning is spurious. The reasoning is basically that it’s not due weight to include names in the lead section and that it appears like an attempt to “right great wrongs” by name-dropping them in the lead. If you think that reasoning is incorrect, the proper thing to do is discuss. Once something is removed with decent reason – especially a reason that’s close to BLP territory as the content is associating living people with a disliked organization – then the next step is to discuss, not to just revert it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great summation. Nubzor [T][C] 20:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Berchanhimez,
I will say (idk how relevant that is, but just in case) that at least prior to today I (and I assume the same is true for @Nubzor) was actually an uninvolved editor ( I came here as a result of an edit request and had not seen this article before)
I agree that a discussion is needed. Thank you for your intervention.
I also agree with what @Tataral l has said (and I think I am not alone in this)
However I do NOT think it is proportionate to have an RfC on this at this stage.
I believe that this would be unnecessarily prohibitive process that would take too long, when I think the current consensus is already “reigning past its grave” so to speak.
I think this article needs an intervention that allows a temporary freezing (I think the pending review restriction is a great remedy from my experience at International Association of Genocide Scholars) of changes to the discussed subjects, while a speedy discussion is ongoing.
Slomo666 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is already guidance that amounts to a “temporary freezing”. Per WP:BRD – the adding of the “anti-transgender” label was a bold edit, it was contested (and I reverted because it was contested), and so now it should not be readded unless there’s a consensus for it. Unless there’s a consensus specifically that the old consensus is invalid or no longer in effect, then it can’t just be assumed to be that way unless you’re going to hold another formal discussion to try and supersede it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then.
To be clear though, do you think it is ok to simply do a discussion on this talk page or is it actually a requirement that another RfC is started?
And additionally: if it is the former, (I strongly prefer a talk page discussion) would you like to be tagged in that discussion? Slomo666 (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s nothing that prevents this informal discussion from continuing, or even a bit more formal of one (in its own section, for example). If it comes to a clear consensus that the old consensus should be ignored, then it may be fine on its own – the key is if it’s clear that it should be overriding the old consensus. Which some people may (I am unsure if I’d be one of them) believe should have an RfC which would at least attempt to get outside/third-party views. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A four-year-old RfC on whether to add “hate group” to the lead (which nobody did), that predates much of the current content and sources, and that involved editors found in a recent arbitration case to have engaged in systematic anti-trans POV pushing, does not constitute any consensus against including the well-sourced description as anti-transgender. Consensus on Wikipedia is normally developed through editing (WP:EDITCONSENSUS), not through outdated RfCs on tangentially relevant or unrelated topics.

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the content of the article’s body. The body overwhelmingly supports the description as anti-transgender; in fact, there is no evidence in scholarship that it is viewed otherwise. The reception in scholarship section now cites numerous reliable sources supporting the anti-trans description, and none supporting any alternative characterization.

No policy-based reason or justification that engages with the content or sources has been provided against this description. Appeals to a supposed “status quo” based on old discussions about a four-year-old version of the article, when most of the current sources for the description did not yet exist, and on an unrelated RfC about whether it is a hate group, where some participants were later found in a recent arbitration case as engaging in ban-worthy anti-trans POV pushing, provide no valid justification for reverting a version that accurately summarizes the article’s current content and sources, and that reflects the prevailing scholarly view today.

Editors who disagree are expected to provide a clear, policy-based rationale grounded in the article’s content and reliable sources. In particular, any challenge to the description must cite scholarly or other high-quality sources demonstrating that this characterization is genuinely contested in 2025. Currently the article includes no such sources. —Tataral (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you’ve provided no policy-based reason or justification to say that just because an RfC was potentially contributed to by some malicious accounts, its consensus should be thrown out automatically. You mention the Arbitration case – ArbCom has at points in the past recommended an RfC on an issue if they feel past discussions need to be redone because they are irreparably tainted. They aren’t doing so here. It doesn’t mean it’s not necessary – but it does mean that you can’t just say it’s 100% thrown out on your own either. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no policy-based reason or sources for removing the description that is supported by the content and sources in the body of the article that exists today. —Tataral (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The prior consensus. While that was specifically about labeling it a “hate group”, the label that was added is virtually equivalent to that. Regardless of your view that there may have been manipulation/malicious activity at that past discussion, you cannot just unilaterally decide to throw that old consensus out because you want to add something that it would’ve prevented. That by definition doesn’t make you the type of uninvolved editor who would need to agree that it should be overturned/thrown out. But until then, it stands. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree that they are equivalent to the extent that we can extrapolate to the RfC covering it. Maybe you or I might think that one implies the other, and that’s a reasonable opinion to hold personally, but on Wikipedia we call something a “hate group” in Wikivoice only if sufficient reliable sources have done so for that to be a mainstream designation. That’s an exceptionally high bar to clear and the RfC found that that was not met at that time. A hate group is not just a group of haters. It implies more than that. It’s almost half way to calling something a terrorist organisation. Calling something “anti-trans” in Wikivoice also requires sufficient sources, and that is also a high bar, but I don’t think it is the same exceptionally high bar. I think that is where the determination needs to be made. I think the RfC is a red herring (except for the “registered charity” bit which seems to already be resolved). It doesn’t point the way on “anti-trans”. Personally, I’m not that bothered about “anti-trans” because the description of the group enables readers to understand what is going on whether we say it or not but it does seem somewhat perverse to omit it. —DanielRigal (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no prior consensus regarding whether it should be called anti-transgender. That is a made-up, fabricated claim. What we have is an article body that fully supports the description as the prevailing scholarly view. You have offered no sources demonstrating otherwise, and the article doesn’t include any such sources. Your edit warring to remove it is not based on any kind of policy-based rationale or sources.
Even if there had been a discussion 4 years ago before virtually all the sources addressing this topic in the body of the article existed, that wouldn’t matter, because consensus, and sources, and circumstances, can change. But invoking a 4-year old discussion involving about-to-be-banned anti-trans editors about whether to call it a “hate group” is no policy-based justification for reverting the description that is actually not only supported by the article’s content (in the body) and sources, but the only description that can reasonably be supported by the body of the article (per WP:LEAD).
Anti-transgender is a factual description and in no way identical to calling it a hate group. Perhaps it should also be called a hate group, but that is a separate discussion and I haven’t looked closely into that. It’s certainly a far more critical description than descriptions like anti-transgender, anti-LGBT+, anti-abortion, anti-feminist, and so on, so it would have to be looked at carefully based on sources, and I don’t think the article demonstrates the same support in the body for adding that description to the first sentence today. But for anti-transgender, we have a whole section that now demonstrates that this is the prevailing scholarly view. That justifies including it as a factual, defining description per WP:LEAD. —Tataral (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion(s) needed after yesterday’s edit request by IP is somewhat broad but linked, so I have made a proposal to have a preliminary discussion where all points are discussed at once. I am not yet certain if we should do this in one topic or in several parallel topics. (please comment!)

The goal is to try to establish a local consensus (either a temporary one or a more durable one) but if this is not possible, we may need to use more powerful tools such as an RfC.

1 suggestion for (interpretation) rules:

[edit]

1 A I will list several issues and attempt to summarise their current position as I have understood it from yesterday’s discussion, edits on the article, the previous (4yo) consensus and selected other topics on this talk page.
It is advised to read these sources before engaging in the discussion, but NOT necessary.

1 B if you disagree with my interpretation, please mention this as soon as possible. If no one brings up a certain point, it will appear to be unchallenged. (This is useful because it allows us to focus (in the meantime) on the other points that need closing)

1 C respond to each other, but avoid repeating yourself and repeating arguments already made. Referencing other editor’s opinions is ok, but try to avoid repeating your concurrences too. Once you have clearly state your support or opposition of a position, we can go back to read it again anyways.

One exception to this is your first participation in the present topic: you may, and it is useful to, start by summarising your position in previous discussions. (Particularly yesterday’s discussion) this helps uninvolved editors

1 D do NOT edit other participants’ comments, and only edit your own comments if you are certain no one has replied to it or will shortly reply to it. If you must edit your comment, do so using strikethrough/del and <ins>

1 E avoid branching. I’m notorious with this myself, but once a thread gets going, it is better NOT to reply to any intermediate part of that thread. Either the tail of the thread, the topic itself or creating a new thread yourself is preferable. Otherwise it is hard to track for others. (Correct me if I’m wrong here, please)

1 F of course all other existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines continue to apply. I have mentioned two I thought were important as a reminder.

1 H you are advised to use, when appropriate, abbreviated references to Wikipedia policy or guidelines to support your arguments.

This section describes all questions that may be unresolved, even if they have not been the subject of an edit war. (I’m using a lower threshold just in case, to give ample opportunity to contest)

Most of this can be found in th RfC from four years ago.

2a “anti trans”

[edit]

The 4yo Consensus DOES state that the phrase hate group would not be used in the lede, and settled instead on advocacy group. This was the consensus AT THE TIME and editors may wish to reopen that issue entirely. (If so, they should state so clearly and as early as possible, since that discussion should precede everything else)

The current status is unclear. Arguments were made “anti trans advocacy” is supported by sources and the body of the article, and does not contradict the 4yo consensus. Some disagreed with this. This is the main issue necessitating the discussion I’m starting now. Additional questions may be how this is mentioned in the lede in general. (As of the writing of this comment, the article includes “has been described as” and “the group has said it is not”)

2b charitable organisation/registered charity.

[edit]

The current status is that this is NOT mentioned in the first sentence of the opening sentence, but still later in the lede. This is clearly indicated in the 4yo RfC, but IP user claimed that this was supported. In my judgement, this was incorrect. Questions may be whether it should be mentioned in the lede. (I personally do not think it should be) per 1B, this can be opened as part of this discussion, but no one bringing it up again should be interpreted as overruling IP’s claims and retaining the current consensus. (Later in lede, but still in lede)

2c list of politicians.

[edit]

Few arguments have been made regarding this, but it was added and removed, requested to be replaced and denied based on arguments of BLP and DUE WEIGHT.

This appears unsettled entirely. I personally oppose the inclusion of address information in general. I think it has the risk of aiding threats and such against organisations or individuals which I don’t think Wikipedia should contribute to. In this specific case however, the address is mentioned as the address itself (which already has a Wikipedia page, and may thus be notable) says something about the organisation and its placement within civil society, rather than merely indicating a physical location.

2e category: organisations that oppose transgender rights

[edit]

removed by @Slgrandson arguing it was already implied by a listed child cat. This was reverted (inadvertently?) by Snokalok – I suggest in favour of SIgrandson’s edit is uncontroversial and should be redone unless Snokalok says he intentionally reverted this part or someone else objects to SIgrandson’s edit

2f “same sex attracted” vs homosexuality and whether or not to wikilink.

[edit]

This discussion occurred both on the article and the talk page and was archived a few hours ago. I am not certain it actually lead to a consensus, so if one of the participants in that discussion wants to comment on this, it would be clear if this is closed or not.

2g any minor issues not mentioned:

[edit]

editors may bring these up if they consider them still open. I can have missed something. An example may be “reception” versus “opposition”

So far my description of possible open issues is limited to discussions that still had edits in them/related to them less than two months ago.

Suggestions were made (by IP user(s)) to revert to a clean/stable version. I would support this as a temporary measure while discussion is ongoing, but there are several issues with this:

  1. There has been practically no clean version. I cannot point out any point in recent page history where the version was stable. (All the way back to July at least there were edit wars)
  2. Reverting to specific clean versions suggested on the talk page would prejudice the discussion. There exists no option that would not be biased in some way. (Towards a certain side/preference/editor)
  3. Besides just the edit wars that have occurred, other edits have also been made to sections other than the lede, and to subjects not related to the present discussion. Reverting to any “clean” version would also revert these edits.

If someone wishes to do this regardless, we should first agree on which version we consider clean enough. No one should unilaterally decide to make such an edit. I am unilaterally stating (bar any dissent here) that it is NOT acceptable to do such a revert without first discussing this on the talk page.

4 Description of pre-discussion behaviour& involved editors:

[edit]

Prior to the starting of this discussion there were dozens of edits, and there were one or two IP users who requested, a total of four times, (three of which by one IP) to revert these edits. Discussion also occurred on the talk page.

4.1 Involved editors may include, but may also not be limited to:

[edit]

Ip editor(s):

@2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:D0EE:9CBC:A3CE:6203

@2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:44D2:6459:A30:72BD

@Snokalok

@User:Jonathan A Jones

@DanielRigal

@Blurryman

@Tataral

@Day Creature, who may not have intended to become involved, but did nevertheless by reverting edits on behalf of the requesting IP editor, which were then reverted back

@LunaHasArrived who may not wish to be involved, but did defend the RfC position

@Riposte97

@Denaar

@Raladic

@Sweet6970

Myself – as a result of starting this discussion and participating yesterday. I consider myself uninvolved enough to start this discussion.

@Berchanhimez

@Nubzor – who may not have intended to become involved, but did participate on the talk page yesterday.

@Amanda A. Brantt

Other editors who may be interested in this discussion, but not necessarily involved:

@OwenBlacker– participated in the same sex attracted discussion in June

@Void if removed – involved on article and talk page

@Letsdont

Not included unless someone disagrees: two or more people responding to IP’s edit request who made no other edits here besides that.

5 Civility (very advisable to read this page if you haven’t already)

[edit]

Editors, involved or otherwise are STRONGLY advised to try to maintain their calm. Name-calling and personal attacks are not acceptable behaviour. Additionally, if someone does violate this, I personally urge the subject to refrain from engaging with the insult, to avoid allowing it to escalate or disrupt the discussion.

Since this issue also concerns a topic that may also become emotional to some people due to their (personal) relation to the topic, please be careful to remain civil and don’t get under each other’s skin. If you are affected, take a breather. This discussion is not worth harm to your personal (mental) health.

Other stuff you may want to read on this: Wikipedia:Etiquette

this is my first time attempting to start such an integral discussion. I hope what I’m doing is correct per Wikipedia:Settle the process first, but it is possible I’m misunderstanding and doing the opposite of what is indicated there. I am not an admin, merely someone who saw something get out of hand and has a lot of experience in real life with similar situations.

I hope this is a useful instrument to try to get an overview of the issues, and find out what we do and do not need to discuss. Let’s do this. Slomo666 (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have a lot of time right now to reply on substance, but I do think that this is a good WP:RFCBEFORE. It’s attempting to nail down the issues and to discuss the relevant policies/guidelines so that if a RfC becomes necessary, it’s clear what it needs to be over. If this discussion ends up with everything resolved from consensus, and there’s a consensus that no formal RfC or further discussion is necessary, then this will be great. But otherwise it seems to be very thorough and well thought out. I’ll try to remember to come back and look at the substance in depth when I can – it may be a couple days right now as I’m currently OOO so am not using my normal setup where I can pull things up side by side and stuff.
On a final note for this though, I don’t know if your pings worked – but at least I didn’t get the ping. You can see WP:MENTION for the criteria that have to be met for the edit to result in a ping – the most common issues are if you don’t add at least one new line or new signature in the post you add the userpage link. So for example if you misspell someone’s name you have to add a whole new reply with the correct spelling and a signature to re-ping them. Just editing their name in the old comment won’t send the ping (but it may have sent a ping to the misspelled user if they exist). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to ping ya and to add a subheader for the general discussion here so it’s easier to just edit this section. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top