Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Tufton Street

Editors trying to add references to Tufton street, please seek consensus on talk first. At the moment there is a developing story with scant sourcing about LGBA having an office at Tufton Street. This is not "headquarters". Their address is given at companies house and the register of charities. Void if removed (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This Pink News coverage merely adds to the pile of evidence that Pink News is not a reliable source when it comes to LGB Alliance. https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/12/19/lgb-alliance-address-55-tufton-street/

The article quotes a random Twitter user, who cites Wikipedia, for the claim the building is "only occupied by right-wing orgs".

This is a) circular and b) not true, since - for example - https://feedingbritain.org/ are based there, who were set up in 2015 by former Labour MP Frank Field, and whose president is Justin Welby. Void if removed (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Your original objection to the material had nothing to do with the content quoted and seemed much more like an excuse than a solid reason to remove it. You originally reverted the information with the summary This is not NPOV - other organisations share this address. Article's source for "only occupied by right-wing orgs" quote goes to random Twitter user, citing wikipedia. See talk.

Pink News does not actually claim that "only" right-wing orgs occupy it, it states the office is shared with some of the UK’s most extreme right-wing conservative groups. It then lists examples, none of which are false. Quoting someone else saying "only occupied by right-wing orgs" does not mean the source itself is saying that. Their claim that "some" right wing orgs occupy the building is not circular or dependent on that tweet and it seems disingenuous to conflate the contents of the article with a single quoted tweet.

WP:NPOV 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.

An article by an independent source noted that LGBA share an office with extremely right-wing organizations, noted that people criticized them for that, and noted what the LGBA said in their defense. The information added to the article was if anything slanted in LGBA's favor, since it didn't mention they received criticism, just that they denied having ties. Like it or not, a reliable independent source described some simple facts, which were then incorporated into the article. Removing those details seems a lot more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than something based in WP policy. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record, so far 3 editors have supported the inclusion of that material, and only you have opposed it. If you want to remove it again, please seek consensus on talk first. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I oppose mentioning this in the lead. This is a recent controversy covered by one reliable source. It should be in the body but not the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

No problems with it either, my only objection is to not mentioning it at all. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that this material should not be in the lead. So why is it in the lead? Is someone going to move it? Sweet6970 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'd only put this in the lead because I was writing it as a plain statement of fact about where they have an office, rather than casting it as a revelation that had been reported in a specific month of 2022. It got rewritten to be a chronological revelation again without being moved. --Belbury (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I should point out that the address with Companies House is not actually Kemp House any more; they moved their registered address a hundred yards down the road to 124 City Road (Fergusson House). Fergusson House is a five-story building hosting about 8,000 companies, so it's pretty clearly a virtual office for people who need an address in central London for whatever reason (see also: how half a million companies are all legally headquartered in a quarter-acre of office space in Delaware).

This begs the question: if the LGB Alliance are registered at Fergusson House — which is clearly not their actual office space — why is Ofcom sending mail to them at Tufton Street? It's completely possible they're just availing themselves of convenient physical office space, but as that person quoted in the PN piece said, "it's Tufton Street, not a bloody WeWork".

That said, we're verging into OR a little here. But the point remains that the most recent source of the LGB Alliance's physical location is Ofcom (which is, admittedly, a primary government source, but so is CH), then that's probably the "more correct" address. Sceptre (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. It is not for us to get into OR but clearly it does merit inclusion. I see no need for it to go in the intro at this stage. Maybe this is a thread of investigation that will yield more material as it is pulled on but this is not the venue for the pulling. We can just watch what comes out and cover it accordingly.

So, where should it go? We have a great big section called "views" but no corresponding section covering their actual operations/activities. I propose that we add a section, maybe called "operations", which would cover where they operate from and what they actually do. Yeah, I know that's a big ask, as they don't currently do much except lobby but it could cover their locations, their conferences and their lobbying activities. If they ever "get around" to doing anything charitable then at least we will have a place to cover that if/when it happens. DanielRigal (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

How about putting it at the end of the History section? Sweet6970 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I see that the material about Tufton St has been moved to the end of the History section, which I agree with. But the wording is incorrect, and is not supported by the source. All the source says is that LGBA has office space at 55 Tufton St. The wording in our article is That same month, it was reported that LGB Alliance shares office space at 55 Tufton Street with several right-wing groups promoting climate change denial and anti-immigration politics, including……… etc. This implies that LGBA is actually sharing offices with the other groups, whereas all the PinkNews article supports is that they have office space in the same building as the other groups. So I am amending the wording accordingly, to …LGB Alliance has office space at 55 Tufton Street, a building also occupied by several right wing groups…. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The article quotes a random Twitter user, who cites Wikipedia, for the claim the building is "only occupied by right-wing orgs". Void, can you please stop this, where you claim without any foundation, that our sources only get their information from unreliable sources themselves, and that it all comes back to Wikipedia. Nowhere else works like Wikipedia, where citations are given as "evidence". Normally, people don't cite source for their information at all, and when people do give links, like that Twitter user did wrt Tufton street, it isn't "here's the sole evidence for my claim" but "Ha ha look this address is so notorious for being the home of extreme right wing groups, it even has its own Wikipedia page". Anyone in the UK with modest knowledge of UK politics is well aware of 55 Tufton St, and certainly doesn't rely Twitter or Wikipedia to know this. The article cited the twitter users for added flavour, demonstrating the opinion on the internet, and not for the facts of the article. They also cited Twitter when supplying the "explanation" that LGB Alliance offered for their address. Our sources are allowed to do that.

Further, the comment "Seek consensus on talk page before changing the lede" is not policy. This is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, and editors do not need to seek consensus before changing the lead in an article. They do need consensus if additional text is challenged, but that's quite a separate thing from being unable to boldly edit a lead. Wrt the little edit war here, editors may benefit from reading Wikipedia:Bring me a rock. -- Colin°^Talk 21:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Void if removed is 100% correct that Pink News cites random Twitter users in their reporting of this issue. Read the several paragraphs in that article, beginning from "Twitter users, however, have criticised the idea that the office space is simply convenient..." Of course, there's the overall issue of doxing that the Pink News article represents, but that's an issue for another page. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's doxing by Pink News, insofar as a PDF of the letter is freely and openly available on Ofcom's website, as are a number of other correspondences between the two organisations. The individual who Pink News cited also appears to be a journalist who has previously written for Vice, Huffington Post, and Metro among others. Not really seeing an issue there. So I'm not really seeing any issue with the reliability here of the Pink News reporting for our requirements. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that the Twitter users Pink News cites in the above linked article are "a journalist who has previously written for Vice, Huffington Post, and Metro". Because all I see are [1] and [2], neither of whom mention any of those things in their bio. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The very first link in Pink News' article is to Lee Hurley, who both screenshotted the letter and provided a link to it on Ofcom's website.

Unless of course we're talking across each other about two separate things in the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably. I was referring to the section of the article beginning "Twitter users, however, have criticised the idea that the office space is simply convenient..." In any case, I've asked the question on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Clarification_on_the_publication_of_business_addresses. We should hopefully have clarification on the overall issue soon. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Homeostasis07, Void is 100% wrong that Pink News gets its information from random Twitter users who in turn get their information from Wikipedia. Which is what they claimed. That a newspaper article in 2022 mentions the opinions of people who expressed those opinions on Twitter is so unremarkable as to make me wonder what century you guys are living in. -- Colin°^Talk 08:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

My problem mentioned at the top of this category about the random twitter user/wikipedia issue in this article was a note of caution really. I don't actually think it has bearing on the mention of the address - what I was pointing out is that PinkNews are not above publishing false/hyperbolic information from random twitter users for - as you put it - "added flavour", who in turn in this case happened to substantiate that opinion using Wikipedia. Pink News chose to give weight to false information for "added flavour", and this is just yet another reason why PinkNews should be treated with a more caution as a source.

On more substantive matters though, the Pink News article states "In a statement on Twitter, the LGB Alliance said:"

This is simply false, LGB Alliance made no such statement on Twitter. They made this statement by email - the actual link is here.

Pink News OTOH do in fact cite a random twitter user, who has screenshotted this email and shared it.

So in that regard, they do at least appear to have got their information from random Twitter users, and I suggest that the actual linked statement would be a better source than Pink News' reference to a random Twitter user's screenshot of it. So which is better here? A primary source, or a secondary source that gives false information about its provenance? Void if removed (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem separating the journalistic writing in the Pink News article, which states their address and the association with various organisations that it lists and describes, with the additional inclusion of twitter comments. Just ignore the twitter comments if they bother you that much (though for the record, nothing they said was "false/hyperbolic"). That you keep bringing them up is some weird attempt to discredit Pink News as a reliable source and yet again a weird attempt to claim our sources are ultimately getting their information from Wikipedia. Stop this now. -- Colin°^Talk 11:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

To clear up - I added this section because, at the time, there was a breaking story just before xmas with very poor sourcing, and I wanted to discuss how to approach it. Editors were adding information based on documents released under FOI on Ofcom's website, and claiming a released letter addressed there meant that 55 Tufton Street was the one and only "headquarters" of LGB Alliance. Time has passed, and there are better sources and at least some of the claims have been watered down/balanced with a response. I think the fact that there was/is a controversy about the address is inescapable and needs a mention. I am agnostic as to whether 55 Tufton Street should be listed as an address in the about box - but since it is still not their address with Companies House or the Charities register, or on their own website, at least it now isn't in the lede and isn't claimed to be their only address, or their "headquarters". Coming back to the mention in the body though, I am not sure what purpose is served by listing five specific organisations, two of which are defunct, to illustrate why the address is controversial? This list is not straightforwardly derived from a single source but appears to be editorial selection combining two sources (and I note that both OpenDemocracy and PinkNews erroneously list orgs at that address who are not). Why those five? Why mention the defunct BrexitCentral and Leave Means Leave as if they are current residents? Why list any? I think it is enough to say, eg "an address controversial for hosting an influential network of right-wing libertarian lobby groups and think tanks, specifically relating to Brexit and climate science denial.". Given that the next sentence is a denial of any connection to any of them, I don't think preceding that with five specific, arbitrarily chosen organisations is NPOV - it comes across as over-egging. Also, I wonder if their actual statement is a better source than Pink News' third hand reporting of it. Void if removed (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Void your second comment in this section cites the Pink News article that was written on 19th December. Despite your repeated attempts to discredit this article by claiming its information is based on twitter which is based on Wikipedia, you have failed to demonstrate it is an unreliable source. The Letter from Offcom is not an ideal source but the way Wikipedia works is that editors in good faith attempt to find better ones, which you did yourself and then attempted to discredit what you found. Void, you are seriously wasting everyone's time. Stop it. -- Colin°^Talk 11:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Since Brexit Central and Leave Means Leave are defunct, it does not make sense to list them in the way that is done in our article, because the wording in our article implies that they are still in occupation of the building. So the list including Migration Watch…etc. should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And yet strangely www.leavemeansleave.eu and brexitcentral.com are live websites, albeit seemingly untouched for years. Perhaps they are maintaining existence in case Starmer takes us back into the EU or customs union. They were listed by the source. -- Colin°^Talk 13:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Aside from being defunct, BrexitCentral were based in Millbank Tower. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/28/brexit-not-a-done-deal-battle-to-stay-in-eu-second-referendum Something half a dozen other sources and business directories confirm.

OpenDemocracy also wrongly says the IEA are there (when they are at North Lord Street), as well as the Centre for Policy Studies (when they are at 57 Tufton Street).

So of the 8 orgs that OpenDemocracy and PinkNews between them list as being currently based there, only 4 are actually are. Void if removed (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OpenDemocracy says it "acts as a base" for those organizations, which is vague and perhaps sloppy. However, if you look at The Independent's article[3], the association isn't pulled out of thin air. At the risk of synthesizing, I think "55 Tufton" is acting as a metanym for "Tufton street," which is a metanym for the conservative lobbying groups in or near 55 Tufton — Such as 57 Tufton, and 2 North Lord Street (90 meters away, or "around the corner" in the Independent's words). It's like "k street" or "wall street".

In a podcast, the director general of the IEA “We aren’t based at 55 Tufton Street, which I think has now become a concept rather than an address.”[4] Again, "base"/"based" are both vague. Calling it a "concept" is also vague, and intentionally dismissive in this case, but supports the idea of a metanym. They're clearly not headquartered out of that exact address, but the Independent's story alone is enough to say there's a close, verifiable, and notable association between the IEA and 55 Tufton. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is obvious that these websites are not active (one of them shows Philip Hammond as Chancellor – I can’t remember how many chancellors ago that was). Please do not raise trivial points, Colin.

I have come to the conclusion that all this material about Tufton St should be deleted as trivia.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think deleting all of the content relating to Tufton Street is unreasonable, but looking at what we currently have it could be paired back. It looks like there's three bits of core information we need to convey on this:

1. The LGB Alliance has an office at 55 Tufton Street
2. 55 Tufton Street is a controversial building, due to its tenants
3. The LGB Alliance has denied links to the other tenants, and that the building was "available at the right time".

Accordingly, I would propose trimming the existing sentence to: That same month, it was reported that LGB Alliance had office space at 55 Tufton Street, a building also occupied by several controversial right-wing groups promoting climate change denial and anti-immigration politics.[existing citation 48]. LGB Alliance denied having links to the groups, stating "the office was chosen because it's handy, flexible, and that it became available at the right time".[existing citation 49] This shorter sentence still conveys the same core information, without the trivia on who exactly the other tenants are. If readers are interested in the other tenants, then they can read the main article for that building. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, that works for me. Void if removed (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree too. We don't want to overcover it, or make more if it than there is, but there is absolutely no good reason to remove it entirely. DanielRigal (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Now trimmed based on the rough consensus here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

All of which is, frankly, a debate for another page. Especially when it loses nothing to simply note that the address is controversial in as I have suggested, and link the article that explains all that in much greater detail. Why there even need to be any examples here is unclear. Void if removed (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)