Talk:Gays Against Groomers

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)

BLP - 'History' section

@Zaathras You said in your edit description that "none of [the removed content] is poorly-sourced".

WP:BLP says: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." (emphasis added), and "The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism."

The content I removed was supported by Media Matters, the Daily Dot, and LGBTQ Nation. Are you suggesting that sources which WP:RSP acknowledges no consensus exists regarding their reliability, and a source that is similarly sensationalist, are "high-quality sources" for the purposes of BLP? Oktayey (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The citations are not being used to source anything controversial or outlandish.

• 1) GAG is a conservative organization. Fact.
• 2) Jaimee Michell worked for the Trump 2020 campaign. Fact.
• 3) Stop the Steal is widely and accurately described as a conspiracy theory. Fact.
• 4) Alejandra Caraballo's investigative journalism literally cites numerous screenshots to support their findings. All facts.

Your editing history since March 2 has focused exclusively on this article, you really need to find another topic area to expand into. Zaathras (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the purpose of BLP's requirement that information about living persons be supported only by high-quality sources not to avoid jeopardizing people's reputations with flawed reporting? According to whom are the claims uncontroversial? Wikipedia doesn't accept "trust me bro" as a source. If an editor personally finds a claim about a living person from a low-quality source to be true, that's WP:OR, and if high-quality sources find them to be true, they can be cited. Otherwise, it stays off Wikipedia.

Also, I don't think you understand WP:SPA. There's nothing scandalous about primarily editing pages of a particular topic—that essay even acknowledges so. The problem the essay addresses lies in conflicts of interest and advocacy. Oktayey (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Media matter is "marginally reliable " as far as I know LGBTQ Nation has not been discussed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Aye, so I think we agree that Media Matters isn't a "high-quality source". As for LGBTQN, I believe its sensationalist reporting makes it fall in the league of "tabloid journalism", which WP:BLP warns against using. Oktayey (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You may think that, but others clearly do not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying others do not believe LGBTQN isn't a high-quality source? I think it's quite self-evident. The cited article utilizes strongly loaded language and displays no effort toward impartiality. Oktayey (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No I am saying that the people who used those sources think they are good enough, therefore you need to convince them you are right, so far you have failed to do so. It might be time to take it to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Would WP:BLPN not be more appropriate since this dispute involves the heightened sourcing requirements for claims about living persons? Oktayey (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No, as one of the sources has not even been discussed, and it is only your opinion its not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, not relevant. We are not saying anything uncontroversial here, just simple factual statements. Zaathras (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems you missed my earlier comment. According to whom are the claims uncontroversial? If an editor personally finds a claim about a living person from a low-quality source to be true, that's WP:OR, and if high-quality sources find them to be true, they can be cited. Oktayey (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This is all predicated on the idea that LGBTQ Nation is a low-quality source, which you so far have failed to convince anyone of. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

According to common sense, that is who. Zaathras (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand that it can be difficult to see from a different perspective, but something thought to be common sense by one could be seen as nonsense by another. Isn't this the very reason Wikipedia requires information to be sourced? Oktayey (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

What you are erecting is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. We're done here. Zaathras (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Take it to wp;rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Not an anti-LGBTQ+ group, not a "far right" group.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure who keeps adding that this group is a far right group, but that needs to stop. No far-right group would be advocating for same-sex marriage and gay rights. The organization has only ever advocated against gender transitioning of minors. The misinformation and bias in this article is abundantly clear, and it needs to be fixed. NeuroZachary (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, please self-revert this edit as there is quite clearly not a consensus for it. Secondly, please look at the FAQ at the top of the talk page, and review the previous discussion on why it is NPOV complaint to describe this organisation as far-right. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The group is not a far-right organization. Please cease spreading misinformation. NeuroZachary (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Many reliable sources describe the organisation as far-right. The NPOV policy means that we follow what the balance of sources say about a given topic, which means that non-neutral descriptors are acceptable per policy. Because reliable sources describe the organisation as such, to not describe the organisation in those terms would be to introduce our own POV about this organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

In the time taken to write my last reply, NeuroZachary has been indefinitely blocked. Any objections to removing the NPOV tag that they added to the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Not from me. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sideswipe9th. This has been discussed before, and consensus is that they are far-right and anti-LGBT. What matters is how reliable sources characterize them (WP:NPOV), not your own interpretations (WP:NOR). -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on "far right" and "anti-LGBT". Also agreed on removing the NPOV tag. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate my opposition to this consensus. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to argue that the provided sources are appropriate for claims like these. They are so blatantly ideologically opposed to GAG that their characterization of the group is worthless. Oktayey (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

What source would you find acceptable to back up this claim? Personally, I would be fine walking back "far right" to just "right wing" because of how mainstream their rhetoric has become. The "anti-LGBT" claim looks nearly bulletproof to me. HarryKernow (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

For starters, definitely not advocacy magazines. I think claims of a group's political position in WP:WIKIVOICE should be strictly backed up by solidly impartial mainstream publications that are professionally written and use objective, non-sensationalist language. Oktayey (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

What you think, i.e. your personal opinion, has no bearing. Perceived impartiality does not play a part in determining whether or not a source is reliable. Zaathras (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I looked thru the sources last night. There appears to be an over-reliance on LGBTQ Nation (5) and The Advocate (10). Regardless, here was my overview I compiled.

Source	WP:RSP rating	Claims
ADL	Generally reliable	"anti-LGBTQ+ extremist coalition"
Time	Generally reliable	"anti-LGBTQ"
Advocate	Not mentioned	"Michell and other far-right groups", "anti-trans hate group"
Phoenix New Times	Not mentioned	"anti-LGBTQ"
ABC News	Generally reliable	GAG uses "anti-gay slurs", mentions "online conspiracy theories" about drag story reading being a "weapon in the hard right culture wars"
The Intercept	Generally reliable	"Right-Wing", "far-right activists", "anti-LGBTQ+"
SPLC	Generally reliable	"extremist group", "anti-transgender activists"

It seems to me that "far right" is marginally defensible, but "right-wing" and "anti-LGBT" are both quintessential descriptors. Either way, these descriptors are certainly being used in mainstream media outlets. HarryKernow (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have missed some crucial details on WP:RSP. In particular, ADL, The Intercept, and SPLC are all explicitly noted to be WP:BIASED, and thus unsuitable for supporting the relevant claims in WP:WIKIVOICE—their claims must be attributed in-text.

Before we continue, do we agree on this? Oktayey (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is an overwhelming consensus from these sources and therefore it isn't a particularly contentious claim. I also see this conversation has been had before with you. Please do not split hairs, and please do not act like you're the train conductor of this conversation - if you have a point, please say it immediately instead of "Before we continue". HarryKernow (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you arguing that a claim cannot be considered contentious if many similarly biased sources make it? I think that's simply contrary to reason—by exclusively citing sources that exhibit the same biases, *any* claim can be presented as not contentious.

Last time I checked, this article ignores sources like the LA Times (here's a mirror on the Seattle Times site to avoid the paywall) and Fox Business (obviously biased, but in the other direction) that label GAG as a "small LGBT group" and an "LGBT organization", respectively.

As for why I'm going step by step, I think the fact that you disputed a point I thought wasn't even up for debate demonstrates it nicely. Playing ping-pong with a rapidly increasing number of balls at once gets messy and exhausting. Also, I wanted to go to bed. Oktayey (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not ignore that I also included ABC News, Phoenix New Times, and Time. Since then I have added a few sources to the article as well, though I have not yet noted their word-for-word terminology in describing the group. Also do not ignore the widespread consensus that the slur "groomer" is itself pushed by far right conspiracy theorists, even among sources like the LA Times. Furthermore, you cannot seriously claim to be against (unattributed) biased sources and use just about the most clearly unreliable (at least most notoriously biased) political source out there to demonstrate this (Fox News). On the matter of LA Times printing just "small LGBT group" - we know that this is a dangerous understatement on LA Times' part from our other sources, especially considering the inclusion of the "T" which they are quite explicitly against. It makes me seriously doubt their integrity/reliability on this matter. In any case, that phrasing is clearly a tiny minority among sources I can find. On the "step by step" issue, I hope it is your intention to lay out your entire argument at once from now on. We need to make sure we are working with a mutual understanding, and intentionally withholding reasoning in order to grab control of a conversation can quickly create a dysfunctional conversation. HarryKernow (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware you cited other sources, but I was hoping to strike the most egregious ones from the conversation out of the gate to help save both of our breath.

As for "groomer", I've only seen the same biased sources report that it's a blanket anti-LGBT slur, and I think using that claim on its own to support labeling GAG as anti-LGBT would be WP:OR anyway. Also, I'm not sure you looked at that LA Times article you linked too closely, since it's clearly marked as an opinion piece at the top of the page.

Regarding Fox Business, I only resorted to citing them because this article already excessively cites biased publications, and even advocacy magazines. I don't understand how Fox Business would be disallowed due to bias when LGBTQN and The Advocate are fine.

About the LA Times article I presented, you can't just entirely discount a source's claim because other sources convince you it's a 'dangerous understatement', let alone sources that are far more heavily biased.

Finally, you accusing me of "trying to grab control of the conversation" makes me skeptical that you're trying to assume good faith. All I'm trying to do is engage in discourse in a precise and orderly manner, and you're coming off as pretty aggressive. I think my approach as already proven its worth by highlighting all these things we disagree about in advance—writing a full dissertation would effectively be putting the cart before the horse, since we'd wind up reaching these disputes regardless. Oktayey (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, it's a matter of fact. Saying "Before we continue" is giving yourself explicit control over the flow of the conversation. Regardless, this conversation will go nowhere if you will not consider my sources holistically and if you are going to start calling into question my good faith. Consider bringing up any further concerns you have at WP:NPOVN. Furthermore, please review WP:CPP which explicitly covers behaviors like arguing "that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral", repeated use of "the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times", attempting "to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories", and editing "primarily or entirely on one topic or theme." HarryKernow (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

1) That 'matter of fact' is a technicality—it makes me sound as if I'm acting maliciously.

2) Are you objecting to me evaluating the sources individually rather than treating them as a collective? If so, why?

3) Why are you implying that I'm arguing "[my] own preferred source is neutral"? I never once asserted that Fox Business is unbiased—I immediately and directly noted their bias. All I asked was why you consider that particular biased source unsuitable for inclusion, but other—arguably much more biased—sources okay.

No offense, but I don't find the rest of the accusations worthy of responses. Oktayey (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You do not need to intentionally "act maliciously" to get bad outcomes. See "black box". You insist on pushing essentially one realistic source (LA Times) to downplay the labels the article uses and insist on questioning less than half of my sources listed. Furthermore, to suggest using Fox when WP:RSP specifically mentions their unreliability on cultural and political topics makes me seriously question your sincerity in questioning other supposedly biased sources. Finally, even if we were to completely remove the supposedly biased sources you've called out, the terminology (especially "anti-LGBT") would be fine to stay as-is.

When I linked WP:NPOVN, I didn't realize that you held the conversation at the top of the page where countless editors basically said everything I've said; you have been repeatedly bringing up the same articles and talking points for nearly 2 months. I think it is time you realized that without fundamental changes in how sources are describing the group, you aren't going to see any reductions in descriptor severity. HarryKernow (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll be real succinct: The only reason I'm presenting Fox is because it seems the local consensus here is that biased sources are permissible. I don't like the rules, but I'm trying to play by them, if you get what I'm saying. Oktayey (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This is getting to be beyond a joke Oktayey, WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Pokelova (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not that it is biased, its that it is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSP shows that Fox is a biased and marginally reliable source, but not wholly unreliable. It is merely unsuitable for substantiating exceptional claims, and a well-respected source like the LA Times labelling GAG an "LGBT group" indicates the claim is not exceptional. Oktayey (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reads like political dogma. Not up to Wikipedia standards.

Much of this seems to be political rants and should be cleaned up. Wikipedia’s well earned neutrality should be mantained. 97.120.133.210 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful to tell us what the problems are, rather than expecting us to guess. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It all reads like a decent quality Wikipedia article to me. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a political rant. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I 100% agree. HurricaneOcean (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Incredibly biased, misrepresented article.

Who authorized the article to be written this way? Exactly what "consensus" was met to arbitrarily claim that this organization is a far-fight group? This entire article is so blatantly a political rant, and is a complete misrepresentation of the purpose and ethics of Wikipedia.

I can see that every single conversation has been shutdown by the same 2-3 people, and is constantly being edited to include politicized comments by the same 2-3 people.

What are we going to be calling actual far-right groups now? Because right now you've grouped a group of people who support gay marriage and want the LGBTQ+ community to have a better image with a term that is often used to describe Nazis or fascists, and you have completely eradicated any validity behind what "far-right" even means. HurricaneOcean (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I vote to remove the classifications of "far-right" and "anti-LGBT", and furthermore to add a neutrality dispute warning until everything in this article is redone.

And I'm sure the following people that have tried to comment on this, but whom have been silenced, agree:

Oktayey

97.120.133.210

Rlendog

Troopersho

NeuroZachary

Britannic16

24.28.41.202

Globe Holder

Zaathras

EytanMelech

2601:2C3:8681:65C0:EDAF:25B3:3F83:7D23

2A01:C23:C4D8:F500:9CE0:92BF:544:B992

& countless others... not to mention the people who tried editing the article but got reverted, usually by the same person (Sideswipe9th) who seems to think they can just declare something to be a consensus and magically it becomes one. HurricaneOcean (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Zaathras, I would VERY MUCH appreciate it if you stopped reverting and hiding my discussion prompt repeatedly, thank you. HurricaneOcean (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

We will be taking care of this by other means, since your are zealously insistent on revert-warring. In the meantime, kindly keep my name out of your mouth, i.e. stop pinging me. Zaathras (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, I already started in the process for reporting you. You don't have the right to delete or remove comments and discussions here. This is a TALK PAGE. If you disagree, explain why, don't silence or remove peoples' abilities to talk. Your political motives are so absurdly blatant. HurricaneOcean (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you a sockpuppet of NeuroZachary? A few minutes after they made their last listed edit on 01:53, 28 April 2023, you created your account on 01:58, 28 April 2023. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)