This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This
edit request to
LGB Alliance has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change " well as former television writer and anti-trans activist and comedy writer Graham Linehan"
To
"well as television and comedy writer Graham Linehan"
The reason for this is that the choice of adjectives are simply a matter of opinion and not fact 2A00:23C7:C491:3001:8866:78B1:66A4:4708 ( talk) 20:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
20:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)"as well as the television comedy writer and anti-trans activist Graham Linehan". This is shorter and more readable without losing any meaning. We would be doing him the courtesy of prioritising his former career over his current activities by listing that first so I can see no reason for complaint. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
former television writer... and comedy writersuggests he wrote comedy outside of television, which I don't think is true. The new version,
television comedy writerdoesn't have this problem. Srey Sros talk 00:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
From the start, Stonewall did not want to be a 'membership organisation' and the only "members" of Stonewall are those who are current directors (see the Articles of Association at Companies House). So this must be wrong - Stonewall did not have twenty two members in 2019! - and I have changed this to "people". What were the twenty two claiming to be: members (wrong) or something else? Lovingboth ( talk) 11:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I am reverting the edit [1] about the membership because (a) it is ultimately sourced to a tweet, and (b) because, even in the tweet linked, I can’t find anything saying the membership is about 4,500. If you wish to reinsert this inf, please provide a better source. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I also can't find anything saying that LGB Alliance has said that it is a 'gender critical' organisation. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
There's more criticism above the fold than there is discussion of the group's stated goals. Everything struck out needs to be in a 'Community Reaction' section. Without actually clearly mentioning the groups stated purpose before their purported purpose much of the criticism doesn't even make sense.
Proposed intro:
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.[1] Its founders were Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott.
text moved downThe LGB Alliance 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".[1]
The group has been described by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights as transphobic, in a statement signed by a number of Labour MPs including current Deputy Leader Angela Rayner, and by SNP MP John Nicolson,[5][6][7] and by articles in two scholarly journals as "trans-exclusionary".[8][9] It has also been described by Labour MPs and several LGBT organisations and activists as a hate group.[10][11][12][13]LGBA opposes gender-identity education in schools,[2] medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria,[3] and gender recognition reform.[4]
The group was granted charitable status by the Charity Commission in April 2021, which was controversial with LGBT groups in the UK, fifty of whom signed an open letter condemning it.[14]
A hearing for an appeal against its charitable status will take place in the First-tier Tribunal in September 2022.[15]
InverseZebra ( talk) 22:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
they don't seem to have any significant activities that are not linked to opposition to Stonewall or trans people. The struck commentary in your second proposed paragraph is necessary to address WP:BALANCE issues. And the struck sentence in the final paragraph on the charitible status appeal is WP:DUE in the lead as they are one of the few British charities to face such a tribunal. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I have moved the sentences, as discussed above. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
does not oppose; that isn't the same thing as
support. And I read Sideswipe9th's comment as opposing. Since I also oppose (for now), that gives me a head count of two in favour, two opposed and one neutral. Not that we are supposed to edit by head count. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
There's more criticism above the fold than there is discussion of the group's stated goals....Without actually clearly mentioning the groups stated purpose before their purported purpose much of the criticism doesn't even make sense.Sideswipe9th responded to this in the negative, saying
At present, the only thing truly notable about the LGB Alliance is other people's commentary on them.DanielRegal took a more accommodating position, objecting to the original request but "not opposing" the move of one sentence. I oppose the move, based on Sideswipwipe9th's rationale above - namely, that the supposed aims of the organization are not what it is known for, and not what the article primarily discusses (thereby following WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY).
majority for moving? Are you the vice-president who breaks ties, or something? Newimpartial ( talk) 14:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
DanielRigal + InverseZebra + Sweet6970 + Crossroads = 4
Newimpartial + Sideswipe9th + CIreland = 3
4>3 No Vice President required. Sweet6970 ( talk) 15:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
would not opposestatements are generally counted as !votes in favor; I also don't think a 4/3 split (if one existed) would count as a policy-based WP:CONSENSUS to amend the lead. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi all
I wanted to check what people thought about including information on the international versions in the lead paragraph, I included it and then Crossroads removed it. I just wanted to have a discussion here so we can come to consensus that can be refered back to.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 21:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This is not a new issue and not a new issue for this article, but I think it deserves attention. The LGB Alliance website is clear: "LGB Alliance supports trans rights". "We fully support trans people in their struggle, for dignity, respect and a life lived free from bigotry and fear." And yet, we have a *category* here of "Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom". I don't see any way to justify that on the face of it, but I acknowledge that the issue is complex. But with categorizations that necessarily imply "in or out" we ought to err on the site of clarity and caution - particularly when being "anti-trans rights" is a pretty hardcore accusation with BLP implications. I'm removing the category for now on BLP grounds, and invite further discussion here. Jimbo Wales ( talk) 12:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
quite controversial to say that this is an organization that opposes transgender rights in the UK, or is this just something you, personally, believe? I haven't seen any such claims among the reliable sources. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales I don't think that taking the LGB Alliance's website at face value is sensible. Like other groups that are considered by some to be hate groups what they say on their website and what they do are quite different. One example; "We fully support trans people in their struggle, for dignity, respect and a life lived free from bigotry and fear." is not present in their opposition to making conversion therapy for trans people illegal in the UK. John Cummings ( talk) 11:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
"not ... every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity ... we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it"(the LGB Alliance's claim it supports trans rights when it is widely reported to obstruct/oppose them is effectively a minority view and unsupported extraordinary claim).
"subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective"should be attributed to people who hold that view.
"when reputable sources both contradict one another and also are relatively equal in prominence"we should describe the opposing views in the debate, rather than engaging in them.
"each aspect [of a subject] with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject"
Thanks Jr8825, one question, for an organisation to be included in the category 'Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom' do all of their positions and actions need to oppose trans rights, or only one/some? Eg the groups opposition to making trans conversion therapy illegal in the UK or their opposition to self identification in the Scottish Gender Recognition Act. John Cummings ( talk) 12:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
We've got strong sources which state LGB Alliance is anti-trans- and which exactly are these? The article text attributes this POV to an advocacy group, a trade union group, and a government official. These are not strong sources. And for such a judgmental label, you truly need strong sources, and for this to be broadly representative rather than cherry-picking a few outliers if most high-quality sources take a different approach, such as framing it as a disagreement over what trans rights exactly are. Crossroads -talk- 05:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
gender is only a social construct, but the corollary that gender identity does not therefore exist, or should be treated for policy purposes as though it did not exist, is a FRINGE POV that can be quite uncontroversially (and without "value judgement" be described as "anti-trans". Newimpartial ( talk) 14:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
References
some trans‐exclusionary LGB movements have begun to form around TERF ideology (for example, the LGB Alliance in the United Kingdom and the Red LGB movement in Spain).
This story describes lobbying efforts by LGB Alliance and others, I'm unsure how to include this in the article, any suggestions?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 00:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi all
I'd like to create a section on how the organisation is funded, there are some short statements in other sections already but it makes sense to me to have a dedicated section. Is anyone aware of references for it?
Thanks
. John Cummings ( talk) 16:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
This statement not being in this article is a clear edit based on a publi-relations pov. Why is Wikipedia doing public relations for a group whose whole existence is based around spreading fear of trans people.... 89.14.149.17 ( talk) 01:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)talonx
There's a lot of slant there. Mermaids and LGBT Consortium witnesses "gave testimony", "raised concerns", and "raised issue", and are given direct quotes, while LGB Alliance attorneys questioning them "attempted to frame..." and what they said is represented by a biased summary taken from Pink News. More neutrality is needed. Some inappropriate comments were also made in edit summaries, such as "God these organizations parody themselves." Editorializing is not proper in edit summaries. *Dan T.* ( talk) 14:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
claiming that inclusive education and resources for young people were intended “to help them decide whether to go on a medical pathway to sterilisation”.
She also suggested trans women accessing women’s spaces was dangerous because “men” have a “propensity” for violence against women and, citing the BBC’s infamous anti-trans article, that cis lesbians were being “coerced” into sex with trans women.
Reindorf referred repeatedly to allegations among gender-critical campaigners that affirming healthcare for trans youth was “transing the gay away”.
On September 15, Kate Harris, a co-founder of LGB Alliance, testified that "I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women … We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is." She was reduced to tears during testimony, causing a break in the session.
On September 15, Kate Harris, a co-founder of LGB Alliance, was asked by Michael Gibbon, representing Mermaids, if some people might have a different definition of lesbian than the LGB alliance, since the definition of lesbian had come up repeatedly over the last few days in the hearing. She asked if that meant if "a lesbian can be a man with a penis", and Gibbons responded "Putting it in a more neutral way, that lesbians can include someone who is a woman as a result of gender reassignment". She started crying during testimony, causing a break in the session and later stating "A lesbian is attracted to another biological woman, full stop".
Will what has already been discussed and covered by the press change when the decision is released?Answer – almost certainly: Yes. The press will be discussing the judge’s view, as given in the decision. This will establish what is notable in this case. Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
this legal case will be significant to the eventual BALANCE of sourcing about the Alliance- but since there is not yet a decision, and won’t be for some time (because the case has been adjourned to November), I still think that it is not appropriate to pick out various comments from the witnesses and the lawyers. These may turn out to be disregarded by the court. So I would delete all these details from the article. Sweet6970 ( talk) 19:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Similarly, you restored a quotation that I think produces needless redundancy. The result is this:
"...a number of groups...appealed against the decision to grant charitable status, on the basis that it did not "meet the threshold tests to be registered as a charity". They say that the LGB Alliance does not meet two key criteria for charitable status..."
Do we really need to say both "did not meet the tests" and "does not meet key criteria" in back-to-back sentences? The "tests" and the "criteria" are exactly the same thing. I think we should pick one or the other. I don't have a strong preference for which one gets removed, but I do think we should employ a little encyclopedic concision here and avoid redundancy. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Newimpartial, you restored this bit:
Lui Asquith, director of legal and policy at Mermaids, said "LGB Alliance purports to be an organisation that supports lesbian, gay and bisexual people, but it doesn't. Many trans people are LGB and LGB Alliance actively works to oppose the advancement of rights of trans individuals."
into a paragraph about courtroom schedules and which organizations are on which side. I grant that it's a lovely quotation, but do you think that is relevant to a paragraph about names and dates related to a lawsuit? If you want this quotation in the article, maybe you'd consider moving it to the a paragraph that is actually about why people disagree with this group, instead of a paragraph about who's expected to appear in court on which dates. "Why I think they are terrible people" is not who or when. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This
edit request to
LGB Alliance has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change " well as former television writer and anti-trans activist and comedy writer Graham Linehan"
To
"well as television and comedy writer Graham Linehan"
The reason for this is that the choice of adjectives are simply a matter of opinion and not fact 2A00:23C7:C491:3001:8866:78B1:66A4:4708 ( talk) 20:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
20:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)"as well as the television comedy writer and anti-trans activist Graham Linehan". This is shorter and more readable without losing any meaning. We would be doing him the courtesy of prioritising his former career over his current activities by listing that first so I can see no reason for complaint. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
former television writer... and comedy writersuggests he wrote comedy outside of television, which I don't think is true. The new version,
television comedy writerdoesn't have this problem. Srey Sros talk 00:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
From the start, Stonewall did not want to be a 'membership organisation' and the only "members" of Stonewall are those who are current directors (see the Articles of Association at Companies House). So this must be wrong - Stonewall did not have twenty two members in 2019! - and I have changed this to "people". What were the twenty two claiming to be: members (wrong) or something else? Lovingboth ( talk) 11:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I am reverting the edit [1] about the membership because (a) it is ultimately sourced to a tweet, and (b) because, even in the tweet linked, I can’t find anything saying the membership is about 4,500. If you wish to reinsert this inf, please provide a better source. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I also can't find anything saying that LGB Alliance has said that it is a 'gender critical' organisation. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
There's more criticism above the fold than there is discussion of the group's stated goals. Everything struck out needs to be in a 'Community Reaction' section. Without actually clearly mentioning the groups stated purpose before their purported purpose much of the criticism doesn't even make sense.
Proposed intro:
The LGB Alliance is a British advocacy group founded in 2019 in opposition to the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues.[1] Its founders were Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Allison Bailey, Malcolm Clark and Ann Sinnott.
text moved downThe LGB Alliance 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".[1]
The group has been described by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights as transphobic, in a statement signed by a number of Labour MPs including current Deputy Leader Angela Rayner, and by SNP MP John Nicolson,[5][6][7] and by articles in two scholarly journals as "trans-exclusionary".[8][9] It has also been described by Labour MPs and several LGBT organisations and activists as a hate group.[10][11][12][13]LGBA opposes gender-identity education in schools,[2] medical transition for children reporting gender dysphoria,[3] and gender recognition reform.[4]
The group was granted charitable status by the Charity Commission in April 2021, which was controversial with LGBT groups in the UK, fifty of whom signed an open letter condemning it.[14]
A hearing for an appeal against its charitable status will take place in the First-tier Tribunal in September 2022.[15]
InverseZebra ( talk) 22:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
they don't seem to have any significant activities that are not linked to opposition to Stonewall or trans people. The struck commentary in your second proposed paragraph is necessary to address WP:BALANCE issues. And the struck sentence in the final paragraph on the charitible status appeal is WP:DUE in the lead as they are one of the few British charities to face such a tribunal. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 19:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I have moved the sentences, as discussed above. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
does not oppose; that isn't the same thing as
support. And I read Sideswipe9th's comment as opposing. Since I also oppose (for now), that gives me a head count of two in favour, two opposed and one neutral. Not that we are supposed to edit by head count. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
There's more criticism above the fold than there is discussion of the group's stated goals....Without actually clearly mentioning the groups stated purpose before their purported purpose much of the criticism doesn't even make sense.Sideswipe9th responded to this in the negative, saying
At present, the only thing truly notable about the LGB Alliance is other people's commentary on them.DanielRegal took a more accommodating position, objecting to the original request but "not opposing" the move of one sentence. I oppose the move, based on Sideswipwipe9th's rationale above - namely, that the supposed aims of the organization are not what it is known for, and not what the article primarily discusses (thereby following WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY).
majority for moving? Are you the vice-president who breaks ties, or something? Newimpartial ( talk) 14:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
DanielRigal + InverseZebra + Sweet6970 + Crossroads = 4
Newimpartial + Sideswipe9th + CIreland = 3
4>3 No Vice President required. Sweet6970 ( talk) 15:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
would not opposestatements are generally counted as !votes in favor; I also don't think a 4/3 split (if one existed) would count as a policy-based WP:CONSENSUS to amend the lead. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi all
I wanted to check what people thought about including information on the international versions in the lead paragraph, I included it and then Crossroads removed it. I just wanted to have a discussion here so we can come to consensus that can be refered back to.
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 21:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This is not a new issue and not a new issue for this article, but I think it deserves attention. The LGB Alliance website is clear: "LGB Alliance supports trans rights". "We fully support trans people in their struggle, for dignity, respect and a life lived free from bigotry and fear." And yet, we have a *category* here of "Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom". I don't see any way to justify that on the face of it, but I acknowledge that the issue is complex. But with categorizations that necessarily imply "in or out" we ought to err on the site of clarity and caution - particularly when being "anti-trans rights" is a pretty hardcore accusation with BLP implications. I'm removing the category for now on BLP grounds, and invite further discussion here. Jimbo Wales ( talk) 12:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
quite controversial to say that this is an organization that opposes transgender rights in the UK, or is this just something you, personally, believe? I haven't seen any such claims among the reliable sources. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales I don't think that taking the LGB Alliance's website at face value is sensible. Like other groups that are considered by some to be hate groups what they say on their website and what they do are quite different. One example; "We fully support trans people in their struggle, for dignity, respect and a life lived free from bigotry and fear." is not present in their opposition to making conversion therapy for trans people illegal in the UK. John Cummings ( talk) 11:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
"not ... every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity ... we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it"(the LGB Alliance's claim it supports trans rights when it is widely reported to obstruct/oppose them is effectively a minority view and unsupported extraordinary claim).
"subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective"should be attributed to people who hold that view.
"when reputable sources both contradict one another and also are relatively equal in prominence"we should describe the opposing views in the debate, rather than engaging in them.
"each aspect [of a subject] with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject"
Thanks Jr8825, one question, for an organisation to be included in the category 'Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom' do all of their positions and actions need to oppose trans rights, or only one/some? Eg the groups opposition to making trans conversion therapy illegal in the UK or their opposition to self identification in the Scottish Gender Recognition Act. John Cummings ( talk) 12:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
We've got strong sources which state LGB Alliance is anti-trans- and which exactly are these? The article text attributes this POV to an advocacy group, a trade union group, and a government official. These are not strong sources. And for such a judgmental label, you truly need strong sources, and for this to be broadly representative rather than cherry-picking a few outliers if most high-quality sources take a different approach, such as framing it as a disagreement over what trans rights exactly are. Crossroads -talk- 05:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
gender is only a social construct, but the corollary that gender identity does not therefore exist, or should be treated for policy purposes as though it did not exist, is a FRINGE POV that can be quite uncontroversially (and without "value judgement" be described as "anti-trans". Newimpartial ( talk) 14:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
References
some trans‐exclusionary LGB movements have begun to form around TERF ideology (for example, the LGB Alliance in the United Kingdom and the Red LGB movement in Spain).
This story describes lobbying efforts by LGB Alliance and others, I'm unsure how to include this in the article, any suggestions?
Thanks
John Cummings ( talk) 00:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi all
I'd like to create a section on how the organisation is funded, there are some short statements in other sections already but it makes sense to me to have a dedicated section. Is anyone aware of references for it?
Thanks
. John Cummings ( talk) 16:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
This statement not being in this article is a clear edit based on a publi-relations pov. Why is Wikipedia doing public relations for a group whose whole existence is based around spreading fear of trans people.... 89.14.149.17 ( talk) 01:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)talonx
There's a lot of slant there. Mermaids and LGBT Consortium witnesses "gave testimony", "raised concerns", and "raised issue", and are given direct quotes, while LGB Alliance attorneys questioning them "attempted to frame..." and what they said is represented by a biased summary taken from Pink News. More neutrality is needed. Some inappropriate comments were also made in edit summaries, such as "God these organizations parody themselves." Editorializing is not proper in edit summaries. *Dan T.* ( talk) 14:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
claiming that inclusive education and resources for young people were intended “to help them decide whether to go on a medical pathway to sterilisation”.
She also suggested trans women accessing women’s spaces was dangerous because “men” have a “propensity” for violence against women and, citing the BBC’s infamous anti-trans article, that cis lesbians were being “coerced” into sex with trans women.
Reindorf referred repeatedly to allegations among gender-critical campaigners that affirming healthcare for trans youth was “transing the gay away”.
On September 15, Kate Harris, a co-founder of LGB Alliance, testified that "I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women … We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is." She was reduced to tears during testimony, causing a break in the session.
On September 15, Kate Harris, a co-founder of LGB Alliance, was asked by Michael Gibbon, representing Mermaids, if some people might have a different definition of lesbian than the LGB alliance, since the definition of lesbian had come up repeatedly over the last few days in the hearing. She asked if that meant if "a lesbian can be a man with a penis", and Gibbons responded "Putting it in a more neutral way, that lesbians can include someone who is a woman as a result of gender reassignment". She started crying during testimony, causing a break in the session and later stating "A lesbian is attracted to another biological woman, full stop".
Will what has already been discussed and covered by the press change when the decision is released?Answer – almost certainly: Yes. The press will be discussing the judge’s view, as given in the decision. This will establish what is notable in this case. Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
this legal case will be significant to the eventual BALANCE of sourcing about the Alliance- but since there is not yet a decision, and won’t be for some time (because the case has been adjourned to November), I still think that it is not appropriate to pick out various comments from the witnesses and the lawyers. These may turn out to be disregarded by the court. So I would delete all these details from the article. Sweet6970 ( talk) 19:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Similarly, you restored a quotation that I think produces needless redundancy. The result is this:
"...a number of groups...appealed against the decision to grant charitable status, on the basis that it did not "meet the threshold tests to be registered as a charity". They say that the LGB Alliance does not meet two key criteria for charitable status..."
Do we really need to say both "did not meet the tests" and "does not meet key criteria" in back-to-back sentences? The "tests" and the "criteria" are exactly the same thing. I think we should pick one or the other. I don't have a strong preference for which one gets removed, but I do think we should employ a little encyclopedic concision here and avoid redundancy. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Newimpartial, you restored this bit:
Lui Asquith, director of legal and policy at Mermaids, said "LGB Alliance purports to be an organisation that supports lesbian, gay and bisexual people, but it doesn't. Many trans people are LGB and LGB Alliance actively works to oppose the advancement of rights of trans individuals."
into a paragraph about courtroom schedules and which organizations are on which side. I grant that it's a lovely quotation, but do you think that is relevant to a paragraph about names and dates related to a lawsuit? If you want this quotation in the article, maybe you'd consider moving it to the a paragraph that is actually about why people disagree with this group, instead of a paragraph about who's expected to appear in court on which dates. "Why I think they are terrible people" is not who or when. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)