Talk:Stonewall (charity)

message: The Julie Bindel protest issue is controversial and currently being discussed over on Julie Bindel - the edits here claiming NPOV just seem to be a reaction to that and I do not believe are justified. Zoe O'Connell ⚢⚧ (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits on every article have to adhere to NPOV and RS policies. Likely the POV editing on Bindel will also be corrected soon enough.  -- Banjeboi 00:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are again stating your opinion that the article violates wikipedia policies, could you please explain why you don't think this factual information should be included and not repeatedly edit out information that in your opinion should not be there.  ZoeL (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "A storm of controversy" is hardly NPOV. We state what the sourcing supports not inflate for or against subjects. This is not particular to you, this content or this article. NPOV is a core policy.  -- Banjeboi 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section re: Bindel

message: I have Pink News on my Google Reader list and there are a few articles every so often about Stonewall being somewhat reluctant to support same-sex marriage. Is this notable, especially given this statement by Cashman? Sceptre (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support (or lack thereof) for SSM 

message: The article says Stonewall admits it is not a democratic organisation. It is not easy to find out exactly who runs it. You can become a friend, or volunteer to do something, or donate, or apply for a job, but it is very unclear who is in charge. Any chance of the ownership/ corporate structure being part of the article?
Tony164 (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Stonewall structure

message: The phrase 'trans rights activism' has been used to draw false comparisons to MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) to delegitimise all trans people apart from those cooperating with organisations seeking to rollback improvements in trans rights. To this end, please could 'trans rights activism' be rephrased to 'activism for trans rights' or a similar phrase? They should mean the same thing, but phrased slightly differently. Thanks! Amekyras (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change trans rights activism/activists to a more neutral term? 

message: There have been a lot of edits made to this page recently by one contributor, whose updates introduce false and misleading information. It has not escaped notice that these edits belittle and exclude the contributions of transgender people, and appear to be attempting to frame transgender rights activism as a recent phenomenon, and one that acts against the rest of the LGBT community. This is of course, not true, and it seems reversions have been taken place to help protect the integrity of the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoeloe (talk • contribs) 15:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism occurring on the page by existing contributor 

message: I have reverted a long series of edits by  which removed sourced content (e.g.  and gave WP:UNDUE prominence to anti-trans critics.
I am aware that my revert has also removed some new referenced content, but these widespread changes need to be discussed in chunks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:UNDUE 

message: An interesting article by The New Statesman covers the LGB Alliance, Stonewall, the LGBT+ Conservatives and the broader Tory position on trans rights in some detail. Worth a mention here and maybe at a couple of other articles. — Bilorv (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that is a useful piece indeed. AndyGordon (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''New Statesman'' piece 

message: I just noticed two paragraphs in the Opposition section are essentially just repeat information about orgs withdrawing from the Diversity Champions programme which is already mentioned in its own section. Is it common to have duplicate information in the same article like this? If not, how would we go about removing the duplicate information? I feel like it can probably stay contained in the Diversity Champions section. — [ talk | contribs ] 20:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeats between Diversity Champions and Opposition sections 

message: There is a separate section for the Diversity Champions  scheme, and for Opposition, but the ‘Opposition’  section contains material which is about the ‘Diversity Champions’ scheme, as  has previously mentioned. For instance, Ofcom is mentioned in the ‘Opposition’ section, but the source refers to the Diversity Champions Scheme. Similarly with the BBC. The source on UCL says it has withdrawn from the Diversity Champions Scheme as well as the workplace equality index. The ‘Opposition’ section includes material on the criticism of the Diversity Champions scheme in the report commissioned by the University of Essex. 
Also, it may not necessarily be the case that withdrawal from the Diversity Champions scheme represents ‘opposition’ to Stonewall. For instance, the EHRC said it had withdrawn because of the cost. 
I propose that all the material which refers to the Diversity Champions scheme and/or the workplace equality index, should be moved from the Opposition section to the Diversity Champions section, which should be re-named Diversity Champions and workplace equality index.
Sweet6970 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good idea , I don't see any reason to mention the same things twice in one article. — [ talk | contribs ] 00:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made several changes to the article, deleting material which seems to me to me duplication, and moving some material to the Diversity Champions section. In some cases, the duplicated material has slightly different wording, and different sources. I would welcome a review of my changes to ensure that everything is now in order,and agreed by other editors.  Sweet6970 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections ‘Diversity Champions’ and ‘Opposition’ overlap 

message: you reverted the IP's addition of the addition of "anti-transgender" as "inappropriate". The source for that paragraph explicitly calls the Safe Schools Alliance and "anti-trans pressure group". "Inappropriate" isn't exactly much to go by, so could you clarify what you object to there?  ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one source, which is PinkNews. This is not enough to call the Safe Schools Alliance ‘anti-trans’ in wikivoice. And since it is the only source for this, it would be undue and long-winded to say ‘which PinkNews has referred to as ‘anti-trans’. So it’s best to just leave it out. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We do need to describe the group to the readers since they are not well known. Rab V (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't describe them as 'anti-trans' in wikivoice. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If RS refer to them as that then it follows wikipedia policy. Every source about them is in regards to their positions against trans friendly policies. Rab V (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You  say  What RS refer to them as against trans friendly policies? What do you mean by ? There is only PinkNews and one source is not enough to say this in wikivoice. If you have other sources, you should provide them, and you should engage in discussion on this Talk page, instead of edit warring. The onus is on you to justify including the additional wording you want. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and one (or even a few) WP:BIASEDSOURCES are not sufficient to justify such a strong descriptor in Wikivoice. One would need to show agreement on that term from a wider spectrum of reliable sources. Crossroads -talk- 00:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safe Schools Alliance anti-transgender?