Talk:LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory

Berkeley study

Why is there no mention to the 2010 Berkeley study, "Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis)", published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences with nearly 700 citations, which is the source of this conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.207.125.157 (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that says this is relevant to the idea there is a conspiracy to turn men gay? Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Very Serious Issues with the Whole Article

Hi, I’ve deleted a bunch of stuff for concision; also stuff related to RFK jr and also image of Alex Jones.

I ask you please discuss and gain consensus before reverting. I have removed references to RFK jr., bc he is a living person WP:BLP and by virtue of being involved in politics post 1990s, also “a contentious topic,” WP:CTOP both of which cause substantially stricter application of Wikipedia rules and guidelines to “attach.” Also arguably a medical topic and thus WP:MEDRS would apply. Much of this is not sourced to even WP:RS.

Additionally, I have not surveyed the sources on this topic, so I don’t really know, but it strikes me that it’s quite plausible that much of the text may not observe WP:NPOV and proper sourcing, as outlined above.

The whole article needs to be reviewed with this in mind. Also needs to be edited for syntax, grammar, cohesion, concision.

I strongly feel this article should be removed and throughly re-edited per above before you submit it for consideration for article publishing here. Thanks for your consideration.

I can tell you have thought about this issue and you solidly believe you are doing a good act, what must be done to “put the truth out there.” I relate to that a lot. Cheers. JustinReilly (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Being alive does not mean we canot say what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above, tbh. Except I think this entire article could be compressed into two brief paragraphs, one describing the conspiracy theory and its origins, maybe with a couple of brief quotes, and one providing debunks linked to RS. Leave the meme out completely. Long, detailed takedowns like this article frankly give oxygen to the conspiracy theories they're trying to fight. There's a predictable cycle to these sorts of topics: Some right-wing community comes up with something so extreme and ridiculous it can't be ignored; some well-meaning but hotheaded liberal posts a point-by-point debunk including links to the NYT and all the latest social-justice terms of art; the Trumpists laugh and laugh that they got someone to take so many hours out of their day, and they start over. WP doesn't need to be part of this feedback loop. A summary, a few reliable dismissals, and that's enough. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I just removed more unsourced material [1]. Reliable sources are required for these assertions on Wikipedia and especially for any extraordinary claims. Also, I agree with WeirdNAnnoyed - this entire article could be compressed into two brief paragraphs, one describing the conspiracy theory and its origins, maybe with a couple of brief quotes, and one providing debunks linked to RS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The theory and origins seem to be covered at Tyrone Hayes#Atrazine research (which is where "gay frogs" used to redirect to). GnocchiFan (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Multiple Issues Tag

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq I placed the following Multiple Issues Tag at the top of the article that you’ve reverted a couple of times- “bad formatting” was all you said. My previous edit note was: “The formatting is not good. I’m sorry. But I can not figure out how to fix it. If u can fix it then would really appreciate it if you could. If not, I really don’t think it’s so bad that it needs to be undone- formatting is only visible when note is opened so not an eyesore on the article. Thank you!”

The wikitext of the tag is below. I really tried to fix the formatting but I am not good with technical stuff like this and was completely frustrated and had to give up. Can you pls either fix the formatting or let me put it back. You put a disruptive editing warning on my page and someone else brought an arbitration enforcement request even though there was no prior arbitration. The tag needs to be there because this article is a complete trainwreck stream of conciousness rant that needs to be completely redone. Thanks.

Note: I don’t know why the below text is invisible. Click The edit icon to see it.

JustinReilly (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen your note. You are free to tag this article with issues while it's enough to leave your comments here. You can also draftify it or start a deletion discussion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have tagged it with {{Cleanup rewrite}} now. The editors who are willing to cleanup this article may find your comments here. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Various Liberal Democrat incidents - worth mentioning, or too trivial?

Seeing this article made me remember that there was some news coverage back in 2015 about Tim Farron after a tweet from his account (he was hacked, apparently) seemed to endorse this conspiracy theory specifically in relation to frogs, as part of broader reporting of his views on LGBT+ issues - see e.g. this from the Independent [2]. Two years later, in response to questioning about Farron's views during an election campaign, one of his party's candidates went on to outright endorse the theory and also received news coverage over it ([3]) Would either of these be worth mentioning here alongside the Jones and Kennedy incidents, or are they too minor / trivial (as Farron himself didn't endorse the theory, and the candidate who actually did is otherwise non-notable and didn't get even remotely near being elected)? TrueAnonyman (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)