Talk:Gays Against Groomers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Twitter statement

Thinly veiled attempt at POV-warring Dronebogus (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

GAG just posted a rebuttal to most of this page on their Twitter. There are countless inaccuracies across the page based out of bias. This needs to be changed. Wikipedia is losing credibility in situations like these. 98.182.55.19 (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC) It's fair to say they've ultimaetely become RationalWiki-lite at this point. --2600:1700:9EE0:5F00:13C:E569:725F:BF69 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Their "rebuttal" was less a solid refutation and more an angry rant. So I'll respond to each relevant tweet in that thread 1) They claim to be non-partisan - reliable sources consistently describe them as far-right, and their founders and leaders all have a history of supporting far-right causes. Hardly non-partisan. They say left-wing media won't speak to them, that has no bearing on the widely reported and factual statement they often appear on right-wing/far-right media. 2) They say it's not harassment to accuse people of pedophilia solely for supporting trans kids. But it is, and reliable sources describe it as such. They made a kid cry in the post they chose to highlight for that. 4) I can believe that Michell has never uttered "transgender equality" in her life, but that is how reliable sources described her positions. Transgender minors are still people and still trans, arguing they should be denied healthcare they need because it happens to be trans healthcare is a double standard and plainly opposed to transgender equality 5)I see no reliable source claiming otherwise, and we have a sourced statement to Imara Jones for that. It is not an innacuracy to say she said that. 7) The content on Wikipedia screenshotted here is a statement of fact, they indeed had indeed done that. 8) Multiple reliable sources noted that the protestors who harassed Bottcher were affiliated with Gays Against Groomers. They say it was proven to be false, but never offer any proof. They complain about the door hangers, but that is in reception, it does not say they put them up. 9) they claim to not be anti-LGBTQ, reliable sources overwhelmingly disagree. Their idea that the article was created to get them banned from platforms is outright ridiculous, self-centered, and downright funny because what's left to ban them from at this point? In short, they didn't point out any inaccuracies, they just complained about the article. Wikipedia has lost no credibility - they couldn't point any inaccuracies out and still called for the article to be changed. At the end of the day, a long ridiculous twitter thread is not a smoking gun - we rely on reliable sources, not the organization's twitter posts, to determine the content of the article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC) "Reliable sources label them" ... So this is admittedly influenced by other's opinions and not fact. Got it. 1st point is supposed to be your strongest, not wasting my time on the rest. CollosalToaster (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Lol, Wikipedia has always worked based on what the majority of reliable sources concur, and in this case for the most part they factually describe the group as anti-LGBT. The only one trying to insert an opinion without evidence is you. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist @CollosalToaster, to add to the above if you want to know how Wikipedia works (and has worked for more than 2 decades at this point) there are plenty of Policies, Guidelines and Essays that you could read. Some I would recommend are: WP:NPOV (and sub-section WP:DUE) and WP:FRINGE for what we views we include in articles; WP:RS and WP:IS for the sorts of sources that are acceptable (with WP:RSP giving some examples of the sorts of sources the community have singled out as good and bad); and WP:COPO for some other key points. At the end of the day Wikipedia should only ever be "influenced" by what other's (reliable sources) have written. If you have a problem with any of these WP:PAGS this is not the place to get them changed Cakelot1 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Unusual online behavior of chapter

It appears a "chapter" of GAG went rogue the other day and posted images of Rachel Levine alongside a bizarre religious conspiracy theory, followed by a thinly veiled call to assassinate the supporters of consent-aware educators. I was surprised there were no (easily searchable) news stories about this.

Even more bizarrely, their main account just posted a list of chapters, including the above chapter among them, and claiming that others were creating parodies. --86Sedan 19:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

While I can't say I'm surprised, we can't engage in original research - we can only follow what reliable sources have already reported. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2023

Minor copyedit: all references to 'Nazi', 'Nazis', 'neo-Nazi' and the like should capitalise the N. EggsAndCakey (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've not read the full article myself (I really don't feel like it) but run the article through Notepad's replace all setting, so there may be a few errors. 💜  melecie  talk - 04:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Assimilationism: a suggestion

Having studied this organization, I feel we are missing an important point that could provide a resolution to the NPOV dispute on this article: Namely, that GAG are first and foremost a gay assimilationist organization (yes, with connections to right-wing politics, which must be visible in the lede). This is because they have repeatedly made assimilationist arguments, such as suggesting that the behavior of queers and trans people is deleterious to the public image of LGBT people as a whole (in the wake of the club shooting).

I will also suggest that editors heed the criticism on this page, and replace "Anti LGBTQ" with "anti queer", as this would make a lot more sense given what is known about GAG and their own statements, while also still respecting the spirit of reliable sources that have described them as "Anti LGBTQ". --86Sedan 16:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@86sedan Thank you for your post! I am copypasting your response in the NPOV thread so that all of it can be in the same place. In regard to gay assimilationism, if you could provide some helpful reliable WP:RELY and WP:V sources to support this point, it'd be really appreciated. Ppt91^talk 18:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Are there secondary sources describing them as assimilationist? It's not a term I've seen much in coverage of them. Neither is "anti-queer", which makes it a bit of a nonstarter. --Aquillion (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@86sedan, @Ppt91, @Aquillion

Sorry it took me a while to get back to this. I haven't seen any sources use anti-queer specifically so that's indeed a nonstarter. I'd say there's about a 3-1 ratio of "anti-LGBT" to "anti-trans" in sources off the top of my head. In regards to them being assimilationist, I don't think any sources specifically use that term but quite a few hint at it: noting GAG considers trans, queer, and intersex people "infiltrators" who are setting back LGB rights and similar things. I'll do a review and list how various sources touch on that here later to see if we can summarize them well. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Gays Against Groomers also similarly targets select segments of the LGBTQ community, recently referring to transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual people as “the infiltrators.” Michell stands by this strategy. She blames the increasing backlash against LGBTQ people on outliers within the community.[1]
• In an almost hilarious mischaracterization of the history of queer activism, the account writes that in the LGBTQ+ fight for equality, “our goal was to successfully integrate ourselves into society, but now these radicals aim to restructure it entirely in order to accommodate a fringe minority, as well as seek to indoctrinate children into it their ideology.”[2]
• Despite being a transparently right-wing account, GAG claims that being against child predation should be a non-partisan issue, and that anyone who questions the motivations of supposed “anti-grooming activists” is inherently suspect. GAG insinuated as much in a tweet from Friday morning, claiming that people who are trying to label them as a “far-right” organization are “just outing themselves as pro-grooming.”[3]
• It claims that the acceptance of trans people has set the rest of the (cis) LGB community back; namely, GAG claims that the supposed sexualization of children includes “drag queen story hours, drag shows involving children, the transitioning and medicalization of minors, and gender theory being taught in the classroom.”[4]
• The group's website also published an essay on Monday entitled "Radicals are Putting Our Community in Danger," which argued that blame for the shooting "lies largely with the radicalized members of the LGBTQ+ community, who have pushed beyond common sense boundaries and into an invasive space that often courts the idea of normalizing the sexualization of children."[5]

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Schools in lead

@Oktayey: I already said once in my edit summary that against LGBT representation at schools is meant as a summary of the article body (as the lead should be). I added it here. I have no idea where that ref came from; it probably doesn't belong there anyway per WP:CITELEAD. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

At the same time this was posted, I undid the removal of that part of the lead. It does seem a reasonable summary of the source to me, though I could also see an argument for it also supporting against LGBT education in schools. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I chose representation because some things they oppose, like the pride murals, don't exactly feel like LGBT education, but I'd accept that wording too. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly true, especially if the intent is that it's a summary of the article body and not just the source in the lead. I'm stepping through the diffs now to find out when that citation was added to it, to see if there's any insight from the edit summary or other content changes from the same edit. I'll link to it here once I find it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Levivich moved the citation on 10 March, with the edit summary "more TSI", so it was in reference to WP:TSI. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there'd be overall less confusion if we just didn't cite sources in the lead sentence. It shouldn't be necessary except in some BLP situations which this isn't. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, as much as I can see why Levivich moved the citations per TSI, if it is meant to be a summary of the article body then either it should be uncited, or we should cite it to one or more of the other citations from the body that also/better fit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th As I highlighted in my earlier reply to OP, WP:CITELEAD makes it clear that, although leads have more relaxed in-line citation requirements, contentious claims still warrant their use. Furthermore, since this is a claim about a group of people, WP:BLP may also apply, at least to an extent. Oktayey (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

BLP does not always apply to groups. I also said that leaving it uncited was one solution, and the other solution is to use one or more of the other citations from the article body that also support it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th WP:BLPGROUP says that the relevance of WP:BLP scales with the size of the group in question. GAG isn't a massive group like the Democrat Party or the GOP, and the subset of GAG who actually outline their ideological positions, even far less so. Also, even if WP:BLP didn't apply to even the smallest extent, contentious claims should still warrant in-line citations per WP:CITELEAD.

Also, I didn't mean to suggest you believed leaving it uncited was the sole solution; I just wanted to make it clear that leaving it uncited is completely off the table per Wikipedia policy.

EDIT: Also, sorry for the pings; the mobile app adds them to the beginning of replies by default, and I wasn't even sure they were pings.

Oktayey (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste Claiming GAG "opposes LGBT representation in schools" overwhemingly suggests they advocate categorically excluding people from either the school's staff or student body—this is unacceptably misleading. Oktayey (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that is the case. I might write more tomorrow. You can also stop pinging me in every reply. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 23:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be a pretty extreme interpretation of that statement. The statement is probably more accurate and neutral than just giving a quote without any context, that implies that whatever the group says, is what Wikipedia should say. Wikipedia should use reliable sources and maintain NPOV. Hist9600 (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th How is that in any way a reasonable summary of the source?! Where in the source is it claimed GAG opposes "LGBT representation in schools"? Oktayey (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the third time I'm telling you that the lead sentence is a summary of this article, not of any one source. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste I was not addressing you or any claim you made. Oktayey (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

From that source, LGBT+ content in sex-ed lessons are a form of LGBT+ representation in schools. GAG are opposing LGBT+ sex-ed lessons in school.

However, as the intent when the content was originally written was to summarise other content in the article body, and not just the LGBTQNation source, which that part of the sentence does succinctly, then we should be looking at other solutions along those lines instead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th Are we looking at the same source?! Not once in the article involving the Wisconsin school board is the word "representation" used, nor any form of it. Oktayey (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. You don't need to do that to every reply. I've got this page on my watchlist and from that I can see when a page has been updated.

On "representation", there is a difference between quoting verbatim what a source says, and summarising and paraphrasing the key points a source has made. Wikipedia's copyright violations policy compels us to paraphrase and summarise from our sources wherever possible. I explained in my last reply how I felt that it is a reasonable summary of the source.

However, as the rest of the conversation has moved on to discussing how the original intention of this content was for summarising the rest of the content in the article, ultimately my summary of that source doesn't really matter any more. What matters is finding a consensus either for not using citations in that part of the lead, which I can see from your comments above you're against, or if there's a consensus that this needs citations in the lead then identifying one or more of the other citations already in the article that better support the content and bringing a reference to them up to the lead seems like a much more useful way to spend editorial time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste WP:CITELEAD makes it clear that, although leads have more relaxed in-line citation requirements, contentious claims still warrant their use. Oktayey (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

NPOV issues discussion

Several allegations of bias have been raised on this talk page and, as the original page reviewer and to conform with WP:NPOV guidelines, I've attached an POV tag to the page. This is done so that the editors working on the page can ensure WP:CONSENSUS on all potential contentious issues per WP:POLICY and that these are addressed with WP:RELY. Once inspected and addressed, and in the absence of any other major issues, this tag will be removed. Ppt91 (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• suggestion that they are not "anti-LGBT" -- current claim is verified and the suggestion not sufficiently sourced per WP:RELY
• suggestion that they are not "anti-transgender" -- current claim is verified and the suggestion not sufficiently sourced per WP:RELY

Ppt91 (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The organization is called "Gays against groomers." There are multiple articles from The Advocate (magazine) characterizing this group as anti-LGBTQ. The Advocate is usually mentioned positively on the RS noticeboard, tho I can't find a specific discussion about them. I think a review would quickly confirm them as an RS for their topic area, which this certainly is.

Here's a variety article which includes 'Gays against groomers" as an example of an anti-LGBTQ account. Variety is considered a perennial reliable source in their field (entertainment). This isn't quite their field, but I think some of that reliability carries over (especially since it's in agreement with the specialist publications on the subject). I'm generally not a fan of business insider, but when Even their reporting is characterizing an organization as anti-LGBTQ, it really is as plain as day that it's an anti-LGBT group.

Heck, I'd argue the only reason they're considered notable in the first place is because they've received significant coverage as an anti-LGBTQ group. Are there any reliable sources mentioning this group outside of the context of anti-LGBTQ sentiment? I don't think so, because that's their whole raison d'etre. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ppt91, I just had some time to fix up the lead a little, please lmk what you think!

Also, I'm going to try and sort out repetitive sources to cut down the total used, particularly focusing on The Advocate and Media Matters for America so later publications from the same outlet that cover the same information are used instead. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Also please lmk if you're watching the page if I'm double-pinging lol TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@TheTranarchist sorry about the delay; I'll take a look now and in the meantime, reposting below a suggestion from another editor. Ppt91^talk 18:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Having studied this organization, I feel we are missing an important point that could provide a resolution to the NPOV dispute on this article: Namely, that GAG are first and foremost a gay assimilationist organization (yes, with connections to right-wing politics, which must be visible in the lede). This is because they have repeatedly made assimilationist arguments, such as suggesting that the behavior of queers and trans people is deleterious to the public image of LGBT people as a whole (in the wake of the club shooting). I will also suggest that editors heed the criticism on this page, and replace "Anti LGBTQ" with "anti queer", as this would make a lot more sense given what is known about GAG and their own statements, while also still respecting the spirit of reliable sources that have described them as 'Anti LGBTQ'" from :@86sedan Ppt91^talk 18:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

So I just had the time to do a breakdown of the sources. I've put them in descending order of significance, based on how many articles of theirs are cited and how WP:SIRS the coverage was (articles which provide in-depth looks at GAG and their pattern of activities as opposed to just noting 1 case they were involved in are placed higher). I'll review this list tomorrow to make sure everything's there

Source breakdown in descending order of significance

Media Matters for America (SIRS): 9 articles, commonly uses anti-LGBT, anti-trans, far-right The Advocate (SIRS): 9 articles, commonly uses anti-LGBT, far-right LGBTQ Nation (SIRS): 5 articles, uses anti-LGBTQ+ x 3, anti-trans x 1, says organized a far-right rally, Daily Dot (SIRS): 3 articles, anti-LGBTQ posts, far-right talking points and conspiracies Them.us (SIRS): 2 articles, transparently right-wing, note GAG says people who are trying to label them as a “far-right” organization are “just outing themselves as pro-grooming.” The ADL (SIRS): an anti-LGBTQ+ extremist coalition" and "an example of an emerging coalition of far-right parents’ groups. Gizmodo: one of the most prominent accounts attacking the parents of transgender children online" and "anti-trans agenda Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Right-wing activist group Creative Loafing: organized an anti-LGBTQ+ protest Bay Area Reporter: Accusing LGBTQ people of being pedophiles and groomers is a long-standing trope by those who have sought to curtail or undermine LGBTQ rights - Accusing LGBTQ people of being pedophiles and groomers is a long-standing trope by those who have sought to curtail or undermine LGBTQ rights Phoenix New Times: gay yet anti-trans conservative groups, national anti-LGBTQ group ABC 7 NY: scrawling anti-gay slurs, Boettcher was targeted by a group that called itself 'Gays Against Groomers.' Over the weekend, galvanized by online conspiracy theories about the LGBT community, members of the group protested outside something called a Drag Queen Story Hour The Intercept: right-wing activist account, In an irony that perfectly encapsulates the impossibility of reasoned discourse with far-right activists willing to lie, the video used to smear Porter was taken from her discussion of a report documenting how activist accounts like Libs of TikTok and Gays Against Groomers use Twitter to falsely accuse LGBTQ+ liberals of pedophilia. Rolling Stone: right wing commentator New Times San Luis: Gays Against Groomers is a national group founded by Florida-based Jaimee Mitchell. The organization has been banned by Google, Venmo, and PayPal after pressure mounted on tech companies to restrict it for allegedly spreading anti-transgender sentiments. Salon: right-wing group

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Resolved?

@Rlendog: This is the talk section in connection with which the tag was added. Unless I'm missing something obvious, it seems no actual NPOV objections remain here. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste I strongly object to the notion that this article portrays the topic in a neutral manner. This article is obscenely out of line with Wikipedia's standards. Oktayey (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Even though that specific thread has died out, the issue of NPOV of this article has been taken up in other threads. Rlendog (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yellow at RSP

I would like to remove all sources from this article that are yellow at WP:RSP. Does anyone object (and if so, for which sources, and why)? Thanks, Levivich (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Why are you wanting to remove all MREL sources en-masse? How many will be removed? I'm pretty sure there's no policy compliant reasons simply to remove MREL sources because they are MREL. I think perhaps it might be better if you identify specific sources that you find objectionable, and what content they're supporting instead. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich I don't believe it's necessary to remove all yellow sources, but the claims in the article made by biased sources should be attributed to them in the text per WP:BIASED. However, if you believe I'm missing something, please enlighten me. Oktayey (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

To answer both above: I think this article should use WP:BESTSOURCES, and it's covered by WP:BLP, so we categorically shouldn't use WP:MREL (aka yellow at RSP), for three reasons. First, because there are better sources available. Second, because there is no consensus that MREL sources are in fact reliable and we should only use sources if we have consensus that they're reliable (not necessarily listed on RSP, but not yellow or red). Third, the MREL sources would need to be attributed, and we don't need any attributed sources if we have other, better sources for the same content esp. if we have enough for wikivoice. Conversely, if there are no other sources for the content, the attributed opinion/claim of an MREL source wouldn't be WP:DUE.

There are 46 references in the article right now, and by my count 14 of them are these MRELs: WP:MEDIAMATTERS, WP:DAILYDOT, WP:DAILYBEAST, and WP:SALON.COM. I think that's way too much reliance on MRELs in general (almost 1/3, more by citation count), and we should remove them all, and not use MRELs in this article (or any BLP) as a default proposition, making exceptions on a case-by-case basis but only if there is consensus for inclusion on the talk page. Levivich (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

While you're correct that there's no consensus that MREL sources are reliable, it is also equally true that there is no consensus that they are unreliable either. That's why they're MREL and not GUNREL or GREL. Also, there is no community consensus that all MREL sources need to be attributed. Some specific MREL sources do, but many do not.

While there's some biographical content in the article that would be covered by BLP, like biographical content in any article is covered by it, this article itself is not a BLP. It's an article about an organisation, and those are not covered under the BLP policy. As for not using MRELs in any BLP, well you'd have to seek a community consensus for that, either at WP:BLPN, WT:BLP, or WP:VPP, as that is not the current policy and it would be a significant change to make it the current policy.

I have no objection to replacing MREL sources with GREL sources, where GREL sources exist and can support or improve upon existing content. However I would strongly object to removing MREL sources simply because they are MREL as you proposed initially. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Would it change your opinion if, instead of all MREL sources, it was just those four I linked above, and instead of "because they're MREL", because of what's written in their RSP entries? Levivich (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Daily Dot no, I think those need to be evaluated to see if this actually is one of their areas of bias. I've skimmed the 2022 RfC on the source and no specific areas of bias were directly identified in it. I'll try to take a look tomorrow at the past non-RfC discussions on the source to see if I can actually identify what its specific biases are. But given that GAG has a large intersection with social media and internet culture, this might be one of the areas in which we do consider them unbiased and reliable.

There seems to be only a single instance of Salon and Daily Beast in the article, and it's part of a citation bundle. If removing them doesn't leave the paragraph that they are currently cited for with unverified quotations then they could be removed.

Media Matters is maybe OK to remove, but again the content it's currently supported would need to be checked so that we don't leave unverified content behind if no source is directly replacing it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense to me. There are only 3 Daily Dots so I'll just look at those one by one and if I think any should be removed I'll raise that separately. I'll go through the other three sources per your comments above and see where that leaves us (I expect that'll leave us with only some Media Matters and some Daily Dot to discuss). Of course everyone else should please feel free to chime in at any point especially if you disagree with any of this. Levivich (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've read all of the past discussions on the Daily Dot, those are linked at RSP and range from July 2011 to September 2022, alongside some related discussions that prompted the RSN discussions, and I've re-read the 2022 RfC on it. From all of the discussions, I'm having a really hard time identifying proven specific areas of bias.

There were a couple of discussions where the author of the relevant Daily Dot articles were noted as having a bias towards the article subject, but most of those were clearly and prominently declared in the articles. In most of the discussions no issues of bias were raised. In the few discussions where biased was touched upon, some editors asserted that it was biased without remarking on what the bias was. The smaller number of editors who raised specific biases did so for political reporting, with the clearest assertions being that they were "generally left-wing politically biased", or "very much liberal leaning" and that this might impact on their related culture war reporting. However those assertions were made without evidence, and didn't see much support from other editors.

Where that leaves us I honestly don't know. The RSP entry said no consensus on general reliability, despite all prior discussions to the 2022 RfC having a consensus for general reliability on internet topics. It also says that some editors consider it biased, and that it should be attributed in topics where the bias is known, however there doesn't seem to actually be a consensus on where this source is biased beyond the seemingly unsupported opinion of some editors. For use on this article, I'm kinda of the opinion that it's up to editorial consensus based on evaluation of each usage and the content its supporting. In general though, I think perhaps an RSN discussion on the source for the purposes of clarifying where it has a proven bias might be in order, as otherwise it's currently really unclear as to what the community consensus surrounding the scope of the publication's bias actually is. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Chiming in here, given me original involvement re WP:RELY sources and two articles I had originally mentioned during NPP exchange with the article's author that I still do not believe have been included. These perhaps might be used to replace some less reliable ones. I'll keep looking, but for now https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/02/08/proposed-gender-alteration-ban-for-minors-draws-hundreds-to-nebraska-capitol/ could be used for citation relating to legislation and https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/20/nyregion/drag-queen-story-hours-protests-nyc.html for "groomer" definition among other things. As for WP:RSP, I think removing some of them makes sense, because there are simply a lot of sources in the article, but I would not recommend removing all yellow WP:RSP en masse. Ppt91^talk 23:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed things that I thought were BLPvios or UNDUE, and in so doing, removed the Daily Beast, Salon, most of the Media Matters, and one of the Daily Dots. What's left (of those four) is three Media Matters and two Daily Dot sources, which are, in my opinion, at least arguably reliable and arguably DUE for the content they're used for. I also straightened out some WP:TSI issues along the way. I didn't verify everything, but at least I think at this point the article no longer has a yellow-at-RSP problem. Levivich (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This article exposes the limitations of documenting novel, fast-moving, massively-social phenomena here. For example, we are not able to document the ousting of the South Carolina chapter leader, since that incident was confined to social media, nor the conspiracy theories pushed via their Illinois account, which appear to have earned it hundreds of followers within weeks. I see that useful information has also been removed concerning deplorable pride.

• Yet, the lede remains biased. Reliable Sources use "Anti LGBTQ+", either out of laziness/ignorance, or to imply opposition to the concept of a broad umbrella. Editors here know that GAG is an anti-trans, anti-queer org, motivated by assimilationism, but can't state that, as under a strict interpretation of the rules, that would be original research.
• If there is any disagreement surrounding the reliability of a source, opinions must be ascribed to the source. This is how to deal with fast-moving social phenomena, for which there is a lack of material providing balanced perspective, not by eliminating those sources and reducing the size of the article by 1/3. This article qualifies for that kind of special treatment; to gain a fuller understanding, we need to employ a more ethnographic approach in this instance. --86Sedan 13:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@86sedan To have these claims by biased sources be attributed to them in the text is exactly what I've been pushing for! WP:BIASED clearly outlines the need for this, yet on this talk page, I've only been met with nays propped up by flimsy arguments. Oktayey (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Take this to the wider community, and plead for some commonsense, I guess? 86Sedan 22:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the sources even if reliable are expressing an opinion that the group is anti-LGBT and far right. Even the most reliable sources have a point of view, and we should be very careful describing something in Wikipedia's voice based on how a source that clearly opposes the subject refers to them. Fine to say they are often regarded as being anti-LGBT and far right. Also, there is a problem with using these terms in the opening sentence. Even the article on Nazism waits for the 2nd sentence to say that "It is placed on the far-right of the political spectrum, and is extensively referred to as an example of totalitarianism." and waits for the 2nd paragraph to start listing all the things that it is "anti". The opening sentence should give more of a definition, which is primarily that they are an organization that protests gender affirming care. Rlendog (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The main matter is whether the sources are reliable, and not whether they agree with the goals and policies of the organization. We should be careful not to create a false sense of balance by disregarding what reliable sources say. Hist9600 (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hist9600 To the contrary, the views of the publications in question are extremely relevant. WP:BIASED makes it clear that claims by biased sources—especially contentious claims—should be attributed to them in the text. Oktayey (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the guideline says at all. Whether the statement needs to be attributed is left to editorial discretion. The guideline you linked to makes it very clear that the reliability of the source is the main matter, so thank you for helping me make my point. We should also keep in mind WP:FALSEBALANCE that fringe views don't need to be included to create a false sense of balance in the article. Reliable sources are sufficient. Hist9600 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hist9600 It seems you interpreted WP:BIASED's emphasis on evaluating the reliability of biased sources as a green light to use biased sources in practically the same manner as neutral sources. For instance, this quote from WP:BIASED—

"When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering."

—in no way permits claims made by biased sources to be echoed in Wikivoice. WP:BIASED explains the role of biased sources:

"Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

As for your closing argument, reliable sources are sufficient for the uses the guidelines permit the sources to be used for. To reiterate, WP:BIASED makes it clear that although bias doesn't automatically disqualify a source from being consideres 'reliable', and thus suitable for use on Wikipedia, biased sources cannot be used to support portraying contentious claims as fact. Oktayey (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Bias does not mean "disagrees with me", as you seem to keep thinking it does. That's the crux of the matter. And it's interesting that you keep trying to say the guideline agrees with you, when nothing that you're quoting actually backs up the argument you're trying to make. We don't need to push WP:FRINGE views into this article and create a false sense of balance, or nitpick mainstream reliable sources because they don't say what we want them to say. Hist9600 (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be pushing FRINGE views. But what fringe view are you suggesting that Oktayey is trying to push? Stating that sources say that the group is anti-LGBT is fringe? Rlendog (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources are saying that the group is anti-LGBT, then we can follow the reliable sources, for example. We shouldn't feel obligated to create a false sense of balance. Hist9600 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hist9600 I once again reiterate that a source being considered "reliable", and thus eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia, does not automatically grant it the authority to have its claims echoed in Wikivoice; WP:BIASED explicitly says reliable sources can still be biased, and when they are, their claims must be attributed to them in the text. Oktayey (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you may be doing a bit too much reiterating here. Saying the same thing over and over again is not a great way to get people to agree with you. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON probably applies here. Hist9600 (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hist9600 You did not answer my question. What FRINGE views view are you suggesting that Oktayey is trying to push? Do you have a specific example? Rlendog (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources are characterizing the group as anti-LGBT, for example, and we don't have similarly reliable sources saying otherwise, then it's a bit silly to try to turn that into a big controversy. The claims of bias seem poorly founded, and based on very fringe positions in general. I don't see any reason here why Wikipedia should not follow mainstream reliable sources. Hist9600 (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hist9600 "We don't have any similarly reliable sources otherwise"!? Maybe not any *similarly* reliable sources, but there's one that is clearly far less biased (and resultingly in far better standing on WP:RSP): https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/drag-story-hours-like-rentons-have-been-around-for-years-now-theyre-targets/

This article describes GAG as "a small LGBT group". What happened when I tried to cite this? My edit was reverted. This is insulting.

Also, what "fringe positions" are you referring to? Oktayey (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you feel insulted by the need to develop consensus, and you are not being provided with WP:SATISFACTION. And no, the article does not describe it as simply a small LGBTQ group, because you are leaving out the rest of the description. And ultimately, sources need to be weighed by editors, and decisions based on consensus when there is disagreement. The edits that you are suggesting don't have consensus, and you don't seem to understand that repeating the same things over and over until you've annoyed the other editors is not helping you gain that consensus. Hist9600 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hist9600 I feel insulted not by the reversion of my edit, but by the lack of acknowledgement on this talk page of the source that clearly disputes what the editors here seem to think is universally accepted. Also, what are you talking about!? What "rest of the description" from the article am I leaving out that you imply invalidates the author's description of GAG being an LGBT group?! Oktayey (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Put together a reasonable proposal and see if you gain consensus. If you don't, then eventually you should take a hint that other editors are not generally in agreement with you. Hist9600 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hist9600 Per WP:BRD, I've begun with the edit, it gets reverted, and in the subsequent discussion, I do not receive any valid reasoning for rejection of the edit. This particular exchange is the latest example, where it seems you have abandoned the prospect of offering an actual rebuttal.

This feels like trying to edit an article to change it from saying the sky is green to saying the sky is blue, it getting reverted, and after a brief back-and-forth on the talk page, rather than my argument receiving a rebuttal, the editors just fall back on "you need consensus". How can I challenge the consensus if the consensus is not willing to be challenged?! Oktayey (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You can challenge consensus all you like, but other editors are not necessarily obligated to agree with you.

In your edit, you wrote "It has been described as a 'small LGBT group'." This is a selective and misleading use of the source. The actual description in that article is "[a] small LGBTQ group formed to protest story hours and all-ages drag shows". This goes against statements made elsewhere in these discussions claiming that the group is only against gender-affirming care for minors (i.e. transgender healthcare). And since most drag queens are cisgender men, the description of the group cannot be described merely in terms of opposition to gender-affirming care for trans youth. Hence, the anti-LGBTQ moniker is probably accurate and most descriptive of the anti-drag and anti-trans stances. Hist9600 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hist9600 People simply disagreeing with me isn't the problem; they seem to be stonewalling by refusing to engage in discourse. Thank you for ceasing to do the same.

Anyway, I don't think you understand my argument. I'm not claiming that opposition to GAC for minors is its GAG's sole objective. I'm saying that this reliable and far less biased source describes GAG as an LGBT group. Any postulations you personally believe about people who protest children seeing drag are irrelevant; Wikipedia prohibits original research, including "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Therefore, the article calling GAG an LGBT group supports the claim that GAG is an LGBT group, and your conclusion that the "anti-LGBTQ moniker is probably accurate" is inapplicable. Oktayey (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You're again misrepresenting the source by very selectively quoting one part of the description and leaving out the rest. Wikipedia prohibits original research, but sources can be assessed and statements can be compared as part of the editorial process. The anti-drag description in the article you cited does not contradict the current description, and if anything reinforces it. I think the reason why the other editors have not been replying much is because you are simply repeating yourself over and over. Hist9600 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@86sedan I'm starting to consider this. How would this be done? Posting to WP:RFN? Oktayey (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that would work. Just expose the article to a wider audience. As far as I can tell, the most accurate descriptors for the organization are anti-queer, conservative, TERF, assimilationist. If that requires some ethnographic fiat, then so be it, because "far right" and "Anti LGBT" are obviously misleading characterizations (based on guilt by association) that serve a purpose for the organizations making them. 86Sedan 16:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hist9600 You say "The actual description in that article is "[a] small LGBTQ group formed to protest story hours and all-ages drag shows". This goes against statements made elsewhere in these discussions claiming that the group is only against gender-affirming care for minors (i.e. transgender healthcare). And since most drag queens are cisgender men, the description of the group cannot be described merely in terms of opposition to gender-affirming care for trans youth. Hence, the anti-LGBTQ moniker is probably accurate and most descriptive of the anti-drag and anti-trans stances." Yet getting from "small LGBTQ group formed to protest story hours and all-ages drag shows" to "the anti-LGBTQ moniker is probably accurate and most descriptive of the anti-drag and anti-trans stances" requires a lot of your own analysis, i.e., original research. After all, opposition to "all-ages" drag shows may represent a concern that the shows are inappropriate for children, at least below a certain age, and not represent any issue with the performers themselves (assuming they are LGBTQ - not all are, and according to your statements they are mostly "cisgender men." As for your FRINGE claims, you still have not identified a fringe claim that Oktayey is trying to insert. The fact that some sources (opposed to this group) choose to call them "anti-LGBTQ" while other sources are silent doesn't mean that the sources that remain silent on the statement necessarily agree with it. If you find sources that are neutral or supportive of the group that describe them as anti-LGBTQ the description would be far more appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the reliable sources need to be compared and weighed against one another, and anti-LGBTQ is a fair assessment given the current sources. I've already gone into the other topics previously. Not the way to work towards a consensus with the other editors here. Hist9600 (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

So far you have one source which doesn't call them anti-LGBT. This is about the balance of the RS. Obviously it will be very hard to find neutral or supportive RS that call them anti-LGBT, because anti-LGBT is, certainly among RS, almost universally critical. We must reflect that, not impose a WP:FALSEBALANCE. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 10:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

On the repeated point that only biased sources are calling this group anti-LGBTQ, when Time magazine state plainly in their own editorial voice that this group is one of several anti-LGBTQ organisations that an Arizona state senator conferred with when working on that state's anti-drag bill, I'm sorry but that argument just doesn't hold any strength to me. Unless someone wants to make the case that Time is a biased source in this regard? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns

@Zaathras Concerning this reversion:

Does the bill prohibit staff from using pronouns incongruent with their biological sex *only if the student prefers them*? If not, the article shouldn't say so—Wikivoice is to remain neutral. Oktayey (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"Preferred pronouns" is what the source says. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

In that case, that is a mark against the source's (in my opinion, already clearly wobbly) reliability. The bill in question makes absolutely no mention of preferred pronouns, much less limit school staff's ability to use them. Oktayey (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of the source is of no consequence. Zaathras (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

My opinion wasn't the focus of my comment; the focus was that the source is flat-out wrong. Oktayey (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

the source is flat-out wrong is your opinion, and it is of no consequence. Zaathras (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I looked back at the source, and it doesn't even support the claim you're defending. It source says:

"The bill prohibits teachers and school officials from referring to students by pronouns that don't match their gender assigned at birth unless they have written parental permission."

That's practically exactly how my edit left it before you reverted it. The claim that the bill would prohibit staff from using sex-incongruent pronouns only if the student prefers them is totally unsupported. Oktayey (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"Even then, the bill allows preferred pronouns of students to be ignored if using them runs counter to the "religious or moral convictions" of school employees.", from the source. Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Perfect—the version of the article you reverted clearly mentions that just below the disputed wording. I take it you now have no objections to restoring my edit? Oktayey (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I see no mention of "prefered gender" in your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Bro, it is JUST below the contested wording. "It would also permit school employees to ignore pronoun preferences if it would otherwise violate their 'religious and moral convictions'."

Oktayey (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, OK, your version does fit the source better. Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Er, no, it doesn't. This WP:SPA is trying to change this

• "which would prohibit teachers and school officials from using pronouns that don't match a student's gender assigned at birth"
• to
• "which would prohibit teachers and school officials from using students' preferred pronouns if they do not match their gender assigned at birth"

The point of the legislation is to deny a student their chosen preference, if their preference differs from the gender they were born as, it says so right in the source. The SPA is trying to remove nuance and precision. Zaathras (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you flipped the two in your comment? Hard to keep up on this page. Honestly, it doesn't make much difference IMO. The "preferred" part is implied. I think it makes sense to leave "preferred" in, along with who would need to give permission to use the pronouns. Oktayey's original stated reason was to be more concise, but it made the sentence less clear. And now they're arguing the original was flatly wrong, without any reasonable arguments against the sourcing here. This didn't need to be a fourteen+ comment thread, but here we are. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 22:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about claiming the source was "flat-out wrong"—an editor implied that the source said something it didn't, so I called it wrong without first double-checking. Oktayey (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think the source is not reliable WP:RSN is that way. If you have a different WP:RS that supports your points feel free to present it. If you just want to discount what WP:RSs say because you've come up with a more correct view on your own, then that's clearly WP:OR and won't be allowed. Cakelot1 (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2023

I have noticed some inaccuracies with the wording of this articles. Luke Williams09 (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to tell us what you want us to change, we can't guess. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I highly doubt it was constructive whatever it was Dronebogus (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

How are they anti-LGBT

there is an FAQ, please stop answering these tedious arguments we’ve already answered 50 times or so Dronebogus (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

they are literally lgbt they are againts dragshows for kids and transisioning them. 2A01:114F:4312:5500:E10A:BBA7:D780:FF6F (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC) \RS disagrees. Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Objectively they are not anti-LGBT members are across all political spectrum, nkt just right wing nor is groomer slur againt LGBT people 2A01:114F:4312:5500:E10A:BBA7:D780:FF6F (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Well if it's so "Objective", you should be able to find a Reliable Source that describes them as such, seeing as Wikipedia can only describe topics in the ways they're described in RSs (WP:NPOV) Cakelot1 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC) The "reliable source" of them being Anti-LGBT is anti-drag for childern bill.This only proves they are against drag shows for kids which is not anti-LGBT. 2A01:114F:4312:5500:E10A:BBA7:D780:FF6F (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC) From said source: Sen. Justine Wadsack said her state’s anti-drag bill was created after she conferred with anti-LGBTQ organizations like Gays Against Groomers, which “directly opposes the sexualization and indoctrination of children” through drag queen story hours, and more. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC) someone calling them anti-LGBT doesn't mean they are. Calling LGBT group Anto-LGBT is a oxymoron. 2A01:114F:4312:5500:E10A:BBA7:D780:FF6F (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC) We call them an anti-lgbt group because many of the sources do (not just the one source but most of them),. and for our description to change we need RSs which contradict that (WP:NPOV). We don't take the organization at they're word (WP:ABOUTSELF) or second guess the sources and give our own interpretation (WP:OR). I'll paste the source chart from TheTranarchist that she posted above, which demonstrates that anti-LGBT is a widespread descriptor: Source breakdown in descending order of significance Media Matters for America (SIRS): 9 articles, commonly uses anti-LGBT, anti-trans, far-right The Advocate (SIRS): 9 articles, commonly uses anti-LGBT, far-right LGBTQ Nation (SIRS): 5 articles, uses anti-LGBTQ+ x 3, anti-trans x 1, says organized a far-right rally, Daily Dot (SIRS): 3 articles, anti-LGBTQ posts, far-right talking points and conspiracies Them.us (SIRS): 2 articles, transparently right-wing, note GAG says people who are trying to label them as a “far-right” organization are “just outing themselves as pro-grooming.” The ADL (SIRS): an anti-LGBTQ+ extremist coalition" and "an example of an emerging coalition of far-right parents’ groups. Gizmodo: one of the most prominent accounts attacking the parents of transgender children online" and "anti-trans agenda Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Right-wing activist group Creative Loafing: organized an anti-LGBTQ+ protest Bay Area Reporter: Accusing LGBTQ people of being pedophiles and groomers is a long-standing trope by those who have sought to curtail or undermine LGBTQ rights - Accusing LGBTQ people of being pedophiles and groomers is a long-standing trope by those who have sought to curtail or undermine LGBTQ rights Phoenix New Times: national anti-LGBTQ group ABC 7 NY: scrawling anti-gay slurs, Boettcher was targeted by a group that called itself 'Gays Against Groomers.' Over the weekend, galvanized by online conspiracy theories about the LGBT community, members of the group protested outside something called a Drag Queen Story Hour:* The Intercept: right-wing activist account, In an irony that perfectly encapsulates the impossibility of reasoned discourse with far-right activists willing to lie, the video used to smear Porter was taken from her discussion of a report documenting how activist accounts like Libs of TikTok and Gays Against Groomers use Twitter to falsely accuse LGBTQ+ liberals of pedophilia. New Times San Luis: Gays Against Groomers is a national group founded by Florida-based Jaimee Mitchell. The organization has been banned by Google, Venmo, and PayPal after pressure mounted on tech companies to restrict it for allegedly spreading anti-transgender sentiments. Again we would need a source that contradicts these sources to even begin discussing a change in the current wording. Cakelot1 (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I think this is more discussion about the concern that caused the NPOV tag? It seems like if thats the case it might be time to remove it. Cakelot1 has shown how the term is widely used by RS. Not 100% sure on removal as there isn't a discussion clearly listing the concerns relating to the tag so I'll leave that to someone more familiar with it. Filiforme1312 (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Then it shoud be removed, as it is there to provoke discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC) I thought so too when removing it, see #Resolved? above. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 11:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Yep, just because some users disagree with its PPOV does not mean it is nonneutral, as we reflect what RS say. The tag is not there as an alert that some people think it is biased. We can't please everyone. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Yeah, I agree it should be alright to remove that tag. The points have been discussed and there is a general consensus. If there were some other points to be made, they were not brought up, in which case the tag should be removed for not being used properly. Hist9600 (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Are they really anti-lgbt. They're only anti-trans

They are gay so how are they against themselves. I think references to anti-lgbt should be replaced with anti-transgender. 2601:2C3:8681:65C0:EDAF:25B3:3F83:7D23 (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources consistently refer to them as anti-LGBT, though they are admittedly mainly anti-trans. The ADL explains how they can be anti-LGBTQ despite being founded by a lesbian (see reception section), and one need only see incidents such as their harassment of Erik Bottcher to see that in action. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The ADL explains that by referring to their own definition of anti-LGBTQ, which makes their explanation circular. Their explanation/definition is fine in the reception section, but should not be stated as fact in the lede. Rlendog (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

While TheTranarchist referred to ADL's explanation for how a group founded by a lesbian could be anti-LGBTQ, the article itself does not use the ADL's description of the organisation as the sole determiner in how to describe it. Multiple reliable sources that are cited in the article do factually describe the organisation as anti-LGBTQ in their own editorial voice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Are those sources stating facts or opinions (as the ADL clearly is)? Rlendog (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The statements are being made factually in the publications' respective editorial voices. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a footnote should be added next to the descriptor talking about how they mainly are anti-trans, because it's a bit disingenuous to claim they are also against the people who identify as the L, G, and B in LGBT. EytanMelech (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The T includes a whole lot of L and B and G. More importantly, the sources consider this anti-trans activism to be synonymous with anti-LGBT activism. I mean, they're freaking out about rainbow flags and the word 'queer,' which are obviously more general LGBT symbols than trans alone. The framing that they're not anti-LGB is a sort of sleight of hand that GAG does, which the reliable sources do not support. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What is GAG? EytanMelech (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Gays Against Groomers. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The T is the smallest part by a wide margin. 37.49.130.243 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand….? Dronebogus (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

What appears to be intentionally overlooked, is the fact that many members of this group are in fact gay. We feel as though our cause for equality has been hijacked by those requiring far more than equality. We are being described as anti LGBT, which would incorrectly imply that we are against ourselves. The only thing we are truly against, is promoting denial of who you are and requiring others to condone and participate with those actions. Labeling the entire group as far right, is questionable opinion. Labeling these gay people as anti gay just because they do not support the transgender lifestyle, is from my experience, biased, inaccurate and requires correction. 69.123.125.184 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Well the "POV" of Wikipedia is generally dictated by a bunch of people who have the same opinion, because G-d forbid there be a bipartisan discussion on equal grounds. It is what it is. I simply do not use Wikipedia when researching anything relating to politics or stuff that has been influenced by it, because it has a large chance of being a bunch of nonsense. If they say that GAG is anti-LGBT, tunc fiat... EytanMelech (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Good to know this IP has a clear COI - describing themselves as part of this org. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You signed your name twice. EytanMelech (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Oops? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That is also objectively untrue, the group has a wing for transgender people, and many individuals, including spokesmen are transgender. They are against gender-affirming care for minors, they are not attacking LGBTQ+ as a whole. 2001:1970:47E4:6C00:0:0:0:F084 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Many prominent transgender political commentators such as Blaire White and Marcus Dib are supporters of the organization. EytanMelech (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

You are right, framing them as anti-LGB is disingenious. 2A01:C23:C4D8:F500:9CE0:92BF:544:B992 (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Reasonable sources frame them as such. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Then find a source that supports that view; Wikipedia job is representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (WP:NPOV), Not what you've individually come up with (WP:OR) Cakelot1 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It may at least be important to define how they characterize themselves and statements they've made in response to accusations that they are anti-LGBT. Here's an interview where Michell states that they're specifically against child transitioning, not broadly trans folks. EytanMelech (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

And here's an article that specifically refers to them as Anti-trans. EytanMelech (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It actually isn't important to define how they characterize themselves per WP:MANDY, again we represent what only third party high-quality Reliable Sources say about them, and if they don't talk about it or take it seriously neither should we. An article saying they are anti-trans doesn't contradict them being anti-LGBT as other sources call them (I would think most anti-LGBT activists are also anti-T activists). A reliable source saying they are pro-gay or for gay-rights and anti-trans would be a contradiction with the current sources and would call for change to the current language. I have yet to see a source (and I don't think WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS is where we should be looking) Cakelot1 (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

LGBTQ nation is a deeply unreliable source on this topic, far worse than Fox News. Britannic16 (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide the wp:rsn discussion where they are declared to not be an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Here. If I counted correctly, the number of users arguing that LGBTQN is reliable versus users arguing it's unreliable is 2-5, excluding the 2 users subject to GENSEX topic bans. Oktayey (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Topic bans (and even blocks) don't retroactively render all of an editor's contributions to prior consensus-building invalid. Only a WP:BLOCKEVADE block does that. And even in the case of WP:BLOCKEVADE, all it can do is render a previous consensus potentially invalid, requiring a new RFC or discussion - you can't go back and just subtract the block-evaders to declare that an already-closed or archive discussion now demonstrates an affirmative consensus it didn't at the time (because, for example, other editors might not have weighed in when they saw the question had been answered by someone else.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you do have a good point there. Still, I think we can both agree that this 4-5 split does not establish consensus that LGBTQN is particularly reliable, no? Oktayey (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Its an interesting question, but (technically) it is down to those saying its not an RS for it not to be. So it seems the jury is out. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

They aren't anti trans. They want to protect children from medically transitioning. Which is an adult decision that should only be made by adults. 24.28.41.202 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, as above, you need to actually provide some WP:RSs backing up your assertions, otherwise you're just WP:SOAPBOXING. Cakelot1 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

We go by what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources claiming far-right & anti-LGBT

@Sideswipe9th You reverted my edit that attributed the claims that GAG is far-right and anti-LGBT to critics, yourself claiming that the claims in question should be presented as fact since "reliable sources" have reported it as fact.

The sources reporting GAG as far-right are Daily Dot, The Advocate, and Media Matters, and the ones reporting it as anti-LGBT are LGBTQ Nation and ADL.

Not a single one of these sources is listed in WP:RSP as suitable for supporting contentious claims of fact without attribution. Per WP:BIASED, claims from biased sources should have in-text attributions.

Furthermore, per WP:BIASED, potentially biased sources should meet the normal requirements such as editorial control and independence from the topic the source is covering. The Advocate and LGBTQ Nation, which are absent from WP:RSP, clearly they do not meet these requirements.

Oktayey (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Oktayey. While various sources make these statements, they are stating the organization's opinions, not necessarily a "fact". That is particularly clear for the ADL, which describes their analysis of how they determined to classify the group as anti-LGBT. If we are going to in Wikipedia's voice describe a group started by a gay person and which identifies as being a group of "gays" as being anti-gay, we should have more solid support than the opinions of some organizations that are clearly critical of the group and thus hardly unbiased. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

So we should instead find organizations that describe it as anti-LGBT but still agree with them? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Rlendog, Are you saying every source calling them right-wing, far-right, anti-gay, anti-LGBT and anti-trans is an opinion piece. For example, I can't see any of the Advocate articles listed as opinion pieces, nor any of those from LGBTQ nation. Cakelot1 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cakelot1 I never said they were "opinion pieces", but not being opinion pieces does not mean that every word is an objective fact. In describing the group as anti-LGBTQ they are giving their viewpoint, not necessarily an objective fact. Other organizations do not necessarily regard them as anti-LGBTQ, but no one writes "Organization X, which is not anti-LGBTQ" just like these sources do not write everything this organization (in their opinion) is not. Rlendog (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there other WP:RSs that we aren't using that are presenting a different view. Of course the group doesn't say they are anti-LGBT or Far right, but WP:NPOV means that when all the third party source we have give one view, we give it to. We shouldn't be giving balances when the source don't (WP:FALSEBALANCE, etc) Cakelot1 (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Of course the group doesn't say they are anti-LGBT or Far right"? Many anti-X, far right groups are happy to acknowledge that. Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

If anything that proves that the criteria wikipedia uses is flawed. It's obvious they don't match the criteria of "far-right" according to wikipedia's own description of what far-right generally means. They're basically liberals or at most relatively conservatives who take issues with certain progressive positions (trans issues). This isn't a defense of those positions, but it's bizarre to even claim that equates to "far-right". It makes the term a meaningless slur if we're not applying it to Fascists or hard-right traditionalists and so forth. Globe Holder (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Oktayey, While Daily Dot is listed and Media Matters for America are yellow at WP:RSP, the advocate LGBTQ Nation isn't listed (and the discussions I've seen on WP:RSN haven't come to a conclusion on these), and ADL definitely is reliable WP:RSPADL. You can't just declare 3 sources to be unreliable without consensus.

This has been discussed, #NPOV issues discussion and #Assimilationism: a suggestion, where TheTranarchist went through the sources in the article. Cakelot1 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cakelot1 Dude, what are you trying to argue? WP:RSP _specifically_ says claims by Daily Dot, Media Matters, and ADL all should be attributed in this case.

As for the unlisted sources, I'm not "declaring" them to be unreliable; I'm arguing that they should not be cited here because they clearly fail to meet Wikipedia's requirements. Oktayey (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You actually never did explain which requirement they don't meet and how. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste I figured it wasn't necessary to elaborate, since I thought it was obvious that those activist websites do not exhibit "independence from the topic the source is covering". They are clearly proponents of the ideology GAG opposes. Oktayey (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"Activist websites" is a very curious way to describe two very well-established news magazines. Also, what "ideology" is it that you're talking about? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste "Well-established news magazines" would be present on WP:RSP, no? Oktayey (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No. WP:RSP Clearly says it's not an exhaustive list in the very first sentence. That means it does not (and can not) contain every single RS. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sativa Inflorescence I understand it is not exhaustive, but surely if they were "very well established", they would be present. Oktayey (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Them not being on there literally means nothing except that you need to do the job of assessing reliability yourself. The vast, vast majority of well-established, reliable sources are never added to RSP. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 23:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not how RSP works, at all. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 23:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Oktayey, as others say, Per WP:RSPMISSING, a source not being on the list implies nothing beyond the fact that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. Cakelot1 (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cakelot1 I was not asserting that a source cannot be reliable if it isn't on the list; I was asserting that it would be on the list if it was "very well established". Oktayey (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That's why I said 3 sources out of the 5 you where talking about. That should have been 2 of as your right that the ADL entry is more nuanced than I remembered.

Can you explain how you have deveined without a community consensus that "Advocate" and "LGBTQ Nation" clearly fail to meet Wikipedia's requirements.

In addition there's still Them.us transparently right-wing; Gizmodo: one of the most prominent accounts attacking the parents of transgender children online and anti-trans agenda; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Right-wing activist group; Creative Loafing: anti-LGBTQ+; Bay Area Reporter: Accusing LGBTQ people of being pedophiles and groomers is a long-standing trope by those who have sought to curtail or undermine LGBTQ rights; Phoenix New Times: national anti-LGBTQ group; ABC 7 NY: scrawling anti-gay slurs, Boettcher was targeted by a group that called itself 'Gays Against Groomers.' Over the weekend, galvanized by online conspiracy theories about the LGBT community, members of the group protested outside something called a Drag Queen Story Hour; The Intercept: right-wing activist account, In an irony that perfectly encapsulates the impossibility of reasoned discourse with far-right activists willing to lie, the video used to smear Porter was taken from her discussion of a report documenting how activist accounts like Libs of TikTok and Gays Against Groomers use Twitter to falsely accuse LGBTQ+ liberals of pedophilia.; among others. Cakelot1 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cakelot1 I'm having great difficulty understanding your writing. Please answer this concisely:

Do you believe the claims made by these sources—that GAG is far-right and anti-LGBT—should be attributed to them in the article? If not, explain your reasoning.

As for the ineligibility of LN and The Advocate being cited at all, they clearly fail to meet Wikipedia's requirement that sources be independent from the topic they're covering; they are activist sites, and reasonably cannot be cited to factually label their ideological opponent. Oktayey (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you believe the claims made by these sources—that GAG is far-right and anti-LGBT—should be attributed to them in the article? If not, explain your reasoning.No. The reasoning is that the sources state the group is anti-LGBTQ as a matter of fact. The green quotes in @Cakelot1's comment illustrate that because these reliable sources call GAG anti-LGBTQ in their editorial voices, then wikivoice can be used to call them anti-lgbtq as well. That's my understanding of the policy at least. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sativa Inflorescence The sources in question are not in good enough standing for their claims to be echoed in Wikivoice. All three of the sources present on WP:RSP are explicitly noted to require their 'contentious claims of fact' to be attributed to them. WP:BIASED states that claims from biased sources should be attributed to the sources that make them. The remaining two sources clearly also hold major bias, and so this applies to them. Oktayey (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The remaining two sources clearly also hold major bias, and so this applies to them. Are you saying that LGBTQ publications can't factually report on LGBTQ topics? If that is what you're saying, I think you'd see the flaw in the logic if you applied it to other minority groups, or other topics generally.

Or is there a specific editorial practice of LGBTQ Nation or The Advocate that you take issue with? Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sativa Inflorescence I'm saying that a publication whose purpose is to advance a cause is inhereny biased, and therefore the claims made by said publication must be attributed to them per WP:BIASED. Oktayey (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please explain how they're inherently biased. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sativa Inflorescence Are you sealioning? One is called "LGBTQ Nation", and the other is called "The Advocate". How could you possibly argue they aren't advocacy sites!? Roaming around the sites for more than 30 seconds make it clear that they exhibit a staggering pro-'LGBT' lean. Oktayey (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That isn't in line with existing consensus, as I have shown. Please also don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS against other editors. Finally, what do you mean with the quotes around LGBT, and what "ideology" were you alluding to earlier? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste As WP:BIASED outlines, biased sources may be valuable for illustrating [i]differing viewpoints[/i]—this does not allow them to be cited to support contentious claims of fact. I rummaged around recent mentions of The Advocate on WP:RSN, and found no suggestion that the source is suitable for backing such claims without attribution. Oktayey (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BIASED actually says Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate (emphasis added). If we had a mix of sources saying different things, I think people would be more open to in-text attribution. But there seems to be no source that doesn't take the view that the org is either anti-LGBTQ, anti-gay and/or anti-trans. Per WP:NPOV and WP:MANDY, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, etc. we shouldn't present a debate in the sources where there doesn't appear to be one. Cakelot1 (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cakelot1 The choice of the word 'may' in WP:BIASED is meaningless. There is no determining factor provided to decide when claims by biased sources shouldn't be attributed, so they effectively always should. Think about it; what is the alternative!? If OILISGREAT.COM claims that a little-known yet promising source of clean energy will never become a viable technology, would it be okay for that claim to be echoed in Wikivoice!? Oktayey (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

What if a publication called "[specific minoritized group] quarterly" published a piece called "People of [specific minoritized group] are not all Pedophiles"? Would you dismiss it as biased? That is, would you dismiss the publication based solely on the focus/identity of the publisher? Because it appears that's what you're doing here. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sativa Inflorescence According to WP:IIS, an independent source is one that "has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective". As emotionally-charged as your example is, this hypothetical publication would not be considered an independent source for that claim because it would clearly have an interest in preserving the dignity of the group it represents. Oktayey (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you read past the first sentence of WP:IIS. Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic and Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea.. Theses sources don't get any financial gain from negatively reporting on GAG. This makes them independent, definitively. If you don't have any evidence of a financial/legal relationship between the sources and GAG, you need to drop the "not-independent" argument. The only argument can be over the reliability of the sources not there independence. Cakelot1 (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cakelot1 Oh, I actually didn't read that far into WP:IIS. My bad.

However, the hypothetical source in that example would be clearly biased, so, per WP:BIASED, the claim should be attributed to the publication in the text. Similarly, the sources in this case should also be attributed in the text—not echoed in Wikivoice. Oktayey (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you've stated your argument enough times already; people just aren't agreeing with you, and you need to move on. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-LGBT" is widely supported in the sources from what I can see and so should absolutely should be in the article. "Far-right" or at the very least "right-wing activist" is also supported by the sources. I noted this in the excerpts above, that come from some of the sources. We reflect what sources say, per WP:NPOV, so if the sources say they are far-right and anti-LGBT we say that.

I don't believe I've seen a policy saying we can discount sources because editors have decided they are too "Biased" on a particular subject. As Wikipedia:Independent sources#Biased sources says A source can be biased without compromising its independence. When a source strongly approves or disapproves of something, but it has no connection to the subject and does not stand to benefit directly from promoting that view, then the source is still independent. Cakelot1 (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cakelot1 I never denied the sources in question say GAG is far-right and anti-LGBT. However, per WP:BIASED, contentious claims of fact should be attributed to the sources that make them. Resutlingly, all three of the sources present on WP:RSP are explicitly noted to require their 'contentious claims of fact' to be attributed to them. The remaining two sources clearly also hold major bias, and so this extends to them as well. Oktayey (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The remaining two sources clearly also hold major bias – you can't just assert that without any arguments. A quick perusal of the WP:RSN archives also suggests The Advocate is generally seen as reliable. LGBTQ Nation has only one substantial thread with mostly context-specific quibbling, but nothing to really say they aren't RS. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 23:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste A little bit ago, I rummaged around recent mentions of The Advocate on WP:RSN, and I found no suggestion that the source is suitable for backing such claims without attribution.

As for LN, the thread you linked pretty clearly reaches the consensus that the source is—at the very least—biased, meaning their claims should be attributed per WP:BIASED. Oktayey (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You're ignoring GLAAD and ADL also calling them anti-LGBT. When RS commonly call them anti-LGBT, like here, we do the same. Now would you please accept that the consensus is against you and stop beating a dead horse? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste I can't find where GLAAD is directly cited in this article, and as for ADL, WP:RSP SPECIFICALLY says "the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL should be attributed".

With this page so blatantly out of line with Wikipedia's standards, you've got some nerve calling my attempt at fixing it "beating a dead horse". Oktayey (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's requirement that sources be independent from the topic That's a misunderstanding of WP:INDY. INDY does not mean that the sources must be independent from the topic area, they must be independent from the article subject. For this article it means sources that are independent from Gays Against Groomers, not sources that are independent from LGBT+ topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th I didn't read far enough into WP:IIS to get to the part elaborating that dependency is determined by "any financial or legal relationship to the topic"—That's my bad.

However, the sources are still clearly biased, and so their claims should be attributed to them in the text per WP:BIASED. Oktayey (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to an article about an anti-LGBT group that has sourcing you find adequate? Or do you think wikivoice should never be used to call an organization anti-LGBT? Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sativa Inflorescence I have no objection to using wikivoice to echo claims made by reliable and unbiased sources, but all three of the sources in question listed on WP:RSP are noted to be of questionable reliability and that their claims should therefore be attributed, and the remaining two sources are activist sites that shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia for facts in the first place. Oktayey (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

the remaining two sources are activist sites that shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia for facts in the first place. LGBTQ publications are actually the best sources for facts regarding LGBTQ topics. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sativa Inflorescence Regardless of your personal perception of reliability, I think you'd agree that, for instance, a publication written by avid Macintosh users probably shouldn't be trusted to provide unbiased commentary on Windows. Oktayey (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally skeptical of anything that attributes something to "critics." The problem with that is that it's essentially a circular argument - anyone who publishes anything you consider critical of the subject is axiomatically a critic, which would lead to all descriptions you object to being attributed to "critics." I'm also not convinced by the argument that all LGBT-focused publications are axiomatically biased - it strikes me as similar to arguing that eg. all publications from a particular nation are biased or that we can't trust the New York Times to report on New York; it's too sweeping and ultimately runs into the same circular argument of "I disagree with X, so any source that agrees with X is axiomatically biased." To show that a source is biased you have to actually demonstrate that their reporting itself is biased. In any case, I've added another citation. --Aquillion (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion I didn't choose that wording because of the substance of the source's claims, but because of the sources themselves. WP:BIASED says that claims made by biased sources should be attributed to them in the text. Attributing the claims to the sources individually would be unnecessarily lengthy for an article introduction, so I figured collecting them into the concise label of "critics" would work the best. I get that it sounds kind of weaselly, but I'd be glad to hear a better alternative! Oktayey (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The alternative is that we state the facts, as indicated by the sources, as facts; it is simply not true that all the sources cited are WP:BIASED, for one, and there aren't any sources disputing them, for another. (eg. what's your objection to the Arizona Mirror, which describes the group as the far-right anti-LGBTQ organization Gays Against Groomers?) Per WP:NPOV, it is a violation of NPOV to report uncontested facts as opinions, which would make the sort of attribution you're suggesting inappropriate. EDIT: Also, your recent addition was synth. There is no contradiction between an organization being both LGBT and anti-LGBT, just like people can in fact hold views against their own race or nationality. (See eg. Self-hating Jew.) Using the LA Times piece to "rebut" coverage describing the group as anti-LGBT is therefore inappropriate synthesis because you're creating the appearance of a contradiction yourself. --Aquillion (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion First off, you're already stood on very wobbly ground arguing that the sources in question are not biased. For example, the AZMirror article is heavily editorialized.

I the very first paragraph it says Arizona GOP lawmakers have a "vendetta against drag performers", with no substantiation to be seen anywhere. Halfway down the article, it's written the bill passed committee "despite its glaring flaws"—that seems far from a neutral tone to me.

As for your second argument, you are missing a vital piece. Even tolerating the proposition that somebody can be simultaneously described as both "LGBT" and "anti-LGBT" equally truthfully, you aren't considering what is *absent* from the LA Times article. You'd think that if a group was unquestionably "far-right" or "anti-LGBT", a reliable source would at least give either detail a brief mention when mentioning it, let alone on an article regarding that exact topic, right? Not only does the article describe GAG in a manner that presumptively precludes it from being "anti-LGBT", it doesn't make even the most brief mention of any such allegation, despite the topic at hand clearly warranting such. Finally, as if driving the final nail into this ridiculous dispute's coffin, the LA Times is in far better standing on WP:RSP than any of the sources claiming GAG's ideological orientation. Oktayey (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The LA Times article only mentions them in passing; we can't gather anything from what a passing mention doesn't say. And your assertion that the AZMirror article is biased is essentially arguing that it's biased because it says things you disagree with - by your logic, no neutral source could ever say that the lawmakers were going after drag performers or that the bill had glaring flaws, because you consider those things false and therefore anyone who says them is biased. --Aquillion (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion Whether or not it was a 'passing mention' is completely irrelevant. I repeat: If a group mentioned in any capacity by a reliable source were so certainly "far-right" and "anti-LGBT", it would be explicitly stated so, even in an article completely unrelated to those topics.

With this article using Wikivoice to echo claims made by opinionated publications attributing an ideological stance to a group, to argue that a reliable source must explicitly declare that the group does NOT exhibit said ideological stance in order to remove Wikivoice from the claim is preposterous. WP:BIASED clearly outlines how claims made by biased sources should be attributed to the source in the text. Therefore, biased sources should not have their claims echoed in Wikivoice, EVEN if no source that contradicts their claim exists.

As for the bias of the article in question, it is not the content of its claims that reveal its bias, but instead, the nature of its claims. To assume that one solely takes issue with the former—that they simply do not tolerate differing views—is frankly an insult to their character. Let me dissect one of the author's displays of bias for you:

The very first paragraph contains a glaring presupposition, claiming "[...] Arizona Republican lawmakers have advanced in their vendetta against drag performers". That phrase discreetly asserts the claim that those in question have a "vendetta against drag performers" in the first place, but nowhere in the article is there any substantiation for this claim. Instead, the it's worded in a way that implies it's an indisputable fact, hidden within a greater sentence that diverts the reader's focus elsewhere. It doesn't take detective work to conclude this article exhibits a staggering slant. Oktayey (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, of course the fact that it's a passing mention matters. Half of your argument hinges on the fact that they didn't say XYZ, therefore that's an argument against using other sources that say XYZ. The fact that their coverage has no depth at all makes that a weak argument, since we can't conclude much from what's absent from a bare two sentences that say little overall. Likewise, your objections to how they describe the topic are essentially you disputing the facts - sources are not required to convince you personally, nor are they required to present their full list of evidence for everything they say, especially when covering one part of a larger topic. If you don't believe that Arizona Republican lawmakers are targeting drag performances specifically as part of a larger campaign against them, you're welcome to believe that all you like, but you can't demand that a source be considered biased based solely on that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion You're placing massive undue weight on clearly opinionated sources. The source I provided is in far better standing than any of the others involved, yet you insist that since the article made only a 'passing mention' of a group that is as sparsely-reported on as this, its blatant omission of what would be a crucially relevant detail is nill.

Let's also not forget that the description the article gave of GAG presumptively precludes it from the labeling the biased sources give it. Tell me: Would the author of the article expect a reader to consider that the group he described as "a small LGBT group" could be "anti-LGBT"!? Clearly not, since he apparently didn't see any need to elaborate further.

As for your second argument, I reiterate that the substance of the claim I gave as an example was not what I was scrutinizing, but instead the slanted writing which exemplifies the writer's bias. It is one thing to claim as fact what is readily provable to the reader. It is a wholly different to present a contentious claim not only as a fact, but a well-accepted one.

The kind of writing in that AZMirror article is comparable to saying "Everyone knows that [controversial claim]". Would you not agree that such a statement sounds much more biased than even simply making the controversial claim on its own? Sure, the claim itself may or may not be true, but it is indisputable that the topic is divisive, and not widely accepted. Oktayey (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Oktayey, please drop this stick on these sources being biased. Repeatedly asserting it in every discussion is not convincing other editors of this point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree Oktayey you need to drop the stick. Rephrasing and repeating yourself will not convince anyone.  // Timothy :: talk  16:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I applaud your attempts at talking some sense into these folks. However, unfortunate as it is, Wikimedia is not the kind of place that's run by unbiased people. Like all the others, it has to lean in some sort of direction. You and I should just accept that fact. Troopersho (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

As I'm sure your aware Wikimedia does not run Wikipedia's article content, it is run by the community based on WP:PAGs that have been decided by conscious. Many of those policies say we can only write what Reliable Sources (RSs) say. That means we are biased towards what such sources say, by design. In other words if you don't think the article represents the "WP:TRUTH"™, the problem isn't with the people enforcing our sourcing policy but with either all WP:RSs or the bredth WP:RSs presented. As has been said over and over, if you have sources that describe a conflicting view your free to present them (but discounting WP:RSs because you don't like what they say and calling them biased isn't going change the article). Cakelot1 (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

whatever Troopersho (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I 100% agree. This article is the most biased, non-neutral article I have read on Wikipedia so far. NeuroZachary (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Could not agree more. If we are going to be claiming that this organization is far-right, we need to specify the sources that say so, and specify that it is not a solid truth. The organization is not far-right, not sure what you guys consider far-right.. but I don't think supporting gay marriage and gay rights is a far-right thing. NeuroZachary (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Short description

@Rlendog: Please follow WP:BRD and not WP:BRR, ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I addressed the issue expressed in the edit summary to the R. Rlendog (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

But, as the lead sentence says, this organization is not only opposed to GAC, but also other LGBT-related things. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste The claim that GAG opposes GAC for minors is not contentious, but the claim that they are anti-LGBT obviously is. Until a reliable source that's minimally biased can back up that claim, it should not be stated in Wikivoice. Oktayey (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you please not spread that argument into this thread too? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As long as you are bringing the issue into this thread, Oktayey is right to address it here. There may be other issues that the organization opposes but they are primarily known for opposing gender-affirming care for minors. Rlendog (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As a debate, this seems to be going nowhere with respect to summarizing what is known about the organization vs parroting talking points of organizations that are hostile to it. A much improved version of the lede was recently reverted, and I'm not looking to get involved in the editing of this article, as the time investment is not returning good enough value. I suggest raising this article's neutrality issues with the wider community. 86Sedan 12:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Opposing GAC for minors is anti-LGBTQ... also see reliable sources https://www.azmirror.com/2023/03/16/arizona-senate-passes-anti-drag-bills/, republished in https://time.com/6260421/tennessee-limiting-drag-shows-status-of-anti-drag-bills-u-s/ as well as https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/republicans-push-anti-trans-bill-past-first-hurdle-in-arizona-senate-15389213 also see members of the group writing anti-gay slurs outside a nyc councilmembers office https://abc7ny.com/nyc-ny-councilmember-vandalism-erik-boettcher-drag-queen-story-hour/12591944/ also see https://www.businessinsider.com/proud-boys-2022-break-records-anti-lgbtq-protests-extremism-watchdog-2023-1 "That same Saturday, some 20 Proud Boys joined an anti-LGBTQ "Protect the Children" rally on the beach in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. They were joined by QAnon conspiracy theorists and a group called "Gays Against Groomers." so they are at an anti-LGBTQ protest yet aren't anti-lgbtq? Give me a break. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

RS are RS. If RS says they are anti-LGBT so can we. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I wasn't objecting to including claims RS make, I was objecting to presenting claims biased RS make in WP:WIKIVOICE, as opposed to attributing them to their origins like WP:BIASED calls for. Oktayey (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Objecting to groups and people who engage in hate and homophobia is not a "bias", it is the default, baseline expectation of a functional, rational human being. Homophobia does not have a "side" that needs to be balanced any more than Nazism does. Zaathras (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Zaathras Are you saying GAG engages in homophobia? I'm pretty sure that isn't true; I haven't seen anything suggesting such. The group's founder is even homosexual. Oktayey (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything suggesting such. You have seen many suggestions as such on this very page, or you're not Listening. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 22:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

What you have or have not seen is the least of my concerns. Zaathras (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Members have literally written hate speech at a NYC councilmembers home (I mistakenly referred to it as his office, this makes it worse IMO). Additionally they attend events with people who are outwardly homophobic and far right. Your constant WP:ICANTHEARYOU is telling, and I am concerned you cannot look at this topic with a NPOV. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You may not be sure, but that is wp:or, I am sure they are (which is also wp:or) whose OR wins? Neither hence why we go by what ERS say. If there are no RS that says "they are not homophobic" that means that no reason to assume RS are wrong, water is wet no matter how many sources do not say "water is wet". Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven This has been the first time I've even seen a *claim* that they're homophobic—even this article doesn't claim so. What RS support this claim? Oktayey (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You are correct I should have said Transphobic. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

But that brings us back to the original issue that started this thread. Saying they are anti-LGBT in the short description and in the opening sentence implies something broader than what they actually are. Even though RSes say they are anti-LGBT, and even if we believe these RSes are unbiased, and so we feel obligated to include this term in Wikipedia's voice in the article, we are not obligated to make this particular claim in the first sentence and the short description when we know it is overly broad and there are other reliably sourced but narrower (and more precise, if not more accurate) definitions we can use there. Rlendog (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It is pretty clear based on their actions and the actions of their members that they are indeed what RS say they are, which is anti-LGBT. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

They are many things, according to RSes. Not all of them can be in the "short" description. Anti-LGBT is hardly the best or most precise description of what they are. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Well what are they, according to RS? Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven A few describe them as an "LGBT group", though they weren't cited in this article the last time I checked. Oktayey (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I haven't checked recently, but the ones I remember are the LA Times and Fox Business. Obviously the latter is biased, but only as much as many of the sources this article currently cites to support the opposite claim. Oktayey (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is the article. Per WP:RSP, Fox isn't deprecated, though their talk show segments are considered generally unreliable, which this article does not fall under. Again, it's absolutely biased, but it's around the same league of bias as the other sources. Oktayey (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's only marginally reliable for politics, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what WP:RSP says. It continues: "[Fox] generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating *exceptional claims*..." (emphasis added)—it still compliments the LA Times' description of GAG as an "LGBT group". Oktayey (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Fox would be deprecated, also we would need to see the actual source, so as to gauge context. @@@@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

For example, "an organization opposed to gender-affirming care for minors (and Drag Queen Story Hour events), if we want to add the parenthetical. That is far more descriptive of their activities than "anti-LGBT", which several editors who support that description in the narrative, including the original author, have acknowledged is overly broad by saying that the organization is more anti-trans than anti-LGBT.Rlendog (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

drag queens are not necessarily trans... https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/5/13/17938130/transgender-people-drag-queens-kings like are you joking? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"an organization opposed to gender-affirming care for minors (and Drag Queen Story Hour events)" seems to be what they are. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is why I think that should be the short description (and really the opening sentence). I am somewhat indifferent whether the parenthetical item needs to be there since that seems to be a lesser priority for them but fine with including (although if we include the parentheses should of course come off). Rlendog (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Organization opposed to gender-affirming care for minors and Drag Queen Story Hour events is 89 characters. WP:SDLENGTH recommends 40. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

"Organization opposing gender-affirming care for minors" is 49, which is above the recommendation but not by much and not out of line with many other short descriptions. Rlendog (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, its not all they are. Hence why this is so hard to change. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"LGBT representation"

@Slatersteven You reverted my edit changing "LGBT representation" in the lede to "LGBT teachings". When you say "It not just about teaching, but even being present", you aren't alleging GAG opposes LGBT people even being *present* at schools, are you? Oktayey (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

They have opposed rainbow murals and other non-teaching aspects of LGBT reresentation. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to point out that our article makes it clear they oppose more than just teaching. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, how about "LGBT endorsement by schools"? I think that covers everything appropriately. Oktayey (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Murals are "endorsement"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Um, yes? Oktayey (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to cultural depictions of groups—in art, film, television, literature, etc.—I encounter the term "representation" ubiquitously and have never encountered "endorsement". Maybe my experience is outside of the norm, but I'd be surprised to learn so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, referring to "a group's representation" is used far more frequently to mean the expression of the group's ideas and views, than simply the nature or existence of the group itself. Oktayey (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Addition: To be clear, I'm not saying that "endorsement" is a synonym of "representation"; I'm saying that, for instance, a school aiming to paint an LGBT mural is a clear endorsement. Oktayey (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

So if they have a mural of (say) butterflies they are promoting butterflies? Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Not quite the same, but that's the general concept. If they painted a mural of a group of police officers, or the Scottsboro Boys, or the Mythbusters, they would be promoting the police, the Scottsboro Boys, or the Mythbusters, respectively. Oktayey (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Would it? So you have any RS that say School murals are a form of promotion? Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious? This sounds like sealioning. Oktayey (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious, you want to overturn what we say based upon your wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're concerned about WP:OR, tell me which source supports the claim that GAG opposes "LGBT representation in schools". Oktayey (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is it is clear they are not only targeting teaching about LGTB (I am not even sure I understand what that even means). So we can't say they are just against teaching. So we paraphrase, and "representation" is neutral, it does not infer or imply anything. So (per both wp:blp and wp:npov we use a neutral word. To say this has a purpose (in our words) needs RS to back to the claim. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven So you're arguing that, for instance, concluding that painting an LGBT mural is an 'endorsement' is WP:OR, but concluding that GAG "opposes LGBT representation in schools" is not WP:OR? Oktayey (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This framing of representation as "endorsing" a demographic group (which is what queer people are) is just weird. If I draw a French flag, I'm not "endorsing" the French. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It's all context-dependent. Including a French flag in a textbook on a page about France is not an endorsement, but painting a French flag onto a wall at a school, sans further context, absolutely is an endorsement. What other intention could such a display serve? Oktayey (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I am saying one offers no value judgment as a paraphrasing of what RS says, the other does (and thus violates wp:npov). What are they opposing in schools if not representations of LGTB lifestyles? Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Saying GAG "opposes LGBT representation" is not paraphrasing the sources—I'm pretty sure not a single source chose that word. Like I said, 'representation' in this context can easily be interpreted as 'presence' or 'participation'. Instead, I think the sources much more strongly support something like 'promotion' or 'endorsement'. Oktayey (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Representation refers to presence in media. Its not really used to mean the presence of individuals in a space, unless that is a something like a movie or play. I'm not sure any meaningful amount of people would read "opposes lgbt representation" as opposing the presence of students, faculty, or staff. Filiforme1312 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I simply disagree. However, even discounting the possibility for "representation" to be misinterpreted in this context, if I'm not mistaken, none of the sources purport that GAG "opposes LGBT representation". In the example previously brought up here, painting a mural dedicated to a group is clearly going beyond simply acknowledging the group's existence—it's actively promoting said group. Therefore, GAG opposing the mural does not suggest they "oppose LGBT representation", but instead, oppose LGBT promotion. Oktayey (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Two Vs one, no consensus, close this now. Slatersteven (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 9:37, 4 April 2023‎ (UTC)

11 days of meandering discussion

• Motion to close, please. Zaathras (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)