Talk:LGB Alliance: Difference between revisions

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic. The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article: Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about LGB Alliance. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about LGB Alliance at the Reference desk.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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]

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]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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]