Talk:Mermaids (charity)

Structure of article

Is it just me or does the structure of this article kind of suck? Every time something new happens you have to add a new section for it, which tends to lead to undue coverage on singular incidents. If a section on their history needs subsection splits, it would be better IMO to have them split by time. Here are some featured/good articles on similar organisations for comparison: Sesame Workshop; Seacology; American Civil Liberties Union. Any objection to reorganising it? Endwise (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made it a bit more chronological between the sections for now, but did not touch the sections themselves. If you manage to reorganize it completely chronologically and that turns out better, go right ahead. Madeline (part of me) 15:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That re-ordering is an improvement. Thank you! AndyGordon (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• The underlying issue is that the page contains a bunch of flash-in-the-pan articles sourced overwhelmingly to right-leaning outlets in the British press; since most of them go nowhere and amount to nothing, they don't form a coherent article. Cleaning that out and looking to more in-depth coverage from secondary sources rather than just a bunch of random news articles would be the first step to organizing the article better. --Aquillion (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The Charity Commission (which reports to the House of Commons) launching a statutory inquiry into Mermaids' culture and management, with power to compel witnesses, because Mermaids' responses to the initial regulatory investigation were unsatisfactory, is not going to be a flash in the pan. Nor is the abrupt departure of the CEO, though the attempts by remaining staff to scapegoat her in the press and thereby distance themselves may well be somewhat temporary in effect. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This is definitely not an isolated incident. See similar action in Sweden and other EU countries, where gender transition is no longer recommended for minors. DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Controversial charity?

Whether or not, we believe it should be controversial it seems uncontroversial to state, on the basis of a reliable source, that it is considered controversial. Even if some people do not consider it controversial. If enough people do consider it controversial, then it is a controversial charity. The revert is here [[1]]. Other views are sought. Springnuts (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summary, in my view The Telegraph is not a suitable source to state in wikivoice that an organisation providing services to trans people is "controversial". If this is itself controversial, perhaps it is time to take the question to WP:RSN? Newimpartial (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you. Wikipedia should not describe any organisation as ‘controversial’ because this tells readers nothing about the organisation. In order to inform our readers, there should, instead, be details in the article about any controversy involving the organisation. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd be quite so absolute as to say that no article should ever say "controversial" but I do agree that, even when we have sufficient sources for it, it is far less helpful to say "controversial" than it is to explain what the issues are. It is something to avoid in the vast majority of cases. In this case we don't even have sufficient sources to raise the question. DanielRigal (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970 makes some sense here; "controversial" does seem to be kind of a "weasel word", even if it isn't listed in MOS:WEASEL. It's a vague descriptor that can be seen as applying to anything that anybody disagrees with, which is pretty much everything. It's better to state what specific objections people have and how widespread they are. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Note: After I made the comment above, Sideswipe9th directed us to MOS:LABEL which specifically mentions ‘controversial’ as a word to avoid: Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight. Although only ‘an individual’ is mentioned, this surely applies in the same way to organisations. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I feel like we need to have an RFC sometime soon on whether the Telegraph is considered WP:BIASED when it comes to trans topics specifically, what level of in-text attribution is needed when citing it in order to make that bias clear, and when it becomes WP:UNDUE to focus excessively on its opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree. Just because the Telegraph disagrees with your particular view of something doesn't mean that it should be gotten rid of for that issue. DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the discussion on overuse of The Telegraph for the moment, MOS:LABEL gives some advice for this, which is to avoid using such a vague term. WP:NPOV as a whole also tells us to avoid this based on a single source, and only to do so if it represents the mainstream viewpoint on the charity. I've done a quick search for other sources, and even the Telegraph don't label the charity as controversial consistently. The most common descriptors seem to be similar to how we currently the organisation; a charity and advocacy organisation that supports gender variant and transgender youth. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

How about [[2]]. “ The transgender youth support charity has chosen not to comment on the move, which follows controversy about the distribution of chest binders”. Would editors be happy to say that there is controversy over some of the charity’s actions? Springnuts (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

That describes a controversial event, which we already cover in the article. It does not support labelling the charity as controversial, and instead supports the current descriptor by describing Mermaids as a transgender youth support charity.

In order to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines, you would need to demonstrate that the charity is consistently described as controversial or a close synonym, by the majority of independent reliable sources who have articles on the charity. This does not need to be limited to media sources, as academic that have been subject to peer review and published in reputable journals are generally weighted higher. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with those above that "controversial" is generally a very poor word to use. However, if the fact we are attempting to convey is that the charity is "controversial", then we should be specific: among whom, and why. Here are some hypothetical examples of types of "controversial" that a transgender and healthcare-related charity could be: Its advice is controversial among medical experts; Its effectiveness has proved controversial among former users of the service; Its use of funds to pay for further fundraising has proved controversial among donors; Its consultations with Members of Parliament has proved controversial among the electorate. But something of quite a different calibre to saying "the charity is controversial" is: Its recognition of the existence of transgender youth has been widely criticised by right-wing news media. Of course, whatever we say needs a source that says precisely that thing. And unfortunately, news media are rarely interested in giving information about a controversy and much more interested in manufacturing one. — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Also not at all a fan of such a word in the first sentence in pretty much any article, per LABEL as mentioned above. It just serves to denigrate without imparting real information. It is better to explain controversies in the main text and summarize in the overall lead if warranted. Whether or not a separate section is best varies by article; this seems fine without it. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be appropriate to include a “Controversy” or a “Controversy and criticism” section in the article, as we do for eg Kidscape or the RSPCA. Springnuts (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

No, per WP:CRITS. Madeline (part of me) 21:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRITS is neither a policy nor a guideline - it's the opinion of those who wrote it. It is by no means universally held - see eg English Heritage (criticism), Miriam Cates (Controversies, Stonewall (Controversies), LGB Alliance (Media coverage and criticism), Age UK (criticism), Oxfam (criticism), Kidscape (controversy), RSPCA (Controversy and criticism), Humanists UK (criticism) ... Springnuts (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

That poor-quality articles exist is neither here nor there. — Bilorv (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• WP:CSECTION is one of those essays that reflects widespread norms. If you want to include a criticism section regardless you're absolutely going to have to answer the arguments in it, because those arguments enjoy overwhelming consensus; editors aren't going to repeat them in detail every single time. --Aquillion (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is exactly the opposite of what you say when you argue for including "contentious" in the lede of Irreversible Damage DenverCoder9 (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  There's a rather significant difference between calling a charity contentious or controversial, and describing a pseudoscientific theory as contentious or controversial. However I believe that you may have misread Aquillion's comment on that article, as they were advocating against calling ROGD contentious in favour of calling it pseudoscientific. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Times allegations removed

I reverted the removal of material here [[3]] - the removal had the edit summary "We've been through this once before." I am not sure that we have been through this - though there is significant discussion of other material from "The Times" above: a discussion which did not reach consensus. The Times is a perennial reliable source - which does not mean it is reliable every time, or that its reliability cannot be questioned, but suggests a presumption of reliability: it really is for those who wish to remove the material to justify why we consider it to be unreliable on this occasion. I note also that this article is not under the byline of the journalist discussed above Talk:Mermaids_(charity)#Very_biased_and_unreliable_journalist_from_The_Times. May we please find a consensus here before re-removing the material? At the moment it feels as if we are using unreliability of source or non-noteworthiness as fig leaf for I just don't like it. But we don't have an opinion on the organisation; we just cover what the RS say. Springnuts (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

#Discussion on "rude images" reported by The Times <-- right there ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't see for looking! Springnuts (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Madeline. Again, I apologise for missing this substantial discussion higher up the page, which did not reach consensus. Have we been to a RfC yet? Have I understood correctly that the objection is to including this information at all in the article, and that the objection is twofold: that the Times is not, in this instance, a RS; and that the material is not DUE? Springnuts (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That represents my position more or less, though I think saying The Times is biased rather than non-RS might be a better formulation. In any case it is a question of DUE. CC @Newimpartial @Sideswipe9th @Paddykumar @Dtobias @Endwise @AndyGordon from the last discussion. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s most helpful, thank you, and DUE works for me as a reason not to include any detail. But a Cheshire Cat’s grin of DUE seems appropriate rather than a total blackout. A generalised comment, say, along the lines of “Other allegations appeared in The Times” with a reference which people can follow through if they wish? Springnuts (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't use Easter egg cryptic references to external links like this, particularly for paywalled sources. Something is either worth including in prose or not. A "Further reading" link could be appropriate, but DUE is still a consideration there. — Bilorv (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

LGB Alliance charitable status case

I saw on Twitter a couple of days ago that the judgement for charitable status appeal will be handed down tomorrow at around 10am UK time. Obviously we can't add the tweet to the article, but I just wanted to give a heads up for editors to keep an eye out for it and for a burst of attention to be drawn here tomorrow morning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) regarding the use of suicide crisis telephone numbers (which this article doesn't include). The thread is Suicide hotlines. Thank you. TheSpacebook (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)