Wikipedia

Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 14

< Talk:LGB Alliance
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Sideswipe9th in topic Problem with Categories again
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

Founders

Latest comment: 1 year ago60 comments8 people in discussion

Reopening the issue of the founders yet again. There have been repeated discussions about this over the years, with attempts to have the founders listed as Kate Harris and Bev Jackson alone overruled by a consensus that favoured ambiguous or possibly incorrect early sources over more specific later ones, to justify the inclusion of Ann Sinnott, Malcolm Clark and Allison Bailey as founders.

Can we please defer to the sworn testimony of Bev Jackson in Mermaids v Charity Commission/LGB Alliance (archived: https://archive.ph/ALezB) which states unambiguously:

"(4)  Kate Harris and I founded LGB Alliance in 2019."

Also the sworn testimony of Kate Harris (archived: https://archive.ph/RdXZl), which states:

"The Founding of LGB Alliance (1) I am one of the two lesbian founders of LGB Alliance."

I argue the founders need to be listed as Kate Harris and Bev Jackson only, and all other sources should be disregarded.


Void if removed (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Because primary sources are better than secondary sources? Or for some other "reason"? Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Secondary does not mean "good", and this is a straightforward case. Void if removed (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Plus in the archive, the last time this was discussed, there were at least 5 sources that stated only Kate Harris and Bev Jackson were founders, with the current consensus reliant on interpretations of ambiguous and possibly incorrect sources, and Pink News. Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 7#Founders
In terms of more recent secondary sourcing, there is this from September https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/14/lie-of-gender-identity-spurred-founding-of-lgb-alliance-court-told Void if removed (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
The Guardian looks like a good source on this. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
As I've linked below, The Guardian have also stated, about two months prior to the article linked by Void if removed, that Allison Bailey was a founder. There is also a November 2022 source for Malcolm Clark, and September 2022 source for Ann Sinnott. I would be very wary at interpreting "co-founder" to mean only two. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
You are making a specious interpretation of an unambiguous sworn statement. here is no reason to go to these lengths, when there are no primary sources that name anyone other than Kate Harris and Bev Jackson as co-founders. They have been clear since November 2019, in statements on Twitter and here and here and here and here in interviews and now in evidence to a tribunal that Kate Harris and Bev Jackson are the only two co-founders. For comparison, Aubrey Waters and Bob Mellors co-founded the UK Gay Liberation Front, and Bev Jackson was a founding member. It is a meaningful distinction that is being ignored by amassing secondary sources and using possibly erroneous reporting to overrule primary sources. But if some secondary sources disagree with such a clearly understandable primary source as a one sentence statement in sworn testimony on such a really simple and basic fact, the answer is not to add everything together and synthesize a result that explicitly disagrees with the primary source. Void if removed (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah this old argument again. Neither of the two primary statements by Jackson or Harris preclude there being other founders.
Taking the three other founders in order, here are sources that support them being listed as founders of the LGB Alliance:
While one or two RS could be wrong about there being founders other than, I find it hard to believe that a combined total of 13 independent RS could be wrong, especially over a period of two/three years. Because we have a strong array of secondary sources that can be used to verify all of the other three founders, I do not see why we should defer to two primary sources, that are worded in such a way that allows for the existence of other founders. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
For starters, that OpenDemocracy article for Malcolm Clark lists only Kate Harris and Bev Jackson as co-founders, and makes the distinction that Malcolm Clark was a founding member. This is the distinction that's been argued previously, and the source of all of the confusion: the two founders were Kate Harris and Bev Jackson. The other three were founding members.
This is supposed to be about assembling a best effort at truth by consensus. A sworn and - despite what you say - unambiguous statement of fact is highly indicative of truth, and when supported by multiiple secondary sources (as this has been) it indicates that other sources which say different are mistaken. Truth does not emerge by combining multiple wrong secondary sources and completely ignoring primary ones. If numerous sources have mistaken founding members for founders (or are careless with a distinction they view as unimportant) that is an understandable error, but one that shouldn't be blindly reproduced here. Void if removed (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Allison Bailey's own website says "I helped to set up a new organisation for lesbian, gay and bisexual people, the LGB Alliance, to provide an alternative to Stonewall". Her press release says "Miss Bailey, a barrister, lesbian, prominent gender critical campaigner and founding member of LGB Alliance". If we are going to wave court documents about, her Witness statement says "when I launched the LGB Alliance in October 2019" and goes on to say "LGB Alliance formed out of a meeting on 22 October 2019. While others who set it up did work preparing for that meeting, I did not. I attended only one social event, in a friend’s flat one evening for less than an hour, in the summer of 2019. After the 22 October 2019 meeting, I was involved more, but again not in a way that could or did distract me from work" This seems to suggest that Bailey was involved at the start/launch but perhaps others did the initial setup for that meeting. Bailey reproduces a tweet "LGB Alliance, waste no time, you have my full support. Breakaway now, post-haste, right now. Long live LGB Alliance (or whatever name you settle on)" which suggest a little distance. Later "I met Kate Harris at a get-together in a Covent Garden flat. Later she would invite me to the launch of LGB Alliance." and "In fact, I found out later that there had been a plan (or at least, the recognition of a need for a plan), which I was not aware of, to set up and announce the formation of LGB Alliance in a more formal and structured way. By sending that tweet I effectively launched LGB Alliance prematurely and by accident." and "The Tweet that I sent launching LGB Alliance went viral" suggests confusion over how to launch it but her claim that she was the one who accidentally did so. Then "From 23 October 2019, I worked with Kate, Bev, Malcolm Clarke and Ann Sinnott on the Steering Group, and continued to do so for the first 7 months of LGB Alliance’s existence."
This last sentence supports the idea that all five people "founded" LGB Alliance, in terms of setting it up. Setting up a group requires work over a period of time. The word "founded" can be interpreted in many ways, from having an original idea, or making an announcement, to being on the original "Steering Group" for the first 7 months of the group's existence. I think this settles the question of who we should describe as founders. I am surprised this is contentious? Is there someone arguing they weren't a founder or that someone else wasn't a founder? If not, I say just believe them if that's what they claim about themselves. -- Colin°Talk 15:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a distinction between founder and founding member. Kate Harris and Bev Jackson are the two founders. Allison Bailey - by her own statement there - was a founding member, as was Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott. The two founders should be listed as founders, the other three as founding members. As I said above for comparison, Aubrey Waters and Bob Mellor co-founded the UK GLF, while Bev Jackson was a founding member. Void if removed (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd add that every quote you provide from Allison Bailey supports her joining a nascent organisation at its launch as a founding member, not founding it. In terms of "believing them if that's what they claim about themselves" - LGB Alliance consistently state who the two co-founders are. Trying to draw a wider interpretation of what "founder" means than they do themselves is disbelieving them, and there is no reason to do that. Editors on this page have consistently tried to interpret "founder" more broadly than LGB Alliance do, hence why it is contentious still. Void if removed (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
See also Women's Equality Party as an example of better practice - the two co-founders and current leader are listed, but founding members (such as Sophie Walker, founding member and first leader) are not. In the same way, the two co-founders should be listed as founders in the detail box, and possibly current MD Kate Barker. The three founding members should be mentioned in the lede and in the body as part of the narrative of the organisation's setup. Also, the current array of sources for the founders list used in the body are dreadful. For example, rather than referencing Bev Jackson as co-founder using clear neutral sources such as I've offered here (court filing making it obvious who the only co-founders are, and contemporary, balanced Guardian coverage) instead there is a highly POV Pink News piece attacking a tweet predating the founding of LGB Alliance. The current list of founders is a result of WP:SYNTHESIS. Void if removed (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The list can't possibly be an example of synthesis since our list appears in its entirety in Alison Bailey's testimony, and in other sources.[1] I'm missing something here about why on earth we should care. Wikipedia is not interested in ego. Can you provide a reliable source that explicitly describes two "founders" and three "founding members" in two groups like you propose? -- Colin°Talk Colin°Talk 12:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Both the primary sources of Kate Harris and Bev Jackson's witness statements are absolutely crystal clear and go into great detail about the history and founding, and I've given secondary sources to confirm this. That other secondary sources are less accurate does not give license to ignore primary sources they conflict with and synthesize a contradictory picture.
Excerpts from Bev Jackson:
  1. (17)  Kate Harris and I then decided to hold an event nearby LSE on the same date, which would focus on our concerns about the direction taken by the LGB rights movement. This became the meeting at which LGB Alliance was formed.
  2. (18)  We spent three months preparing for the meeting on a full-time basis: drafting a provisional statement, writing our speeches, planning the different groups we proposed forming, and so forth. We spent many hours on social media identifying those who clearly shared our concerns about the erasure of sex within the meaning of what it was to be LGB, and invited around 80 people to attend. We contacted each person individually, to explain our views and what we were planning.
  3. (20)  After the meeting, one of the attendees, Allison Bailey posted a tweet about the meeting
  4. (21)  Kate and I set up LGB Alliance to help LGB people
  5. (22) LGB Alliance was founded by two lesbians, one (myself) a founding member of the UK Gay Liberation Front and one (Kate Harris) a former volunteer fundraiser for Stonewall.
Excerpts from Kate Harris:
  1. (52) In May 2019 I was introduced to Bev Jackson by someone who knew I was trying to organise an LGB group of some kind to re-build our LGB life and culture. I found out that Ms Jackson, a founding member of the UK Gay Liberation Front (GLF) when she was at LSE in 1970, was also trying to set up a dialogue with Stonewall on the same subject.
  2. (54) Between 18 July 2019 and 22 October 2019 Bev Jackson and I contacted over 70 people we believed would be interested in coming to our meeting.
  3. (58) Our speakers at the meeting were Simon Fanshawe OBE, a founder of Stonewall, Miranda Yardley, a trans person and human rights activist, as well as Bev Jackson and myself, the founders of LGB Alliance.
Believe them, if that's what they claim about themselves. List the two co-founders as founders in the about sections, and remove the others if necessary, or mention them as notable early members.
Just because you don't care about it is no excuse for leaving incorrect information. Void if removed (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
FYI, earlier versions of this article (after initial vandalism was removed) had this right, and through a process of synthesis, other founders were added over time.
The about page on their website is also clear.
There is no good reason to continue to include the other three as "founders". The about should simply list the two founders, the body should simply say Kate Harris and Bev Jackson founded the org, and that they were joined by the other three. I don't think it is necessary to go into any more detail than that. Void if removed (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are not arbitrators of truth. We aren't here to determine the truth behind an article or article subject. It is the job of the sources we use to determine the truth. We are here to report on verifiable facts that reliable sources report. This concept is best explained in the essay WP:NOTTRUTH.
In this circumstance, it is verifiable that reliable sources list five founders for the LGB Alliance. For each founder we have a multitude of sources, across the lifetime of the organisation, including those that were published in the last couple of months. As Colin has pointed out, we are not engaging in synth by listing all five of the founders. I would add that synth is not juxtaposition nor summary.
Colin has asked a good question. Are there any reliable, secondary sources that describe the LGB Alliance as having only two founders, and three or more founding members? If there are not, then we would be introducing unverifiable content to this article by changing it as you have proposed. As such, if there are no sources that support the text you wish to change, I would recommend that you drop this stick as you do not seem to be convincing any other editors present to support your proposals. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I have linked multiple, solid primary sources, and at least one high quality, recent secondary source produced with comment from LGB Alliance, all which point at there being only two co-founders. Per WP:CONFLICTING favour newer sources, especially when older ones could be misreporting factual content, as is clearly the case here. To repeat what was said above, again: believe what they say about themselves.
The Pink News article given as a rebuttal, aside from being an opinion piece and not a good source for a statement of fact, is further questionable given that it was published without comment from LGB Alliance, and apparently by sheer coincidence lists the same five names in the same non-alphabetic order as they appear in this article, and therefore as is returned by a simple google search.
By contrast, this piece by Debbie Hayton that was dismissed by you as opinion last year, states: "Its founders Bev Jackson and Kate Harris were veteran lesbian campaigners. They were joined by filmmaker Malcolm Clark and barrister Allison Bailey". That is a fine middle ground. Describe the two co-founders as founders, and say in the body they were joined by the others.
If secondary sources written without quote or input from the group themselves disagree with clearly readable high quality primary sources, then the secondary sources must be in error. There is no reason to favour them over the group's own public statements, website and sworn evidence for such a straightforward factual matter, and you are giving undue weight to misreporting here. Primary sources need only be used with care, not ignored completely. This is appropriate use of a primary source, and inappropriate use of secondary sources to contradict what the primary sources say. Void if removed (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any Pink News ... opinion piece cited here. What source are you referring to? Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Just up the page, as an argument against the list being synthesis, this was cited but as I say, this is opinion, and constructed without input from LGB Alliance, contradicts the primary sources, while also being identical to a google search result which returns this article.
A check of the history of the talk page demonstrates both synthesis and older sources being corrected in light of new information (eg. this gscene article which changed Ann Sinnott from founder to founding member months after publication) which lends weight to the preference for more correct primary sources than unreliable secondary ones. Meanwhile sideswipe9th said "I'm not convinced they are reliable narrators about their own history."
They have said who the two co-founders were in sworn testimony. The process by which a list of five founders has been synthesized from multiple secondary sources is questionable. Void if removed (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how the PinkNews piece in question has any of the markers of WP:RSOPINION. Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah that PinkNews source does not meet WP:RSOPINION. The article is quite clearly written in the second person (no I statements), consists of factual reporting, has no attempts at convincing speech (no You statements), there doesn't appear to be any identifiers that reveal the author's opinion, and perhaps most convincingly it is not categorised as an opinion article which PinkNews categorise separately from their factual reporting. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The very first sentence calls them "anti-trans" in the author's voice. Void if removed (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
No, that's quite clearly the publication's voice. See also this piece from October 2022, or this one from August 2022, or this one from December 2021, or this one from August 2021. All of these articles have different authors both from the source linked by Colin, and each other. And there are numerous other examples, from multiple authors on the site all describing the organisation in the same way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd also add that it contains a straightforward factual error, claiming Ann Sinnott remains "involved to this day". Ann Sinnott resigned in mid-2021 and there's no evidence she has been involved in any capacity since. Void if removed (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
The one secondary source you've provided was published on 14 September 2022. The two primary sources are dated 18 March 2022.
While recent, those are not the most recent sources. The Diva Magazine source for Alison Bailey and Ann Sinnot was published on 15 September. The PinkNews source for Alison Bailey was published on 20 September 2022. The Scottis Daily Express source for Malcolm Clark was published on 18 November. These are all more recent than The Guardian source you've provided.
The CONFLICTINGSOURCES is generally good advice, but that one Guardian source needs to be contrasted against the other sources that were published after it. In this case, we have more sources that state that there were other founders than Jackson and Harris.
I would also add, that like the two primary sources, The Guardian source does not preclude there being other founders, nor does it explicitly state that there is only two founders. Where the article says Michael Gibbon, KC for Mermaids, on Wednesday questioned the two co-founders of LGB Alliance, that is in context of who was present at the tribunal on that Wednesday. Gibbon asked questions of the two founders who were present. As far as I'm aware, from chatter on social media who were watching the livestream of the tribunal, the other founders (Bailey, Sinnott, Clark) were not present at that date. It would be completely improper to interpret this part of the sentence to mean that there are only two founders for the LGB Alliance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
There are zero primary sources that contradict the ones I have given. No quotes from any of the other three claiming to be co-founders. No dispute of the information on the website. The primary sources I have given are unambiguous that there were only two co-founders, and you are simply wrong to say otherwise. The only dispute is manufactured by assembling potentially wrong - and frequently hostile - secondary sources, none of which quote any of the five saying that anyone other than Kate Harris and Bev Jackson are the founders. It is ridiculous to argue for doing anything other than simply copying what is on the about page of their website, as they are the most authoritative source for information about themselves. There is simply no need to go to these lengths, except that you, personally, don't believe them, as you have stated. Void if removed (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Please don't cast aspersions about what I believe, or misrepresent what I said. What I actually said was that I find it hard to believe that 14 independent, reliable, secondary sources published over a two/three year period could all be wrong. Nowhere in that do I say I disbelieve what Harris, Jackson, or the organisation itself have said, I just see that your interpretation of those words is not the only interpretation.
And please drop this stick. You are now repeating the arguments that you've already made, and that other editors have not found convincing and have rebutted with the relevant policies and guidelines. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
No I am quoting you: "I'm not convinced they are reliable narrators about their own history." From the last time this was discussed.
So again - why wouldn't we just take what it says on the "about" page on their website? "The Founders of LGB Alliance, Bev Jackson and Kate Harris". Why wouldn't we just defer to their sworn testimony that this is true and correct and that they are the two co-founders? Why go to so much effort to augment such clear and uncontentious primary sources? Prefer secondary sources yes, but not slavishly, and not in such a straightforward case of an organisation repeatedly stating which two people founded it. Void if removed (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, I remember saying that now. And as is clear from that discussion I said that with evidence. At the time of their website launch, they listed four people as their "team" which coincides with their earliest filings at Companies House. That they're now saying different does lend some support to the idea that they may not be reliable narrators of their own history.
As for why shouldn't we defer to their testimony, well Allison Bailey also provided a witness statement in her case against her Chambers, which goes into detail her involvement in the founding of the organisation. That offers a different story for the involvement of people other than Jackson and Harris in the founding of the organisation. How do you reconcile these differing narrations of the founding of the organisation, without engaging in original research?
However that is just an interesting thought experiment. The BLP policy tells us quite clearly to Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Emphasis from the original text. Stating who is or is not a founder of an organisation would be covered under the BLP policy, because it is content about a living person. By policy, we cannot use the witness testimony you wish to defer to.
As I said before, our role is to report what reliable, secondary sources say about a topic. In cases where the secondary sources conflict with each other, we need to figure out what the balance of the sources are. However when secondary sources conflict with primary sources, it is not our role to determine which are true. We simply follow the secondary sources. In this case, the secondary sources are clear, Harris and Jackson were not the only founders for the LGB Alliance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
You are engaging in original research, referring to companies house filings and making your own interpretation that early directorship is equivalent to being a "co-founder", as well as inferring meaning from a "meet the team" page that it does not contain any such statement of being a "founder". None of this supports the claim that anyone other than Kate Harris and Bev Jackson are the two co-founders, and is completely inappropriate.
It is not your role to dispute statements of fact in this way, and synthesize additional founders. LGB Alliance have made numerous clear statements as to who the two co-founders are, no-one else. Your role is not to go on a fishing expedition to assemble anyone who might look involved during their launch or early start up and also label them a "founder", if the organisation themselves do not.
LGB Alliance have made a clear, factual statement that they had exactly two founders, and we have solid primary sources for it, spanning several years, from a Twitter thread around their launch, to their current website, and their tribunal submissions. There is no need to go beyond this, and if you do, what you need is not additional "founders" from misreporting in secondary sources, what you actually need is a strong secondary source that demonstrates that LGB Alliance are lying - because that is what you, specifically, have alleged. Void if removed (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Also the BLP policy is for court transcripts, court records and public documents. This is none of those things, but a witness statement voluntarily published on their own website, restating their own history, and only referred to because you refuse to simply take their website's "about" page - or even Mermaids - as true. The policy also refers to assertions "about" a person, this is an uncontentious statement a person is making about themselves.
Meanwhile the Pink News reference is unattributed and has become WP:CIRCULAR, now incorporating the synthesis on this page. There is no single source that predates this wikipedia entry that lists those five names together as founders, least of all in that order. Void if removed (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Void, please stop accusing sources of WP:CIRCULAR without evidence that the source is either a plain Wikipedia mirror, or explicitly cites Wikipedia as a source for the claim we are using it for. It would seem most odd that established journalists at Pink News rely on Wikipedia for information on groups such as LGB Alliance. -- Colin°Talk 11:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
They provide no citation for the claim, nor do they include any comment from LGB Alliance. Again - the first source for all 5 names listed as founders is this wiki article, which is of course the first result in a google search. It is also the source for those five names in that specific order. It would indeed be most odd for an established journalist to rely on google or wikipedia for the truth about an organisation rather than an attributed comment from the organisation, and that is an argument for another day, but it is not a justification to go beyond the organisations own "about" page. The longer this goes on the more likely circularity is. Void if removed (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Newspapers do not routinely provide citations for their claims. -- Colin°Talk 11:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
FYI, the Scottish Daily Express article does not say that Malcolm Clark is a co-founder. Void if removed (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Looking at this list of links again that are presented as overwhelming evidence
Malcolm Clark:
Ann Sinnott:
Three and possibly four opinion, one seemingly unreliable, two corrections that now don't support the claim, and two from Pink News, again the common factor. Note that Pink News is caveated "There is rough consensus that PinkNews is generally reliable for factual reporting, but additional considerations may apply and caution should be used." Void if removed (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
For comparison, the sole source for the list of founding members and trustees of Stonewall is their "about us" page, with no secondary sources necessary. Defer to LGB Alliance's own description of themselves, and stop engaging in unnecessary WP:SYNTHESIS Void if removed (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I continue to wonder why so many words on such a minor point. I don't know the general or detail BLP policy about witness statements and whether we should use them, Sideswipe may be right that they should not be used in the article. I referred to one just as Void did and they appear to conflict. All I can see from this is that different parties have different views about their involvement, which seems to come down to opinion and ego. There isn't a legal "We hereby sign as founders of XYZ" document, so they are relying on their memories and impressions of who did the founding work. At times perhaps two people think they are the core founders and at other times other people claim to have founded it. What really isn't in dispute is that all five of these people setup the organisation from the very first day and worked together for months. Any finer distinction seems to me to be purely a matter of ego, and not one shared by all reliable sources. We still do not have a single source that would support the 2+3 approach that Void is suggesting, but we do have sources for 2 and we have sources for 5. Perhaps this can be resolved by using another word than "founding", such as saying it was "started". -- Colin°Talk 11:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Why so much effort just to avoid referring to them in terms they refer to themselves? And no, the statements you provided did not conflict. You are again engaging in synthesis - there are no attributed statements of any of the other three referring to themselves as a "founder" or "co-founder" - you are interpreting and paraphrasing.
There is only one source needed - their own about page. Void if removed (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
And what happened to believing what they say about themselves? Stop inventing language that they do not use to excuse the current state of affairs. Simply change the lede and the about box to list Kate Harris and Bev Jackson as co-founders, and if necessary list the other three as notable other members if their precise status is uncertain. Eg.
"The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in the UK in 2019 by Kate Harris and Bev Jackson..."
"Notable other members include Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott" Void if removed (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Going back to the Stonewall example - there were six original founders (Ian McKellen, Michael Cashman, Duncan Campbell, Peter Rivas, Douglas Slater and Simon Fanshawe). But the wiki page on the organisation doesn't expend months collecting secondary sources and doing WP:OR to dispute what's on the charity's own about page in order to provide a finer categorisation of who did what when. Nor does it quibble about "started by". It refers to the founding members and trustees in the language that they themselves have decided to use, using only the org's statements about itself as the single, primary source. For such basic information this is wholly appropriate, and there is no good reason not to follow this example here. I would not be forced to expend so many words on such a "minor point" if there was less unjustified resistance to it. Void if removed (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Void, what should you do on Wikipedia if you've made your point, and nobody else agrees with you or even thinks it is nearly as important as you, and you have repeated yourself already several times? -- Colin°Talk 14:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Open a dispute, which I was hoping to avoid by appealing to reason, given how utterly trivial this is. Void if removed (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Wrong answer. The correct answer is to appreciate it is not nearly as important as you feel it is. See WP:DISENGAGE. We have sources that say two and we have sources that say five. Each of these five people are happy to be regarded as being involved in the founding/starting of the organisation, so there are no BLP concerns. I don't think any of the people are in dispute with each other such that they have explicitly rejected anyone's claim to have been involved in founding it. It seems very much therefore a matter of opinion, and I think ego, whether the number is two or five. Sometimes there is no correct answer. We should use dispute resolution boards and RFCs for the big questions. This one is one where it is best to demonstrate a willingness to realise we won't all agree on everything, to accept the opinions of others, and to be persistent only if it is important and you are making progress. This is neither. -- Colin°Talk 15:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
You say: "Each of these five people are happy to be regarded as being involved in the founding/starting of the organisation, so there are no BLP concerns."
But this is, again, missing the point - there are BLP concerns because only two of those people are described as co-founders by the organisation, and none of the other three are. You are applying your own personal interpretation that "being involved" is close enough. It isn't for you to make that judgement. Void if removed (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that the LGB Alliance is a living person. I don't believe this to be the case. Newimpartial (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I quote sideswipe9th in this very thread: "Stating who is or is not a founder of an organisation would be covered under the BLP policy, because it is content about a living person. "
In one comment thread we have editors arguing both for an overbroad interpretation of BLP guidelines so that a self-published witness statement can be excluded as a source, and simultaneously that claims should not be made conservatively because there are no BLP concerns. One or the other, please. Void if removed (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Void, stop this. You are being disruptive. Graham Beards (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflct) It is not a personal interpretation; it is the consensus here. You are flogging a dead horse. There is no BLP concern. Graham Beards (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Unbelievable that we're still here. LGB Alliances own website states Kate Harris and Bev Jackson were the founders. They've testified in a court that they were the founders. Allison Bailey gave a keynote speech at an LGB Alliance conference explicitly stating that she, and others, were invited by Kate and Bev to a meeting and that Kate and Bev were the founders. I don't know the reasons for trying to tie Malcolm Clark, Allison Bailey and Ann Sinnott to the founding on this organisation but it's clear to anyone who cares about the truth that it was only Kate Harris and Bev Jackson that founded the LGB Alliance. It would be the correct thing to have both of the women as founders and perhaps have the others listed in a separate sentence as founding members or notable members. I can't believe we're still here, it's time to do the right thing. Samcowie (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

And another thing, the other charities that the usual suspects here edit on. Their websites are used as primary sources to discuss their inception. and for many other matters. The bias displayed on this site is appalling - particularly around LGB Alliance. It's clear that many of these so called editors detest the idea of a charity exclusively for homosexuals. You shouldn't be editing these pages if you can't keep your bias under control, guys. Samcowie (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Why are so many editors determined to stick to this controversial position and ignore primary sources? It does nothing to improve the reputation of Wikipedia as a balanced source if so many entries display a genderist bias? mcleaver (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Please don't accuse editors of bias on this matter. I am not aware that this is controversial other than to Void. I have repeatedly asked why anyone should care and nobody has explained. I am not seeing any need for an editor bias to be considered when deciding between listing two or five. We have sources of all flavours supporting a variety of numbers, and it seems to come down to (previously) one editor alone who thinks there is some vital difference between "founded", "set up" and "founding member" that none of our sources care about. I can only repeat, if you want to split the group of five into two founders and three founding members then you need a source that does that. Otherwise, I repeat that we should follow our sources utter disinterest in the matter. There are far more important things to care about. I have also earlier suggested a compromise of "set up" which is a synonym and WP:NOR permits (and indeed encourages) such. -- Colin°Talk 16:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
That compromise is inappropriate, non-specific, contradicts how the charity describe themselves and sets the stage for ever more tangentially related names to be added. The better compromise is to name only the two founders exactly as specified on the charity's about page, and include the other three in the body as "notable other members". I have yet to see any reason provided for even bothering to assess evidence beyond the charity's own "about" page, other than WP:IDONTLIKETHEM. There are many examples of doing exactly this on wikipedia.
I have shown earlier in this thread how the sources of "all flavours" for Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott have either been corrected and no longer support this claim, are opinion (and hostile opinion at that), or are Pink News. Pink News are tagged as a source that should be handled with caution, and as has been pointed out by others in this thread has an editorial voice that is hostile to LGB Alliance, and I think are at the very least suspicious for now repeating the same five names as "founder" in the same order as this page, something for which there is no earlier precedent than this article.
In terms of utter disinterest - the fact that some sources have been updated demonstrates this is false, and the organisation itself is clearly interested in it, else it would not have so repeatedly and specifically named only two individuals as founders. I wonder why so much interest in ignoring this? If there has been imprecise reporting, it is not realistic to expect every single source to be corrected. Likewise, the sourcing on this is cherry-picked, looking only at positive sources, and ignoring every source where those three are not given the title "founder". The existence of clear statements from the charity itself as to who the two founders are should be enough - there does not need to be evidence repudiating prior misreporting.
And this is important because as I've pointed out, we have no single source for all five being given the title "founder" prior to their appearance together in this article. We have numerous sources from the charity itself that specifically name only two as founders, to the exclusion of anyone else being given that particular title, we have months of synthesis on this page working to ignore this and pull in additional names into this article - while disregarding that some of those sources have been changed and no longer support this view - and now we have new sources that have started to repeat those five verbatim. You may not think this is looking WP:CIRCULAR but I think it is suggestive.
The charity's "about" page should be the beginning and the end of this in terms of sourcing, as it is elsewhere. Combing the media cherry-picking mentions of other "founders" to call this into question without good reason is inappropriate WP:OR. If those other three want to contest the charity's claims about who the founders are, then there should be a secondary source specifically quoting them bringing the matter into dispute - but the only actual dispute appears to be on this page. It is confusing to me that this is claimed to be minor, or a matter of disinterest, when so much effort is expended on ignoring and disputing the one most obvious source of this information. Why so much interest in looking elsewhere? Void if removed (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Adding to this more about why it matters.
Malcolm Clark responding to that Pink News article which names him as a "founder" on Twitter, two days after it was published, said "I’m not a founder" and "Two lesbians founded the organisation months before it was incorporated. They organised the launch event. It’s a lesbian led organisation."
Stating that anyone other than Kate Harris and Bev Jackson are the founders undermines the timeline of the organisation's founding, ie that those two are the founders by virtue of putting in the months of work leading up to the organisation's launch - something explicitly respected by Malcolm Clark there, and something that editors here are ignoring.
All of this is laid out in detail in their witness statements for further verification, but there still hasn't been a good reason offered not to simply take what is on the "about" page as-is. It is the best source used in other circumstances, and going beyond it is resulting in conflicting information between this page and the organisation itself, for no clear reason. Void if removed (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I have no horse in this race and just came by the article by chance, but here's my take: If there are some sources saying A is true (and B is false), and other sources saying A and B are true, we should either use the lowest common denominator ("A is true"), or we should reflect both versions in the article ("A is true, B might be true by some sources or false by others").--Kraligor (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree, though I would stress the fact that some disputed sources have been corrected makes me question the reliability of the ones that remain - they're probably just understandable mistakes in the confusion of a new, tiny organisation setting up. Additionally LGB Alliance have recently published a lengthy history of the founding of their organisation again making abundantly clear that the two founders are Kate Harris and Bev Jackson, irrespective of the subsequent involvement of others. https://lgballiance.org.uk/lgb-alliance-who-what-why-when/ Void if removed (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't really work like that, and we don't have reliable sources saying "B is false". What we have really is that different people have different definitions in their minds of what it means to be a founder or to found something. Some people use a broad definition, and some a narrow one. And there's a strange logical error going on along the lines of "Glasgow and Edinburgh are Scottish cities" and "Dundee is a Scottish city" and these two sentences do not contradict nor is the first sentence claiming that Dundee is not a Scottish city. Void, seriously, you are flogging a dead horse here, and I don't really know why, because it is all entirely of no consequence other than to one or two people's egos. -- Colin°Talk 19:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of "Glasgow and Edinburgh are Scottish Cities". It is more like: Douglas Adams wrote the Salmon Of Doubt, but Stephen Fry wrote the introduction. Then, because one source says that the book is "by" Douglas Adams and Stephen Fry, the wiki article on the book is updated to list both as co-authors, and no amount of pointing at the book cover or the publisher's website can ever overturn it.
By your reasoning, this would be wholly valid because "people can have different definitions in their minds of what author means". Even if everyone involved in the creation and publishing of the book disagrees with that. I have to wonder how could anyone ever undo the change? Especially if it was dismissed as trivial.
In this specific instance I can think of many reasons beyond "ego" why it matters. But how about simply: because their website says one thing, and this article says something different, and no good reason has been offered as to why that should be. Void if removed (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Problem with Categories again

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments6 people in discussion

So this page has been added to the category "Tufton Street" - which is part of the category "Brexit" which is in category "British Nationalism". LGB Alliance has nothing to do with Brexit or British Nationalism. I'm taking the category off because that hierarchy makes no sense and carries wider implications beyond the text.

Void if removed (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds more like a hierarchy error with the categorisation of Category:Tufton Street being part of Category:Brexit. Other articles in that category, such as Global Vision (UK) and Global Warming Policy Foundation, do not mention Brexit either. Belbury (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree and you aren't being complete about what the Category:Tufton Street category is part of, which is also Category:Organisations based in the City of Westminster and that's exactly appropriate for this. Please add the category back. Categories can be "part of" all sorts of categories, and the linking isn't a science and the world doens't fit into heirarchies, so they have their limitations. If you have a problem with one of Tufton Stree's parent's categories, that's a matter to address on the category talk page. I would suggest that the Brexit parent is wrong. -- Colin°Talk 12:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
You might suggest that, but you'd miss what the Tufton Street category actually represents, which is shorthand for the nexus of right-wing, libertarian, climate denial and pro-Brexit thinktanks associated with 55 and 57. Either the category name is a misnomer, or the hierarchy is, and either way, the categorisation is confusing and shouldn't be added to any new pages until it is sorted out, because it implies more than the name suggests. As it stands, adding LGB Alliance to this category is categorical axe-grinding. The existence of a "Tufton Street" category is faintly ridiculous and a maintenance nightmare if it is to be neutral and comprehensive. The National Churches Trust is at 7 Tufton Street. Should it be in that category? Clearly not if it is a "Brexit" subcategory. But it is in Category:Organisations based in the City of Westminster and that is fine, neutral, and a reasonable granularity. Void if removed (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
From the Tufton Street wiki page: "today it hosts a number of right-leaning lobby groups and thinktanks. As a result, the street name is most often used as a metonym for these groups." This categorisation is not a neutral reference to location - this is applying a value judgement to the politics of a charity. Void if removed (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I have removed "Brexit" from the parent category of Tufton Street, and restored that as a category. Void, you are edit warring and your rationale for avoiding the actual location of the organisation will be viewed dimly indeed. If you have a problem with the actual fact that they have setup offices in the same location as organisations that are frequently viewed with suspicion or hostility, then I suggest you attend an LGB Alliance meeting and ask them to move their office. Do not edit war. -- Colin°Talk 11:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The point is that as it was (with the Brexit hierarchy), the category was not a neutral street address, but - as the Tufton Street article implied - a metonym for a specific *kind* of organisation on that street.
Without that hierarchy, the category becomes so fine-grained as to be a bit silly to maintain. Pure street address categorisation is pointless. Either it should be clearly labelled and treated as the metonym, or it should be deleted. Void if removed (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
There are lots of Category:Streets in the City of Westminster. LGB Alliance's choice of office location is their problem to deal with, not Wikipedias. -- Colin°Talk 14:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I note that a recent edit to a different charity notes that it is not Wikipedia's style to give exact addresses rather than general municipality locations, so perhaps there are some double standards being applied. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
In and of itself, it doesn't matter what other article pages do. Please see WP:OTHERCONTENT on this. Arguments about consistency of approach need to be made at a higher level (policy, manual of style, project etc.). The specific address here is relevant substantively. OsFish (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Just to keep on topic there's a separate section above for discussions about the handling of the address. This section is intended specifically for the category "Tufton Street", whose history, hierarchy (Brexit) and usage indicated its was not straightforwardly a geographic marker, and whether it was itself correctly named and applicable. Void if removed (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Discussions on how the Tufton Street category is organised are off-topic for this talk page, and should take place elsewhere. I think Wikipedia talk:Categorization is the correct venue for such discussions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance/Archive_14&oldid=1138897057"