Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

LGBT+ clubs in schools

This section is sourced only to social media statements of one associated person. There are no reported positions by the organisation itself on LGBT+ clubs in schools in any WP:RS that I've seen.

The claim is also duplicated in the "media coverage and criticism" section.

I have suggested in passing a few times that this should be removed from "views" as it is overstating the case quite considerably and needlessly repeating quite weak content.

Any objections to removing from "views"? Void if removed (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed removal. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't entirely buy the claim of duplication. It is mentioned in far less detail in the media coverage section. Rather than being removed, I guess it could be merged into one thing in the media coverage section. DanielRigal (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The wording of the current section gives disproportionate detail. For instance, the reference to section 28 is not relevant to the subject of our article. If the material is merged, then it should be reduced – to what is already in the Media coverage section – which amounts to deleting the separate section. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Big objection then. If the source does not mention Section 28 then that one sentence can be removed but all the rest needs to stay. Without that, it would be two sentences and a quotation. It's not disproportionate. DanielRigal (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This source [1] mentions section 28, but this is by way of editorial comment: it is not directly related to the factual reporting about LGB Alliance. The source says: LGBT+ clubs in schools – which were banned under homophobic Section 28 legislation – have become a troubling issue for the LGB Alliance, who seem to be opposed to them despite them providing a safe space for lesbian, gay and bisexual youth to safely meet. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

They mention it for context. I can see why. I'd prefer to keep it, also for context, but I'm not going to dig my heels in over it. So long as we keep the rest I am content for it to be merged down to the media reception section. DanielRigal (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I don't mind expanding the later mention, but the reference to Section 28 is unnecessary and ahistorical. "LGBT+ clubs" weren't banned in schools because they didn't exist. Plus the first "GSA" club of that kind was started in 2000 in the UK, before Section 28 was finally repealed. This is dubious editorialising and not relevant to the subject at all. The fact that LGBA did not provide comment for the article is not worthy of note either.

So comparing the 2 sections I would suggest the following slightly expanded new wording in Media Coverage and criticism:

Malcolm Clark, another LGB Alliance co-founder, has been criticised for saying that he "[doesn't] see the point of LGBT clubs in schools". He stated, "There should never, of course, be bullying" but that "having clubs where kids explore on school grounds …their sexual orientation seems to be unnecessary and potentially dangerous. It would be an unnecessary encouragement to predators". Void if removed (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The current wording refers to predatory teachers. I think this should be included in any revised wording, for clarity. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok I'll leave that part as per the original. Void if removed (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought we were merging this not just removing/softening much of it? I was very tempted to just revert it as lacking consensus but I've had a go at merging it in a way that actually includes everything (except the Section 28 bit) without duplication. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see the point of including Co-founders Kate Harris and Bev Jackson declined to comment on these remarks. This tells us nothing. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

How the other cofounders reacted is absolutely useful information here. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

What does it tell us? Apart, perhaps, from the fact that they had more sense than to comment to PinkNews? I don't think that a failure to comment to PinkNews is encyclopaedic information.Sweet6970 (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC) 

It'd be relevant if they agreed and it'd be relevant if they disagreed. That they declined to do either is thus something that should be said. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it just means that they didn't comment when asked by Pink News.

You could add this to pretty much every single Pink News story on the page - most have "PinkNews has contacted LGB Alliance for comment" or similar at the bottom. It adds nothing.

You are drawing a false inference that refusing to talk to Pink News is taking a position on the subject matter. Void if removed (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

They declined to comment to PinkNews. No-one is obliged to comment to PinkNews. You still haven’t told me what we learn from reading that 2 people did not comment to PinkNews. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, "declined to comment" adds nothing noteworthy. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree declining to comment is significant. Theres a reason you see it stated in news articles. It also puts the statement in context with the group. Filiforme1312 (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't some kind of news aggregation service, faithfully reproducing all the reportage and meta comments by journalists. Per WP:NOTNEWS such details are really not relevant. That someone declines to comment to a newspaper, any newspaper, is entirely the default and normal position, and the paragraph about that in Pink News is very much a self-absorbed comment about their own interaction with the other founders, and just trivia. By leaving that out, we still retain the fact that this was a comment by Clark, a co-founder, rather than something coming from some official LGB Alliance channel. -- Colin°^Talk 11:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a clear majority to delete Co-founders Kate Harris and Bev Jackson declined to comment to PinkNews on these remarks. so I am doing so. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Arts Council England

The current article states that a grant for "Queens" was withdrawn after LCF were made aware of the challenge to LGBA's charitable status. However subsequent reporting - including this developing case from a few days ago - allege it was a result of internal bias and influence from ACE. Would it be wise to remove all suggestion as to the reason for the removal? It seems to be contended and I don't think it can be presented in a he-said/she-said neutral way, especially since it seems to be subject to an ongoing employment dispute.

Either way this article is a good source for an additional sentence:

"The film was retitled "Very British Gays" and premiered on March 24th 2023 at a screening in Soho."

Is it worth mentioning that - according to this source - the film apparently states “This film was not funded by Arts Council England” in the credits? Void if removed (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That is an interesting story in the Telegraph. But it doesn’t quite say that Ms Fahmy alleges that Arts Council England caused the grant from London Community Foundation to be withdrawn, so I don’t think we should mention this aspect in our article.

I don’t see any reason to delete the inf currently in the article, that the grant was withdrawn because of the legal challenge to LGBA’s charitable status. I agree to your proposed additional sentence. If we are not going to mention Arts Council England, then it doesn’t make sense to refer to the pointed comment about ACE not funding the film. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, thanks. I only raise this because this is now the third article I've seen from the Telegraph implying there is a link between comments by ACE leaders and LCF's decision to withdraw, but the wording is quite weaselly, eg:

Eg. in this one: "it is not known if the two are connected." Void if removed (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That "this is now the third article I've seen from the Telegraph" covering a minor story that is supporting either a trans-hostile or pro-gender-critical agenda tells us nothing more than the editorial alignment of the Telegraph on these matters and their obsession. This was a £9,000 grant for a 30-minute documentary. In a newspaper that is entirely comfortable with Johnson getting six-figure tax-payer funded legal aid to defend his PartyGate behaviour. So this is the dregs at the bottom of the journalistic barrel. Googling "Very British Gays" returns tweets by LGB Alliance, Malcom Clark, a Telegraph article briefly mentioning it, and now this page. I've actually changed my mind about the above sentence. Fine if you want to note it is now called "Very British Gays" but the "premiered on March 24th 2023 at a screening in Soho" makes it sound like a big event with red carpet and press attention. It got about as much attention as your weird uncle's latest vacation slide show. That's about as misrepresentative as to describe my post here as "User:Colin's latest work was published by Wikimedia Foundation at their San Francisco datacentre on 3rd April 2023 to a global audience of millions." -- Colin°^Talk 14:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I added the sentence as drafted by Void if removed. If you now don’t like the wording, on the basis that it makes it sound too significant, how about The film was retitled "Very British Gays" and shown in Soho in March 2023. ? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC) 

I'm not criticising you, and I approved the sentence too, but only after Googling I realised it was silly. This is more like half-a-dozen LGB Alliance members, a takeaway meal and someone's ipad cast onto a TV set. I don't think the "premier" or "showing" of this home-movie is notable in any way. Ten days later and not a single comment about the film in the press. I think the only thing of encyclopaedic relevance is that if we mention the original name of the film, we should note that it was renamed. So how about we write "...for a film Queens — 70 Years of Queer History (later retitled Very British Gays)." and leave it at that for now. If the film gets significant attention later than we can write more, but this is a zero for now. -- Colin°^Talk 16:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to say that a film was actually produced and shown, because otherwise our article would give the impression that it was abandoned, so I would prefer my suggested wording above. I also wonder whether we should mention that the film was funded by private donations, as mentioned in the second source provided by Void above, because otherwise readers may wonder how it was funded. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Let's have and first shown in March 2023. The Soho mention just sounds like someone trying to puff up something to be more than it is. The fact that they don't mention the venue makes me think this was some random office or upstairs in some pub or someone's flat (apartment) rather than an actual movie theatre where premieres occur. All a bit desperate. Obviously if someone finds a source that says it was Odeon Leicester Square and Nicole Kidman and Brad Pitt came to watch, then I'll stand corrected.

I don't think we need to explain the funding for a 30 minute documentary nobody has seen or cares about. Do you routinely see Wikipedia mention funding for every 30 minute documentary? I mean, what other funding options did they have, if public money was refused? Theft? Playing the lottery? Busking? And that £9,000 wouldn't cover the production of a professional 30 minute documentary, so we're only talking about a minor contribution loss. Really, this is a minor minor story that is only getting press attention because it fits with the anti-trans / gender critical agenda of some newspaper.

I think it interesting that the Telegraph is only interested in LGB Alliance for their anti-trans / gender critical stance. When they actually make a LGB-supportive film, this very socially conservative newspaper couldn't give a shit, and didn't send anyone to watch or review it. This is LGB Alliance's problem, that they are only notable for dropping the T, and the reason why we can write so little about any good things they have done is not just that they have done so few good things but that nobody else is interested in writing about that either. -- Colin°^Talk 20:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Your latest suggestion is fine with me. I’ll change it tomorrow if there are no further comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have now made the amendment. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sweet6970 not to delete info. It was removed for the reasons we state. Whether those questioning that it should have charitable status are right or wrong is yet to be decided in court, but LCF made it clear that while this question hangs they are not a suitable destination for funds. There isn't a lot of factual information we can lift from an article where most of the "facts" are quotes from an aggrieved ex-employee planning to sue regarding their gender critical beliefs. That's about as unreliable as you can get. The sentence in quotes above is fine, but the comment on the credits is just self-absorbed fluff and not noteworthy. -- Colin°^Talk 11:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have now added to the article the sentence proposed above by Void if removed. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)