Talk:LGB Alliance

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

Change "anti transgender hate group" to "gender-critical pro-same sex group" ~2026-32136-15 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

y'know, the whole Wikipedia ought to be nonbiased thing. Chrizzy T (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

And it is. We have no obligation to try and make a hate group look good Snokalok2 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Snokalok2 And of course your own use of "hate group" does not at all reveal that you are totally biassed on this subject. Blurryman (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The group is literally described as a "hate group" in the article. Black Kite (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Our article has countless reliable sources calling the LGB Alliance a hate group. We have no reason to give that FALSEBALANCE, the same way we have no reason to apply a FALSEBALANCE to, say, the 1968 Civil Rights Act. Snokalok2 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Article has 148 references in total, but the job of editors is to balance contrasting sources, not try to run up cricket scores. Mattymmoo (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion in a Wikipedia article is not definitive. When I put the question to ChatGPT, its response was that:

(Redacted)

In other words, “hate group" and the other 'descriptions' mentioned in the Wikipedia article are not objective terms. They are subjective opinions, based upon a speaker/writer's personal beliefs and values. And since LGB Alliance rejects the “hate group” label, it follows that anyone using it without quotation marks is also expressing their own opinion. --Blurryman (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Please do not post LLM generated output. Please make your comments in your own words. No LLM is an authority on anything and it is trivially easy to elicit the response you want from an LLM. It doesn't help your case anyway. Posting LLM generated text is likely to be read with the subtext "Don't bother reading what I posted. I didn't bother writing it". Normally, I'd remove LLM generated comments but yours was only partially LLM generated so I've left the rest of it which is none the worse without it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

'Hate group' is in danger of becoming a nebulous term of abuse, & applying it to organisations a long way from the descriptions in Hate_group makes Wikipedia look partisan. Mattymmoo (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

To all who are interested, there's a discussion being held at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amnesty_International#Amnesty_report_on_anti-trans_lobbyist_groups regarding when and how to deploy the report on various relevant pages, including potentially this one. Snokalok2 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

ONUS is on you to seek consensus for a new change. Kindly self-revert @Mattymmoo Snokalok2 (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that the paraphrase is better. As WP:QUOTE says, Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can insert a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles; be very careful. Particularly when dealing with fringe perspectives, we should lean towards summarizing rather than quoting unless there's reason to believe that the quote itself is particularly significant. --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Even if the quote is justified, which I think is unlikely, I think that a paraphrase would still be needed to unspin and contextualise what it actually means for the readers to understand it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The original wording was better. HenrikHolen (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The paraphrase is not supported by the source given & does not appear to describe LGBA's position accurately or neutrally. What constitutes conversion practice is a point of contention in the UK debate on the Conversion Practices Bill, so it would be sensible to summarize or paraphrase the different standpoints.Mattymmoo (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Affirmation therapy, a crucial form of counselling that gives trans youth a safe space to talk about their gender, they said, “is itself a form of conversion therapy”. (the they relates to LGB Alliance leaders). This is a direct quote from the pink news article currently used to support the following text in the article LGB Alliance claims that affirmation-based therapy for transgender youth is gay conversion therapy. If you want to remove the word gay we can but that's the only part that is arguably not supported by the reliable source. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Excerpting the diffs in question I find:

This is not a good paraphrase because it fundamentally changes the intended meaning. Right or wrong, they are saying that not all gender nonconforming children are transgender, and more significantly, that not all children claiming to be transgender actually are. That carefully-worded distinction is lost in the paraphrase. It is not up to us to "unspin" their words for them--that is for reliable sources to do--and the quote itself is not overly long. Best I think to simply quote them directly. Xan747 (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The pinknews article Luna quoted seems to do a fine job Snokalok2 (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

If you're talking about Affirmation therapy, a crucial form of counselling that gives trans youth a safe space to talk about their gender, they said, "is itself a form of conversion therapy" then I disagree because it leaves out their rationale for why they consider it a form of conversion therapy--namely that there is no such thing as transgenderism because ... biology. Whether or not their rationale is valid, or an "embelishment" as you put it, is not for us to say, even if only in an edit summary. Xan747 (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The case was dismissed due to lack of standing, with parties agreeing that an (obiter - by the way) ruling should be made even if the case was so dismissed, but the panel failed to agree, as noted in the article body.

Now the phrase 'no finding made as to whether LGB alliance should have been given charitable status.' has been added to the lede, justified by "Most rs mention this fact so it's important to be in the lead summary". Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and 'judges didnt make a non binding ruling' is not significant for the lede, which is already on the long side for a summary. Mattymmoo (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You might be misunderstanding the situation. The phrase without a ruling on whether LGB Alliance qualified for charitable status. Has been in the lead for a long time and was removed yesterday . I then readded the basic sentence with a reword no finding made as to whether LGB alliance should have been given charitable status.', this is on the basis that it's small and highly relevant information (4 of 5 citations in the body mention it). I don't have any prejudice if you want to restore the original wording or have a larger discussion about trimming down the lead but this long standing information seems like an odd place to start LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Luna, I read your edit summary as introducing new material, & was objecting on that basis. Discussion on this or the lede as a whole can wait. Mattymmoo (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's important for capturing the nuance of the decision. They're not saying it's a bad filing on grounds of merit, just on who is filing and when Snokalok2 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

As the editor who made the original change, I still think the present wording is misleading or at best confusing for the average reader, because it could be understood to imply that the group's charitable status was left in limbo. I still think it best to delete the whole sentence from the lede, because it had no material effect and it is mentioned in the article body. If it is retained, I suggest clarifying the situation by adding "so LGB Alliance retained its charitable status". --Blurryman (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree with that assessment, we clearly say that the claim was dismissed. I would also say that if readers did find it confusing any of the 200 average daily viewers might have mentioned it in the 3 years that or similar text has been in the lead. LunaHasArrived (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)