Talk:LGBT Youth Scotland

message: :Image:LGBT Youth Scotland logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:LGBT Youth Scotland logo.gif

message: I feel like this paragraph doesn't tell the whole story and the header is potentially problematic too. I'd cite this statement that was released by the Scottish Government during a period of time when there was mixed messaging about the guidance, some of it deliberate and due to ill will from groups opposed to affirming trans young people. The guidance remains available for download on the LGBT Youth Scotland website and still has the Scottish Government logo present on it.   Do you have any thoughts about how to approach this edit, Donna? LGBTYS2020 (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the LGBT Youth Scotland#Misleading guidance for schools section? If so what would you like to see changed? Please provide reliable sources to support the change or addition of new content. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 13:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes that's right, Donna. I'd like to see the word "misleading" removed from the subheading as there is some debate as to whether the Schools Guidance is misleading. I believe this is an example of bias from the original writer of this paragraph. Secondly, the paragraph does not tell the full story, as the Scottish Government later stated that they are not opposed to the use of the Guidance in schools, cited here. I think this statement must be included or referenced in the section in order to tell the full story. LGBTYS2020 (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence for this: "This claim would include children as young as four years old, and allegedly breaches parents' human rights to be kept informed of their child's development.[14][15] The citations 14 and 15 do not provide evidence. AddyK1981 (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remember not to edit the article if you have a conflict of interest. Your suggested edits have been  in the article. Most of it was WP:COATRACK content anyway and was partially removed by another editor earlier. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 14:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential bias in 5.2 Misleading guidance for schools 

message: I suggest that the use of the phrase "The organisation is mainly funded by the taxpayer" is deliberately used to anger those who disagree with the organisation's mission. Indeed, all other large children and young people's organisations in Scotland are funded by a similar percentage of funding from taxpayer-funded organisations. I find no examples on Wikipedia of similar organisations' funding being described using this loaded phrasing. I suggest this paragraph is reworded in a more balanced manner. AddyK1981 (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section has been re-worded in a more neutral manner. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 14:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: With the greatest respect, you've changed the text to such an extent that it no longer makes any sense. That's not an improvement by any sta Howndards.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your rewording of the section places undue weight on the tax burden of the program. Using language "by the taxpayer" and "non taxpayer" to describe its funding is undue. The latter phrase, in particular, is an inappropriate way to describe non-public funding. Our readership is smart enough that funding from the government is de facto tax payer contribution. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 02:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't reword anything, I just quickly reverted an edit which made the text have no sense (and reduced accuracy too). It just said "the organsiation is partially funded". That makes no sense whatsoever. Funded by whom? There's no information there. We can't have nonsensical text in an article. Perhaps you made a mistake? As for the term "taxpayer, that's what most sources use, but I suppose we can change that term. However, your introduction of "partially" is certainly reducing accuracy and undoubtedly a backward step. --Shakehandsman (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right that did reduce accuracy and was poor wording. So your recent edit about "state funding" was good but can you explain to me the difference between "non-tax payer money" and private funding? Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 03:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Children in Need would never really be classed as "private funding". That term has connotations of individuals or maybe corporations, whereas Children in need is basically a high profile charity distributing donations from the public. It would be inaccurate to class it as "private".Shakehandsman (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I've changed it to "non-state funding" in line with your previous edit to the section. Thanks. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 03:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation and Funding section: Loaded language use 

message: It is clear to me that two previous Chief Executive names have been added here for the purpose of highlighting James Rennie's crimes in order to discredit the organisation. The standard practice on Wikipedia is to name only the current Chief Executive in this sidebox. For example: Stonewall and Scottish Youth Parliament. I suggest the two previous CE names are deleted. AddyK1981 (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The infobox should only have the current leader of the organization (please see Template:Infobox organization#TemplateData); it should not be a historical overview of its leadership like LGBT Youth Scotland#Organisation and funding is. Your suggested edits have been added to the article. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 14:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for your work on this article, Donna. AddyK1981 (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebox content: Chief Executive 

message: The charity doesn't have patrons, and the three citations regarding these are either very old, biased or inaccurate. I propose this section is removed entirely. AddyK1981 (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first citation was okay but Wikipedia articles are not for indiscriminate lists of supporters (or patrons). It does look like Rhona Cameron is a noted patron but this is already noted on her article. The second citation was from an unreliable source called "ukchristianparty.org" and the third source, while reliable, did not state that Richard Holloway was a patron. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 17:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patrons section