Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Editorial bias in this article

Enough warring with random POV pusher IPs, this is clearly going nowhere Dronebogus (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism are a handful of former employees of the disgraced Southern Poverty Law Project. Why are they included in the lead in as if a reputable and recognised organisation? "Both LGB Alliance Ireland and Australia have been listed as far-right extremist hate groups by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism." -- The LGB Alliance has received support from across the political spectrum - Joanna Cherry (SNP), Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrat), Rosie Duffield (Labour) for example. Labour Women's Declaration and Lesbian Labour have expressed support and attended their conferences. Why only mention the Conservatives? "The LGB Alliance has received support from Conservative politicians, including the Minister for Women and Equalities Kemi Badenoch,[18] MPs Ben Bradley and Jackie Doyle-Price, and life peer Emma Nicholson.[19]" -- Pretty much the entire media coverage and criticism section is given over to uncritically quoting people who hate them. You'd almost think that ideological belief is being allowed to trump neutral, impartial editing. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Please provide suitable sources, and say exactly what wording you wish to add to the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC) The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism sentence should be moved to the Media coverage section. There is no justification for its prominence. Anybody can call themselves an organisation, set up a website and make a list of groups they say are hate groups, that is what this group has done. For changes to the other sentence referred to: "Despite criticism, the LGB Alliance has received support from across the political spectrum; MPs Joanna Cherry (SNP) and Rosie Duffield (Labour), Liberal Democrat peer Sarah Ludford, and former deputy leader of the Green Party Shahrar Ali, all took part in a politicians panel at their 2022 Conference, as well as from the non-officially affiliated Labour Women's Declaration and Lesbian Labour groups. They have also received support from Conservative politicians, including the Minister for Women and Equalities Kemi Badenoch, MPs Ben Bradley and Jackie Doyle-Price, and life peer Emma Nicholson." Some sources. Hopefully, some of them are acceptable: -- A YouTube video of the panel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnrONJfY6_g LGB Alliance conference announcement: https://lgballiance.org.uk/lgb-alliance-announces-line-up-for-its-second-annual-conference/ An article on Womans Place UK about an event organised by Labour Women's Declaration in support of LGB Alliance: https://womansplaceuk.org/2020/03/12/thank-you-labour-womens-declaration/ And a speech by Bev Jackson of LGB Alliance at an event organised by Labour Women's Declearation: https://labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Bev-Jackson-speech-9-Mar-20.pdf Pink News reporting on Labour Women's Declaration and LGB Alliance being refused stands at Labour conference (as for some reason Pink News are deemed to be a reliable news source): https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/08/02/labour-womens-declaration-gender-critical/ And a Daily Mail report on the same story: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10978595/Labours-rejects-conference-stall-bid-feminist-gay-groups.html The Lesbian Labour website - it is hard to pin down a direct quote without going through the entire website but their Twitter (which has over 8000 followers) is quite clearly supportive of the aims of the LGB Alliance: https://lesbianlabour.com/ 81.170.101.15 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Thank you for providing the proposed wording and sources. However, I’m sorry to say that I don’t think any of the sources are suitable. Wikipedia needs independent, secondary sources e.g. newspapers which are considered reliable. Most of your sources would be regarded as primary sources. See WP:RS PinkNews is regarded as a reliable news source. However, I did a search on the article for ‘LGB Alliance’ and the only mention I could find for them was ‘The Labour Women’s Declaration had requested a stand at Labour’s upcoming party conference in September. It was reportedly rejected by the party, according to a report in The Daily Mail on 3 July, along with anti-trans groups including the LGB Alliance.’ I don’t think that this supports any of your proposed wording. The Daily Mail is not used as a source on Wikipedia, because it has been judged as unreliable. See WP:RSP So I don’t think we have the right sources to support the wording you want. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC) It is truly astonishing that the Pink News is considered a reliable source. Regardless, a conference announcement and actual video of the panel is clearly evidence of those politician's support - what, unless a newspaper (but only one you deem acceptable) has reported on it, it didn't happen is it? Don't include Lesbian and the Labour Women's Declaration if you must, but Conservative politicians should not be the only ones named because it is misleading. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC) unless a newspaper (but only one you deem acceptable) has reported on it, it didn't happen – more or less, yeah. Primary sources can give us some simple facts, but we need independent reporting to fulfill due weight and related criteria. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC) That those named politicians took part in a politicians panel in support of the LGB Alliance at their conference is a simply fact. It's nothing more than that. 'Independent reporting' is not required for a simple statement of fact that something happened and certain people were present. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC) On that note, on one of my original points, the link for the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism you use is from their own website (and of course Pink News reporting on it). Why is that acceptable but the LGB Alliance is not acceptable as a source about themselves? Type them into the google and the only mention of them on the first page comes from their own website and said Pink News Article. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Here you are though - Pink News articles stating that Joanna Cherry, Rosie Duffield, Sarah Ludford and Shahrar Ali are all supportive of the LGB Alliance. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/07/21/joanna-cherry-human-rights-committtee-trans-gender-critical/ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/10/27/labour-whip-rosie-duffield-eddie-izzard/ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/07/13/lgb-alliance-liberal-democrats-conference/ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/10/18/scottish-greens-green-party-transphobia-england-wales/ As said, that they took part on a panel at the LGB Alliance conference is simply a statement of fact and does not a news story about it to confirm. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC) The point about using newspapers, rather than self-published sources, is that the writers and editors of those publications have made a selection as to what information is significant, and those publications which are considered reliable on Wikipedia must have editorial oversight. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC) The Daily Mail is deprecated and the rest of the sources you have identified are self-published: PinkNews is the only independent, reliable source you have pointed to so far. So I for one remain unconvinced... Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC) The sentence about support from Conservative politicians needs to be adjusted if there was support from other politicians as well that is reliably sourced; we should not be implying it was only or even notably Conservatives unless reliable sources support that. Crossroads -talk- 01:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Pink News is not an independent reliable source. It has been sued multiple times for defamation and frequently posts inaccurate and/or highly biased stories. It has about as much journalistic credibility as the Beano. But it is most certainly not a reliable or impartial source when it comes to the LGB Alliance - it has a clear ideological opposition to them; it would like allowing the Catholic Church or the Christian People's Party to be uncritically cited as the main source for an article about Atheism. Wikipedia articles are supposed to try and stay balanced, not start from an ideological position and only include sources and opinions that fit that. 81.170.101.15 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC) This IP comment does not align with the site-wide consensus about Pink News at RSN. (It is also factually inaccurate.) Newimpartial (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC) PinkNews is a biased source, but I have found it is possible to pick factual information out of their reports. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC) I wouldn't say that PinkNews is without any bias, but it certainly doesn't engage in The Telegraph-level of advocacy. Newimpartial (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Newimpartial, this is not a suitable place for discussing the Telegraph; you are aware that there is a discussion going on at WP:RSN. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC) I was making a relevant comparison; The Telegraph's political advocacy against various transgender causes had been commented on by multiple, high-quality sources. PinkNews isn't alleged by any RS to do anything like that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC) "High quality sources", you mean Pink News don't you? 81.170.101.15 (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC) No; I meant primarily academic sources. Newimpartial (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC) OK, breaking the actual wording proposal down: Despite criticism, - editorialising, unnecessary - see WP:DESPITE the LGB Alliance has received support from across the political spectrum - also feels like editorialising. Is that "across the political spectrum"? Most UK parties are broad churches with a range of political views; some might suggest there is quite a lot of political spectrum outside the range from Rosie Duffield (who has said that she has been tempted to defect to the Conservatives) to Kemi Badenoch. Best to just state the facts. Could work as something like "has received support from politicians of (all/most) of the UK's major parties" or similar - if we can back that up, but that would still require actual sourced instances of them explicitly expressing support for this organisation; not just attending events alongside it. MPs Joanna Cherry (SNP) and Rosie Duffield (Labour), Liberal Democrat peer Sarah Ludford, and former deputy leader of the Green Party Shahrar Ali, all took part in a politicians panel at their 2022 Conference - factual, fine, just needs a reliable source as well as from the non-officially affiliated Labour Women's Declaration and Lesbian Labour groups - would need evidence that these are notable groups. They aren't groups recognised by the Labour Party, as it says. I could set up a website right now called Gay Liberal Democrats, or whatever, sign up my mates, and start making declarations in the name of the group; that wouldn't mean my views would be notable. They have also received support from Conservative politicians, including the Minister for Women and Equalities Kemi Badenoch, MPs Ben Bradley and Jackie Doyle-Price, and life peer Emma Nicholson. - seems odd that this party is left to the end when the Conservative politicians named are by some way the most numerous, and the main ones that are stated to have actually supported the party rather than just appeared at events it ran? Otherwise seems fine - as long as it's sourced. Is it? I haven't checked them all, but I can't find Badenoch expressing support for the LGB Alliance; she spoke at an event they also attended, but that isn't the same. TSP (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC) I don't care whatever order it is done in, its perfectly fine to lead with the Conservative politicians, but the sentence does to change so that it does not just mention the Conservatives only. Most of the support for the LGB Alliance does actually come from people on the left, but I suspect no source for that would be deemed acceptable to some of the people on here. On the point about Labour Women's Declaration and Lesbian Labour, they do have sizeable social media followings and have been reported in the news for holding unofficial fringe events at Labour Party conference - but you are absolutely right. I would like to point out however that many of the numerous trans groups cited in this and similar articles are no more notable and have effectively done just as you say - likewise for the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, as I stated above - the reference to them should be moved into the media and criticism section as it does not justify inclusion in the opening section. 78.147.6.78 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC) The "received support from Conservative politicians" sentence was only recently added to the lead. I'm not entirely sure if it meets WP:DUE. When the Alliance is mentioned in other sources, their support from a small number of MPs is typically not included. The fact that they are a deeply controversial organisation is however. I'm also not sure if it's entirely factually correct. The OpenDemocracy source used to attribute Badenoch states that she met with them, and was criticised heavily for doing so. However it does not support or verify the text that Badenoch supports the organisation. The PinkNews source does verify that Doyle-Price supports the Alliance, but does not for support either Bradley or Nicholson. There is a second PinkNews source that verifies Bradley, but not Nicholson. As such, I'm going to remove that sentence from the lead for now, per the failed verification and DUE concerns. I'm also going to adjust the body text because it too makes the same unverifiable claim about Nicholson. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC) You should add them back. This article should not pretend that no politicians support the LGB Alliance. As it stands only those that hate them are included. That is misleading. Still awaiting the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism being moved. There is no justification for its inclusion in the opening section. 78.147.6.78 (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC) Anyway - How can I complain about a Wikipedia editor if I think them unsuitable for their role, please? 78.147.6.78 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC) If you want to talk to an editor, try their user Talk page. If you want to complain about an editor, the venue is a dramaboard like WP:ANI, but you must present evidence in the form of diffs. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC) That’s a vague complaint bordering on ad hominem. If you have a serious complaint based on policies and guidelines you’re welcome to try WP:ANI, but a WP:BOOMERANG is not improbable in this case Dronebogus (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC) The justification for including GPAHE is that (1) it is reliably sourced and (2) it is highly salient. Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC) For Christ's sake. It is not 'highly salient'. I could make up an organisation and then make a list of things and get Pink News to run a story about it. They are activists not a recognised organisation by any nation state or reputable body. 78.147.6.78 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC) The WP community does not agree with you about PinkNews. Please see the WP:RSN. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC) At present the article states that two Conservative MPs explicitly support the Alliance; Ben Bradley and Jackie Doyle-Price, and does so in the Media coverage and criticism section. It is also somewhat vaguely charitable in that it implies the support of other unnamed MPs. Based on the reliable sources so far presented, those are the only two names that we can verify actually support the organisation. I'd be happy to add Emma Nicholson, Kemi Badenoch, or any other MPs into that section, if reliable sources can be provided to verify that they support the organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC) There's a video of them speaking at the bloody conference. It's also pretty clear from their Twitter accounts and other public statements that they are all supportive, that doesn't need to be verified with a source because absolutely nobody would dispute that as fact. Climb out of your bubble. I've provided Pink News articles for you as well. 81.170.123.58 (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC) IP, if you continue in this manner, I'll ask an admin to curtail your ability to edit here. For an organisation widely described as a "hate group" we need strong sources per WP:BLP. -- Colin°Talk 13:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC) @81.170.123.58: please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's core policies, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you aren't able to find a reliable source for something, then that presents several issues under Wikipedia policy. Firstly, WP:V: "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." We are all nobodies on the internet; what we write has no authority in Wikipedia's name or our own, only the authority of the sources it's attributed to. If we can't source something, we can't say it. Secondly, WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That means that, if no-one has ever written about something, maybe it just isn't that important. We need sources to establish significance, as well as truth. Lots of things are true, but not significant. Thirdly, WP:OR, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Much as above. Wikipedia is not the place for things no-one has said before. Emphasising all three of these, WP:BLP: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies" (the three I listed above). This page is, in the main, about living people, therefore any assertions made in it must be reliably sourced. We can't say that Kemi Badenoch supports the LGBA, or any other assertion about a living person, because some anonymous person believes that "it's pretty clear". We need a source that specifically says that, in those terms. Sorry, but how you think Wikipedia should work just isn't how it works. We don't publish things because someone thinks they are "pretty clear" or that "absolutely nobody would dispute" them. We publish what the sources say, and nothing else. If you think we should include something else, please find sources. If they don't exist - if no newspaper, academic paper, or book has ever stated the thing you think we want to include - maybe what you want to include just isn't that important. TSP (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Continue in what manner? Expecting Wikipedia editors to park their own ideological biases and edit objectively? They are widely described as a hate group by people who hate them. To any sane and rational person, they clearly are not. But regardless, to anyone without an active interest or stake in the game as we say who may come across this page, they should expect a factual and objectively written article. This article requires balance, it should not be a one-sided smear piece written solely by people who object to them. 81.170.123.58 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC) If you continue to make arguments that Wikipedia content should be what you think it should be because any sane and rational person would agree with you - instead of basing your arguments on sources and policies - you are not likely to achieve any of your objectives. Newimpartial (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC) @81.170.123.58: Please also add Wikipedia:No personal attacks to your reading list. I have just provided you with a lengthy rundown of the Wikipedia policies that disagree with your idea that we should add unsourced assertions about living people just because you believe them to be "pretty clear"; it would be more productive to concentrate on addressing that issue, rather than on making claims about what you believe the views of other editors to be. TSP (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Could use more eyes on Fred Sargeant

Fred Sargeant did a controversial protest at Vermont pride, and was physically assaulted. No matter how one feels about his POV, I think these events are notable, and should be covered. Others do not feel it should be covered, and are blanking the content. There's discussion on talk. Would appreciate more eyes on this, especially those experienced with how weird the press has been about these conflicts in recent years. Thanks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record: there don't seem to be any RS of known quality actually stating that Sargeant was, in fact, assaulted, which is part of the issue. If included, issues of attribution become rather taxing. Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Sargeant is on record about the assault, as are others from the march who called the police. In effect, you're calling the BLP subject, those witnesses, Pride organizers, and the police and hospital workers, liars. Some of the sources are not great, but others are OK or fine. It's a difference of values and political opinion leading to those who oppose him to accuse him of lying. Some are now even trying to smear Sargeant and deny his history of activism, because his current opinions are not theirs (and are even considered harmful, or abhorrent. It's fine to feel this way about his views; it's not fine to censor due to this disagreement). Again, this has nothing to do with whether one supports his views. It's that we don't just omit incidents or lie about them because we don't like them. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does the event have to do with this article? As you've already linked, the incident is already well covered on Sargeant's article, as it should be. You've given no indication on why it should be covered here. Silverseren^C 20:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Because the LGB Alliance Vermont is said to have supported Sargeant, Corbie seems to think allies well-informed editors will be found here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if the fact that one branch group has supported him would be important enough to include in this article. It's relevant to include in his, which it is, but it seems too minor for this article. Unless we're going to include every single statement of support made. It doesn't help that the coverage about the branch support is only in very local Vermont sources and not national coverage. So DUE questions indeed arise. Silverseren^C 20:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors' conduct; such behaviour is not WP:CIVIL. If you have sources that are OK or fine, please produce them on the relevant Talk page, but I haven't seen any. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Global Project Against Hate and Extremism as a Source

Very strong claims of being "far right" and "extremist" are being made based on a single source - the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. The content of the reports are little more than plagiarism of statements made on this wikipedia page. Here is the full content of the Irish report, which bears striking resemblance to current and previous versions of this article (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGB_Alliance&oldid=1106662034). Most obvious plagiarism in bold

---

The Irish LGB Alliance (LGBA) was founded in 2020 and is an offshoot of the UK LGB Alliance, run by Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott. LGBA describes its objective as “asserting the right of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men to define themselves as same-sex attracted,” and states that such a right is threatened by “attempts to introduce confusion between biological sex and the notion of gender.” Jackson has said that lesbians are in danger of extinction due to a disproportionate focus on trans issues in schools, saying, “At school, in university, it is so uncommon, it is the bottom of the heap. Becoming trans is now considered the brave option.”

In August 2021, the UK Charity Commission announced that it would be engaging with the LGB Alliance trustees after the Alliance posted a Tweet stating that “adding the + to LGB gives the green light to paraphilias like bestiality – and more – to all be part of one big happy ‘rainbow family,’” a post which was removed by Twitter for violating the platform’s rules. In November 2021, British MP John Nicolson said that the speaker of the House of Commons had referred “abuse and obsessive behavior” from the Alliance to security.

The Alliance had run a fundraising campaign for itself saying, “make a donation to us IN HIS [Nicholson’s] NAME and we will tweet out your message,” subsequently tweeting a number of statements attacking Nicolson, including ones that called him a “rape-enabling politician.” The fundraiser was removed from the JustGiving and GoFundMe crowdfunding platforms for violating their rules. In general, LGBA opposes gender-identity education in schools, medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria, and gender recognition reform. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGB_Alliance&oldid=1106662034)

The group was described by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights as transphobic in a statement signed by a number of Labour members of parliament. This group was key to the decision by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to exempt the trans community from the UK’s recent legislation to ban  conversion therapy, something LGBA vocally opposes. Irish LGBTQ+ activists contend that its membership is mostly UK-based, though the Irish chapter insists “all our committee members are living in Ireland.”

In 2022, the group publicly protested in Ireland gender-neutral bathroom policies.  In November 2020, LGB Alliance Ireland faced criticism after calling for schools to ignore the LGBTQ+ youth organization BeLonGTo’s Stand Up Awareness Week, a group generally against anti-bullying educational materials.

---

The reports merely take the negative statements made via this article, with the same journalistic sources, and then on that basis brand the group a "far right extremist" organisation. I suggest this is not a reliable source.

Void if removed (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Void if removed: I can’t find the ‘full content of the Irish report’. Am I missing something? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Ireland: https://globalextremism.org/ireland/

Australia: https://globalextremism.org/australia/

The opening paragraph of the Australian report is near-enough identical to the Irish one. That one has a further two paragraphs of commentary that amount to not much. Void if removed (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Given such blatant plagiarism - and that the report went so far as to classify LGB Alliance as an extremist organisation entirely on the basis of material in this wiki article - I'd argue it be treated as an unreliable source, at least on matters pertaining to LGB Alliance. Void if removed (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Before you accuse this group of plagiarising Wikipedia, perhaps you want to follow the sources (which they give) and you will see their words are also extremely similar to the sources they use (and we use). You've bolded text that appear in The Times, for example. Now it could be that this wikipedia article is too close paraphrasing for comfort. But I imagine editors here have fought over the words and ended up requiring we use the same language as our sources becasue they think any deviation is introducing some editor bias. That seems like a problem we have to fix, rather than a problem for this group you are so upset about. -- Colin°^Talk 12:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

So your defence is that they just happened to use the same sources to make the same points in the same order with the same paraphrasing. Void if removed (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion is WP:DUE based on the secondary sourcing. You haven't given a policy-based reason for removal; this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This does, indeed, look like a case of WP:CITOGENESIS, and we should not use this source (or any source citing it) per WP:CIRCULAR Also, do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that the secondary sources are relying on Wikipedia as a source? I don't see evidence of that. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The secondary sources are citing the primary source. The primary source is copy-pasted from this article. Void if removed (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Also at least one secondary source in use - https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/08/21/growth-of-far-right-in-ireland-set-to-continue-according-to-us-monitoring-group/ - doesn't actually reference LGB Alliance at all, and seems to be padding. Void if removed (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

So there is:

1 primary source that heavily plagiarises this article, and cites Pink News 3 times to make the same negative allegations

1 secondary source that doesn't relate to LGB Alliance and should be removed

1 secondary source that is Pink News

So some of Pink News' single-sourced negative claims about LGB Alliance have been presented as reliable by Wikipedia, plagiarised by GPAHE with stronger (opinionated) claims attached, republished by Pink News, and then fed back into Wikipedia as fact. This is beyond circular. Void if removed (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's start at the beginning. What are the single-sourced negative claims about LGB Alliance to which you refer? Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that, in the extended discussion below, no such single-sourced claims have been identified. Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

to Newimpartial: I’m saying we should not be using a source (A) which relies on Wikipedia for its information, nor any secondary source (B) which relies on (A) for its information, because (A) is not independent or reliable. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I dont think that is what WP:CITOGENESIS - to which you referred as your justification - actually means. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned who got their words from who unless we are citing those words. If you want to go down that path, I'm sure we can all find examples of organisations, journalists, academic papers, etc, etc that have decided to lift directly from their sources (whether Wikipedia or The Times/Telegraph) and that isn't really persuasive that they automatically become unreliable for everything.

What we seem to be currently asserting is that this group has included the Ireland and Australia chapters in a certain list of "Far-Right Hate and Extremist Groups". Them doing that is quite a separate thing from how they got their text to describe the organisations. There are plenty reliable sources who have plagiarised Wikipedia, like ever single newspaper. And while we do need to be careful about circular citations, there's nothing circular about the fact that this group has listed these two chapters in a list. So the next thing is to consider what our sources should be for that claim. I see we have a Pink News source for Ireland but only the organisation itself for Australia. The organisation cannot assert its own WEIGHT, so editors need to find another source for that one.

While this organisations list conflates "Far-Right" with "Hate" and "Extremist" Groups into one big list, I've not seen them present any evidence that the Australia or Ireland groups are "far right", and indeed the only time the word "right" appears in their description is wrt transgender rights. Labelling an organisation, and the people who run it, as "far right", a "hate group" and an "extremist group" requires multiple independent sources per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. -- Colin°^Talk 15:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It isn't the "text to describe the organisations" - it is the reason they are included in the report in the first place. The plagiarised sections of wikipedia are the entirety of their analysis. They have made this assessment based on this article, and this article repeats the assessment as fact. Never mind the circularity, the plagiarism makes them a highly dubious source for such an assessment. Void if removed (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

What makes you know they made their assessment based on reading Wikipedia. The UK government plagiarised Wikipedia in a report they made about Levelling Up. Big laughs all round. Are they now an unreliable source? Every single newspaper does it, and sometimes they copy so much they get complaints and journalists say sorry. I get that it looks cheap and unprofessional, but it is really so widespread. We get concerned if websites just plain copy/paste articles and offer them as though they wrote it themselves. But here the primary purpose is to list groups they regard as extremist, and very much a secondary activity is to describe them. That they got lazy and copied Wikipedia or The Times/Telegraph/etc is not a big deal.

We aren't here to work out why organisations make the claims they do. The weight of this matter is determined by reliable sources commenting on their list and the specific inclusion of these groups. -- Colin°^Talk 15:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

So even though their published justification for this classification is plagiarised, there might be some valid, unpublished reason for this classification - so the classification becomes justifiable because Pink News reported on the plagiarised report? Void if removed (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying that the text from GPAHE is plagiarised from our article, yet this does not appear to be the case. Breaking down the Irish report by sentence:

• First sentence seems to have a small factual error. Our article, even in the revision you linked, states that the founders were Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott. However the GPAHE article states that it is run by those individuals. While the founders all likely ran the organisation at the point of founding, they no longer all appear to be doing so.
• Second sentence is two quotations from The Times, as Colin has pointed out. We use the same quotations, that is true. However numerous other sources also include one or both of those sentences, including Out, TFN, GCN, UnHerd, Bust, OpenDemocracy, ThirdSector, Indy100. When directly quoting from an individual or organisation, there is only one way to include that content. As the originator stated.
• Third sentence is a paraphrase of words stated by Bev Jackson, and which has very limited other ways to paraphrase without altering meaning. It is also very similarly phrased to The Telegraph report that it cites.
• Fourth sentence is worded very similarly to Civil Society and PinkNews coverage on that particular incident. There again seems to be limited ways to paraphrase this without affecting meaning.
• Fifth sentence is worded quite differently from our content, but contains the same factual information that has limited ways of being presented.
• Sixth sentence is largely two quotes, covering the Twitter content from the LGBA directed at John Nicolson. We do cover that yes, but again, there's limited ways to paraphrase the non-quoted text.
• Seventh sentence could maybe be plagiarised from us, or it could equally be a paraphrase of Vercida, or The Argus.
• Eight sentence is a cited paraphrase of a statement made by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights. Again, something that has limited ways to phrase.
• Ninth sentence does not appear in our text. So quite clearly not plagiarised from us.
• Tenth sentence is phrased differently from how we present the same information.
• Eleventh sentence does not appear in our text. So quite clearly not plagiarised from us.
• Twelfth sentence is phrased differently from our text, again does not appear to be plagiarism.

In summary, while there are some similarities, those exist only in sentences that have limited ways to paraphrase, and are also equally similar to the sources we use to present the same information. There are also sentences that are substantially different from our text, which present the same information. And there are sentences that are wholly original to the GPAHE report. Due all of these factors, and the use of sources that we also rely on, I'm not seeing a case of citogenesis or plagiarism of our text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. However, I think we have wasted enough time on this particular concern, because it isn't actually a case of citogenesis even if they were to copy/paste the whole article. GPAHE is cited only to demonstrate that these organisations are on their list, which isn't a fact sourced ultimately to Wikipedia. We should however be preferring independent sources that can confirm the WEIGHT of their claim as a citation to GPAHE doesn't achieve that. I see that LGB Alliance Australia have made a statement about the GPAHE report though I don't see any independent sources picking that up.

Below I mention the Irish Times source doesn't actually mention LGB Alliance Ireland, though it does talk about the GPAHE report on Ireland. The Irish Examiner has published a lengthy response criticising their classifications of Irish groups.

I think that criticism has some merit. I do get the feeling that GPAHE has included groups they believe are anti-trans or anti-abortion and clumped them in with groups on the far right and groups that use violence and physical intimidation. Perhaps the Venn diagram of these attributes overlaps more in the US, but they haven't supplied any evidence wrt Ireland or Australia.

I think we should be very cautious about such labels, and such caution is appropriate for all sides on this debate. The "smear campaign against" / "investigative reporting into" (pick according to your prejudice) Mermaids by the Telegraph resulted in death threats from accusations of child abuse. Similarly, I don't think we should lightly describe this organisation or their sister groups as "far-right extremist hate groups". I think frankly we need better sources. -- Colin°^Talk 18:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

To Sideswipe9th: I think that you are missing the point here. We are not considering whether there would be grounds for suing GPAHE for breach of copyright. We are considering whether it, and any source based on it, is suitable to found any text on Wikipedia. The degree of similarity indicates that GPAHE has not done any significant independent investigation of the organisations concerned, and therefore there is no secure foundation for the serious allegation that these are far-right organisations. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The plagiarism is blatant, and the text you claim is different is identical in earlier versions (as it would have been at the time the report was generated). Identically paraphrased text in similar order based on the same references with little additional material in between. The plagiarism is clear, the question is whether it matters. Colin's point is valid that it isn't my place to judge whether or not the plagiarised text is the sole rationale for the categorisation. However it does mean the weight rests entirely on journalistic/secondary sources to verify the credibility of the report. Void if removed (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I see there are some more sources in the body. Irish times doesn't mention LGB Alliance. The Crikey source covers the Australian one but I have no knowledge about whether Crikey is a reliable source (and no, please no, let's leave that noticeboard alone). -- Colin°^Talk 15:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

To Colin: Thank you for providing the interesting analysis from the Irish Examiner, and for your comments above. What changes are you proposing to the text of our article? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion. No doubt Colin will reply in due course. My view is that we should not repeat the claim that this organisation is "far-right extremist hate group", without a reliable source. I don't think the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism is a reliable source on this. As far as I can tell, GPAHE is a new group, set up by a half a dozen not that well-known individuals, with little more to offer than a website. The subject of this article, the LGBA is still, as I write this, a UK registered charity. Our policy on neutrality must be adhered to if Wikipedia is to retain any respect.Graham Beards (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I also don't see why this group's views carry any WP:WEIGHT. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd add that it seems claims of extremism are being made about regional affiliates that clearly cannot be directed at LGB Alliance itself, which is a registered charity that the UK Charity Commission has already determined is not an extremist organisation. A charity having material links to foreign extremist organisations would be a matter for the charity commission. I cannot see how a report from a tiny think tank in Delaware which has been heavily plagiarised from wikipedia somehow carries more weight than the UK charity regulator. Void if removed (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The reference to GPAHE is concerning their affiliate groups, and if we include it, a big if, then it belongs in the paragraphs on those groups in the article body. I don't think it merits reference in the lead, as they are only related to this one ("These groups are separate organisations from us but with similar aims and beliefs"). I think that degree of separation is sufficient that the UK charity commission would not be at all interested -- they'd have to actually fund those groups with UK charity money, or have members of those groups on its board/employees for them to be remotely concerned. But really, guys, you are doing too much original research on this. If it merits inclusion here it is because of the weight of reliable sources, not because you or I think it is appropriate by second guessing whether their charitable status means they can't possibly be associated with an extremist group or whether lazy plagiarism makes an organisations views lack merit (it really doesn't, and you are looking a bit desperate by arguing so).

But importantly, if you are going to dismiss this GPAHE group as just a few activists the US with a website and an opinion, then the same, absolutely the same, goes for groups like For Women Scotland, which are just three feminists who are campaigning about gender ID reform in Scotland. I see the same editors here supporting the idea that we must include their views about eunuchs ("We are disgusted") in an article on a mainstream consensus medical guideline with over 100 expert authors. And some pushing to include a meritless smear about child abuse.

I think all editors need to up their game wrt the quality of sources they use, and stop using Wikipedia as a dumping ground for tittle tattle and smears. The "Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People" eunuch chapter smear is LGBT grooming conspiracy theory activism by some Scottish feminists. And claiming anti-trans groups are all "far-right extremist hate groups" seems equally dubious to me. There are "far-right extremist hate groups" who are anti-trans, anti-abortion, anti-women's rights, anti-gay marriage, etc, etc but smears-without-evidence and multiple high quality neutral sources are not what we want in a quality encyclopaedia.

Consider carefully, if you push to remove this smear, how does it look that you are pushing a well known conspiracy theory at the other article. Or if you push to include this far-right-extremist-hate-group smear here, how does it look that you are pushing to remove that smear at the other article. Both groups of editors are using the same arguments to remove only the stuff they don't like and the same arguments to include they stuff they do like. Neither smear meets the standard we should be setting ourselves, and editors who selectively lower standards to push one agenda at the expense of another are WP:ACTIVISTS who are harming the project. -- Colin°^Talk 10:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You've made the point that it isn't for me to judge the merit of their assessment, and I accept that. I still personally think the plagiarism is significant. If GPAHE's report was actually the sum total of their analysis, then the fact that their analysis is merely wikipedia plagiarism would start to look like citogenesis - but it would take a trustworthy third party to prove that, and you're right that's far beyond scope. But I am at least glad that this is being viewed with somewhat more skepticism than merely being reported as true because Pink News gave it their seal of approval. Void if removed (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are you dwelling on PinkNews? Surely no axe-grinding going on here? The GPAHE reports have been picked up by media in several different national contexts, quote apart from PinkNews (which is itself, of course, a good source). Newimpartial (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The GPAHE reports contains source links to The Times, LGB Alliance, The Telegraph, Scotsman, The Independent and Pink News. You should know this because you copy/pasted these links in the opening post. So they have those sources and your claim they didn't read them (just the Wikipedia page) or that they have no other sources of information in this day of the Internet, Google and Twitter is surprising.

GPAHE are covered in The Guardian in at least 8 stories (search '"Global Project Against Hate and Extremism" site:www.theguardian.com'), 8 stories in www.independent.co.uk, 13 stories in www.nytimes.com and 19 stories in www.washingtonpost.com. They aren't nobody and quite possibly a go-to source for an opinion on US hate groups. We have at least one source (Irish Examiner) criticising their report on Irish groups. Add to that that these groups are not the UK organisation this article is focused on, and it all becomes weaker. -- Colin°^Talk 16:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I said at the top: "I'd argue it be treated as an unreliable source, at least on matters pertaining to LGB Alliance.". Whether they are widely cited and reliable on US far-right groups generally is irrelevant. I am arguing they are unreliable on the subject of LGB Alliance.

You also misunderstand my mention of Pink News. I'm not claiming that GPAHE are reliant solely on Pink News, and I'm aware of the citations and their provenance, having been through and checked earlier versions of this article for the obvious plagiarism.

There are 5 cites for GPAHE's claims on this page - 2 to the reports themselves, 1 to Irish Times (which doesn't mention LGBA), 1 to Crikey (which has passing mention of LGBA in one sentence and is of unknown quality as a source) and 1 to Pink News, who devote an entire article to LGBA's inclusion in the report. By far the strongest secondary source on this page is Pink News.

However, in that article, they report that:

"LGB Alliance Ireland fell onto GPAHE’s radar after its UK counterpart compared LGBTQ+ inclusion to “bestiality”, said co-founder Heidi Beirich."

They then specifically highlight that 'GPAHE noted the UK’s LGB Alliance has claimed “adding the plus to LGB gives the green light to paraphilias like bestiality”'. The citation for this section of the report is Pink News https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/08/19/lgb-alliance-charity-commission-tweet/

Pink News here is repeating a claim from a report that is sourced from Pink News.

This wiki article is endorsing this report's assessment of LGB Alliance because of Pink News' endorsement of a report which endorses Pink News via plagiarising this wiki article.

This is quite circular.

But it gets a pass because the plagiarised published report might not be the evidentiary basis of the published report and because Pink News has endorsed it. Void if removed (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Void, please just drop this. I can only repeat, you have no evidence whatsoever that they did not read The Times, LGB Alliance, The Telegraph, Scotsman, The Independent and Pink News, which they cite, and you know they cite.

You seem determined to find circularity. The Pink News report on the tweet isn't contested. You can see the (now deleted) tweet here and it is cited along with other similar remarks here. Lots of people presumably saw it on Twitter, which isn't exactly a dark corner of the internet.

It is not our job to work out how they arrived at their conclusions and you can't reverse-engineer that from what they published. If their claim has weight to be mentioned here, we'd find it in multiple good sources. Stick to that policy-based argument and please drop the citygenesis crap. -- Colin°^Talk 17:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to be helpful, I have added a couple of additional, independent RS that covered the GPAHE reports. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Colin, in your comment of 10:08 today (above) you start out by talking sensibly, but then spoil it by veering off into discussion of another article, and throwing around accusations of activism. I am presumably one of the editors you are accusing of activism – which I deny. I have said before, elsewhere, that accusations are only going to inflame the situation, without any benefit to the encyclopaedia. Please desist from making accusations, and from arguing about another article on this Talk page.

There seems to be a general view that GPAHE’s assessment of the Irish and Australian organisations is of dubious value.

So the questions now are:

1) Should this material be included in the body? (If the material is taken out of the body, then it should also be deleted from the lead.)

2) If the material is retained in the body, should it be mentioned in the lead?

I say no to both questions.

Comments, please.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you regard this as a general view because one other editor agreed with you? Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't named anyone. Editors here who claim not to be activists can demonstrate that by showing consistency in their treatment of sources, weight and dealing with biased sources. Merely denying it isn't enough. Editors who don't show that consistency are not benefiting the encyclopaedia. -- Colin°^Talk 11:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m counting : Void if removed, Crossroads, Graham Beards, Colin, and me. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Nah, that's just your opinion personally. And one that has no merit. Silverseren^C 18:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

PLease be serious and explain your comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I only see two of you as having expressed dubiety. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Also note that I have initiated a new discussion on this issue below, as it seems unreasonable to expect new editors to read through the many meandering and misleading statements made in this section. Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That was not the wisest of actions. It gives the impression that as you have not won the argument here, you have decided to start another elsewhere. Graham Beards (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to bring in more editors by rfc-tagging the other discussion - or a new one! This one is clearly not fit for the purpose, and that has nothing to do with your comment about "winning". Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

What argument is there even to discuss here in this section? The plagiarism claim is specious at best and not even worth having. Silverseren^C 20:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The alternative explanation that's been offered to plagiarism is that they independently went to the exact same sources and paraphrased the exact same sections in the exact same way to make the exact same points as this article, sometimes in the same order.

I am astonished anyone finds that convincing, let alone enough to say that the plagiarism allegation is "specious". It is blatant. Even listing the same five people in the same order at the start - the source of that information is this page and nowhere else, because it is synthesised by editors here from multiple sources and - as I believe I've demonstrated further down in the "founders" section - incorrect.

The more convincing response is: whether or not there is plagiarism doesn't matter, because we are relying on a secondary source to judge the worth anyway. Void if removed (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Graham, except the original post here is concerned with GPAHE "as a source" which is a bizarre line of attack, and a frankly silly argument about plagiarism. -- 11:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 11:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I take issue with describing the plagiarism argument as "frankly silly" or that it is a "bizarre line of attack".

My understanding in starting this section was that the GPAHE report was listing LGB Alliance as an extremist organisation for the reasons contained in the report. If those reasons were themselves mere plagiarism from Wikipedia, it spoke to the credibility both of that claim, and of GPAHE's credibility for assessing LGB Alliance specifically.

You've argued - and I've conceded - that I cannot know this for sure or demonstrate it with a credible secondary source, and the published report could merely contain a copy/paste/reword convenient description of an org that they have classified as "extremist" by some more robust private measure. Any evident plagiarism therefore doesn't matter, and the credibility of this classification comes from the weight given to it by secondary sources.

Which does mean though that the report itself is little more than a press release. Void if removed (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Your understanding in starting this section, is as "silly" as a thinking that because NHS web pages contain really basic language and only lightly cover a topic, that the doctors and health professionals who wrote them are themselves incapable of more complex thoughts and were entirely trained to be doctors by reading the NHS website. It is a bizarre line of thought, and rather desperate. Please stick to policy-based reasons for judging weight. Yes the report is like a press release. -- Colin°^Talk 14:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

If the report is like a press release then all that secondary sources do is verify that the claims have been made, and this is an exceptional claim to incorporate in the article in this manner. I'd say these claims need an exceptional and verifiable source and till such emerges should be omitted entirely, or at the bare minimum removed from the lede. Void if removed (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you continue to confuse

• Our article says "Organisation X says that Y is a Z" and we cite newspapers who give weight to whether organisation X's views are important (we care less whether their views are correct, only that they have weight).
• Our article says "Y is a Z" and we cite perhaps organisation X itself and newspapers noting what organisation X says. In this case, for it to appear in Wikipedia's voice, we care if X is a reliable source for such a claim. But that is not the case here.

Some kinds of claims, that we attribute rather than putting in Wikipedia's voice, can never be determined to be correct. For example, someone's opinion of who is the best film director of their generation. Others, we can, such as whether an organisation is a terrorist group can often be widely cited to reliable sources that we don't need to attribute in-text.

Either way, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. -- Colin°^Talk 15:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)