Talk:Gays Against Groomers

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2023

Request: Change far right anti-LGBT to far right anti-Trans

Change far right anti-LGBT to far right anti-Trans EditorKid (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Reliable sources describe them as being against the entire spectrum, not just transgender. Being (allegedly) gay themselves doesn't mean they cannot be anti-gay. Zaathras (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Not all gay people think the same. The LGBT community is not a hive mind. They all have different perspectives of how the world could work. And what gives you the right to say who's gay and who isn't? Traptor12 (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC) No not a right, a responsibility, to reflect what RS say. One reason is are you correct "they all have different perspectives of how the world could work.", so we do not know the real reason for this movement. We know what they claim, but that does not mean it is true, people (even LGBT people) lie. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Against in what way? If they don't oppose the existence of homosexuals/bisexuals then that's just false. There's no evidence that they do. If anything this is just proving how the "reliable source" criteria is flawed. If you can find evidence that they secretly want to ban homosexuality then you'd have a case. Globe Holder (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Well lets see, harassment of gay counselors (read out article), protesting against pride murals in schools (try reading our article), Protesting pride history months (it is all in the article), do you want me to go on? Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC) We're really not going to be coming to a different conclusion this time guys. Let's put the topic to rest. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC) None of those things prove they oppose the existence of gay people. Oktayey (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC) As has been explained to you over and over again we use the description not because we ourselves have "proved it", but because it is a very common description in the sources, and we only write things based on what sources say. Any argument about what we think is really true in their heart of hearts by you or Slatersteven is beside the point and off topic. If anybody thinks that the description in RSs have changed since the previous discussions then you should present that argument, otherwise the descriptors will remain. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Hey, all I was doing was pointing out that what Steven was presenting as evidence of GAG opposing homosexuality was not at all evidence of that. Oktayey (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC) See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this normal?

Is it normal for an entire talk page to be deleted? This seems like a troubling precedent. Jmaranvi (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

HAs it been, I can still see it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but it lacks any of the actual discussion content (from prior to this week). Jmaranvi (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Am I the only one for whom "[show]" is inactive text that doesn't link to anything? Is it a mobile browser issue? Jmaranvi (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's likely a mobile browser issue. The [show] link is working fine on desktop. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

One more reason mobile view is crap. Dronebogus (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Curiously, when I view either [1] or [2], the collapsed boxes simply display expanded (with no "show"/"hide" button but all the content visible), whereas when I view this page in mobile view, the boxes appear collapsed, with a "show" button that does nothing, so the content is indeed inaccessible. Is there a problem specific to this page, or to the Talk: namespace, or to pages that use multiple {{cot}}s? (Struck the last one, this page doesn't have multiple cots anymore after archiving, but still has the issue.) Should we report this to WP:VPT? -sche (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Just press "edit" or "view source". tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but why does the template behave differently on different pages, such that doing that is required here when it isn't required on other pages? It seems like there may be a fixable bug or deficiency in the code. -sche (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It isn’t Dronebogus (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

THis seems like a technical issue, we cannot solves it, maybe village pump. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Better in-line Sourcing Needed

This article describes this group as "far-right anti-LGBT" and provides two sources - that don't agree with that description. I shouldn't have to come here to read a discussion, I should click on the links provided and it should confirm what's posted. If it's really "a consensus" we should have sources that confirm it available.

The Advocate doesn't describe them as far-right or anti-LGBT. It says "anti-trans". That seems fair.

The second source provided is quite poor, because it's not about the group and only mentions them in passing as "anti-LGBTQ organizations like"... using "organizations" and only mentioning one organizaiton, which makes it look like a bad edit to boot. But - this article doesn't use the term far-right either.

As a long term editor, this article is embarrassing, because I click on the links and they don't support what is said. The debate here is collapsed so people miss it, but even that isn't really convincing. Frankly, "Anti-trans" seems fair, I'm sure we can find justification for Conservative, but "far right anti LGBT" seems quite a stretch - either source it better so a casual reader sees the source, or change it. Wikipedia should strive to be neutral.

I would change it to "Conservative Anti-Trans" myself but obviously people policing this page disagree with that - so it's on you to update the article with proper sources that defend your position if you think "far right anti-lgbt" is better.

Denaar (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

_{Hmmm... I wonder if there's three closed discussions right above this that handle the same question... Eh, it's probably nothing} --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a shame you immediately assume bad-faith.

None of the above discussion changes the fact that the in-line citations do not support the sentence.

"On Wikipedia, an inline citation is generally a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it."

WP:IC

It's a really simple ask - add citations that support the sentence.

Denaar (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The Advocate sources says Michell [GAGs founder] and other far-right groups [...] and Time says [...] anti-LGBTQ organizations like Gays Against Groomers. The two sources seem to support the two claims that the group is "far-right" and "anti-LGBT" in that order. If you want to add any of the many sources that use those descriptors, such as those listed in HarryKernow's source table in the above section (#Not an anti-LGBTQ+ group, not a "far right" group.) then feel free. We are unlikely to use Conservative Anti-Trans when you offer no source based reason to do so. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No, neither claim the group is "far-right". One says anti-LGBT but from context, it's clearly referencing anti-transgender as well. The other says anti-transgender.

Denaar (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources say anti-LGBTQ/anti-LGBT (again see multiple source tables above). You can't just claim they meant anti-trans. If a source wanted to say the group is anti-trans exclusively they would say that. It is not the job of editors to analyse what source Really meant to say. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The very first source says that they use the term "Anti-LGBTQ+" to mean "parts of the LGBTQ+" community.

I'm not arguing the article shouldn't mention these things. Per:

WP:Lead

The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

Since this has been challenged to the point the article is locked, this means that we should have an inline citation - a good quality one - every time a controversial statement is made.

We're also required to be neutral, again, per WP:Lead:

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.

Compare the lead here to Westboro Baptist Church:

The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an American, unaffiliated Primitive Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas, that was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps.

No one, not one person out there, is going to go out on a limb and try to defend WBC. But it's formatted with a neutral statement, says "it is considered" a hate group, not that "it is one". It also has numerous citations backing it up.

Denaar (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Denaar for pointing out the obvious.

I'll steal the thread here to mention Gays Against Groomers was created to protest pedophillia in other words what could be considered lewd and lascivious behavior. I find this a worthy effort as I believe responsible adults want to protect children. Here is a quote from their page: What we are witnessing is mass scale child abuse being perpetrated on an entire generation, and we will no longer sit by and watch it happen. It is going to take those of us from within the community to finally put an end to this insanity, and that's exactly what we're going to do. Link: https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/about

The above should be included in the article and I don't think it was done. A good article should include what the organization is about and what their goals are. The current version doesn't mention what I posted above. It does make GAG sound like they are against alternative lifestyles which they are not. They are for protecting children. Thank you, MDaisy (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

They are for protecting children, they are most decidedly NOT, as shown by reliable sources covering this hate group. What they engage in is Think of the children-style moral panic. Their self-description is irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia guidelines require inline citations? ABSOLUTELY:

WP:Lead

The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.

The opening of this page doesn't follow the guidelines at all:

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.

Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

Compare the lead of this to: Westboro Baptist Church, Fox News.

This is not up to standards.

Denaar (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

How are you able to read that section? It's hidden from me. "[show]" is just inactive text. Jmaranvi (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm - try coming back with a browser, I can get them to expand in Chrome on a desktop. There is also an Archive page here [3]

Denaar (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are the discussions closed, and not *only* closed, but also unreadable? What sort of extraordinary circumstances warranted such a heavy-handed approach? The mere fact that different users keep resurrecting the issue suggests that "consensus" was not the reason. But of course I'm only speculating, because, for some reason, I'm unable to read and determine exactly what occurred. Jmaranvi (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Per a response I received in the section I opened, it appears to be mobile browser issue preventing me from reading. I apologize for thinking it was intentional. Jmaranvi (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Anti-LGBT, when you are LGBT. Some in the organization say LGB&T, to denote the difference. They also ignore the ++. Whoever wrote this page is way off base and illogical. 67.135.159.35 (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is chock-full of problems. Here is another example:

"GAG has been accused of fueling stochastic terrorism, the public condemnation of a group that leads to violent acts against the group."

This is a problem because "has been accused" - by who? It needs a tag right?

It leads to an article that says "Michell and other far-right groups have been accused of fueling stochastic terrorism -- the public condemnation of a group that leads to violent acts against that group."

By who?

"Twitter user Wajahat Ali".

Accurate, factual statement: "Twitter user Wajahat Ali tweeted a news segment where Fox News interviewed Jaimee Mitchell and labeled it stochastic terrorism."

Denaar (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the same non-concerns raised by user Oktayey a few months ago, and rejected. Zaathras (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines apply to all articles.

Denaar (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is saying PAGs don't apply here. As I think is proved by the extensive talk sections above and in the archive, most good faith editors believe the current status quo does follow the guidelines and that the sorts of changes your proposing would take us further away from Wikipediaes PAGs (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, etc). I suggest you read the above sections and come up with an argument that isn't just accusing others of wilfully and knowingly disobeying the rules, in the way you appear to me to be doing. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Calling an article poorly sources is "accusing other of disobeying the rules"? It sounds like you are taking my critique of the article as a personal attack? I'm critiquing the article as it stands, it's not up to Wikipedia standards yet.

Denaar (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The article is not poorly sourced, nor does it run afoul of any Wikipedia standards. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If you read my comments, I've listed multiple places where it doesn't meet Wikpedia standards, along with providing a reference to Wikipedia's standards.

We've all been there - you add a source, it confirms something on the page, someone changes the text... and now the source is orphaned.

The answer is update the article so the sources are in-line at the appropriate spots.

I've read through the first 17 articles on the page taking notes, working through that first and brining up some points here before making changes.

Denaar (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's going to take me a week or so to read all the articles on this page, I'm methodologically working through them before making any changes. It seems that COB tags are being used on this page to signal that "discussion is over" rather than to collapse lengthy markup, therefore I removed them.

Denaar (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You can accuse me of assuming bad faith if you want but my point isn't that you're bad faith. My point is that you are reopening a discussion that has been closed more than four times now, each time with a consensus to keep the current version. Additionally, as someone else pointed out to you, those discussions already involved a great deal more sources than just the ones cited on the page. Something you're only now trying to catch up on reading. The reason I reacted so flippantly is because this issue has been going on for a while now. See also this ANI thread. for a bit more context. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

But I'm not re-opening a discussion. I'm starting a new discussion to improve the citations on the page.

You say "great deal more sources than just the ones cited on the page"...

If those citations are good sources, they should be on the page. That isn't a controversial statement. It's how we improve the page.

Our opinions, ultimately, do not matter. The article has to be built on adequate, third party sources. And where there are unsourced, controversial comments, we need to source them. WP:RS.

Denaar (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have a more up to date logo I would like to add.

I have a more up to date logo I would like to add. It's the one that says GAG all in one character. Is there a way I could do that? MARCIMPERIVM (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

They have a different logo on the website then the one that is on the article. Denaar (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Need to Show Notability with Reliable Sources

I feel like this article has a bit of a Gish Gallop going on. On first glance, the article looks well sourced, with 41 articles!

But to prove this group is notable as an organization, we need to pass WP:OR and specifically... WP:SIRS.

To count as notable we need multiple sources that meet all four of these criteria:

• Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
• Be completely independent of the article subject.
• Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
• Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

There isn't one source that meets all four. And we need multiple sources to prove the topic is notable. Expand to see a summary of all the articles currently on the page. Many of the articles are just like the examples in WP:SIRS - they are a reliable source but one throw-away line. They are in depth, but not a reliable source. A lot of them are tertiary sources - they just repeat what someone else reported. The numbers match the sources on the article today.

Source Summary

One Off 1. "Online Amplifiers of Anti-LGBTQ+ Extremism". Anti-Defamation League. January 24, 2023. [4] "adl 2023". Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account. Descriptors? anti-LGBTQ+ extremist coalition (follow up specifies they use this term when a group "pushes false claims and conspiracy theories" about any part of the LGBTQ+ group.) Summary: Article about social media accounts with a short description of each, does not qualify as in depth coverage. Per WP:RSPADL ADL can be a reliable source, but this is specifically a blog post based on a "partnership between ADL and GLAAD". 3. Burga, Solcyre (March 5, 2023). "Here's the Status of Anti-Drag Bills Across the U.S." Time. [5] "time" Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Organization Descriptors? "anti-LGBTQ" Summary: Group only discussed in one sentence, insignificant coverage. 9. Salgado, Beck Andrew (October 28, 2022). "Right-wing activist groups targeted a recent Wauwatosa School Board meeting. They're 'just getting started.'". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.[6] "Salgado". Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Organization Descriptors? National Organization Summary: This is a local paper. It's not primarily about the group, it's about a meeting, but has more coverage then most the other sources and is reasonably neutral. 16. Johns, Tim (September 15, 2022). "Pride flag murals at Castro Valley schools cause opposing rallies". ABC7News. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group Descriptors? Group GAG mentioned in one sentence. 17. ""Our Community Has Grit": An Antifascist Report from a Hot Weekend in SoCal". 'It's Going Down. September 7, 2022. [7] Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group Descriptors? far-Right groups Los Angeles Save the Children Rally, Sep 3. This is a website that posts Anonymous user-created submissions. Author is Anonymous. Mentions 8 different groups that attended a Rally, not about any of those groups. One sentence mentions GAG. 20. Roa, Ray (December 5, 2022). "Photos: Florida trans-rights advocates outnumber anti-LGBTQ rally last weekend". Creative Loafing. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group Descriptors? No direct description Summary: Arts and Entertainment site, has a slide show of a protest with 4 paragraphs about the "Protect the Children" rally in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 2022. Mentions group sponsored rally in one sentence. 21. Italiano, Laura (February 14, 2023). "The Proud Boys seditious conspiracy trial is underway. But the new leadership has moved on from the 2020 election to LGBTQ issues". Business Insider. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (Assume so?) Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group Descriptors? a group Summary: Article is about the Proud Boys, small mention they attended the "Protect the Children" rally on the beach in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. One sentence confirms GAG was also in attendance. 22. Burkett, Eric (August 30, 2022). "LGBTQ Agenda: Use of 'grooming' slur up 400% on social media, pro-LGBTQ groups say". The Bay Area Reporter. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Jaimee Michell/Social Media Account Descriptors? "runs group" Summary: About "a study by the Human Rights Campaign and the Center for Countering Digital Hate". Site: "Serving the San Francisco Bay LGBTQ Community since 1971. Includes 5 paragraphs and a photo of a tweet. Not the main focus of the article nor in depth. 23. Weiss, Elias (January 20, 2022). "Republicans Push Anti-Trans Bill Past First Hurdle in the Arizona Senate". Phoenix New Times. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Mentions opinion of Robert Wallace Descriptors? anti-LGBTQ group Summary: Local news paper, but again - one sentence only: "Notable Republicans voiced their support, including... Robert Wallace, who heads up Arizona’s chapter of the national anti-LGBTQ group Gays Against Groomers,..." 25. Mizelle, Shawna (February 5, 2023). "Republicans across the country push legislation to restrict drag show performances". CNN. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Not Mentioned Descriptors? None Summary: Not a single mention of Gays Against Groomers in the article. 26. McKellar, Katie (January 19, 2023). "Ban on transgender surgeries for kids, puberty blockers headed to Utah Senate". Deseret News. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Ryan Woods Descriptors? Group Summary: Article is a description of testimony about a bill in front of the Utah Senate. Ryan Woods is given 2 paragraphs, and GAG is only mentioned in passing. 35. Cravens, R. G. (March 28, 2023). "Missouri AG Advances Anti-Trans Policy, Citing Disputed Whistleblower Claims". Southern Poverty Law Center. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? B Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group Descriptors? anti-transgender activists, including the group Summary: See WP:SPLC, "Gays Against Groomers held a rally, promoted by FRC, at the state Capitol" on March 20, 2023. Later on, says the rally was trying to stop the fillibuster of the SAFE Act pending in Missouri. Mentions statements by Chris Barrett at the rally, Jamiee Michell's comments to Fox News. 38. Cameron, Dell (November 11, 2022). "Elon Is Re-Verifying Neo-Nazis and Selling Blue Checks to QAnoners". Gizmodo. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Most Likely Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Descriptors? "one of the most prominent accounts attacking the parents of transgender children online" Summary: The entirety of the coverage is "Gays Against Groomers, one of the most prominent accounts attacking the parents of transgender children online, has faced multiple suspensions on Twitter for hate speech. But its account now, too, bears one of Musk’s badges." Per WP:RSPSS There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements. Arizona Mirror The AZ Mirror is openly biased; it describes itself as: "focused on fearless journalism that shines a light on injustice and creates real-world change." This doesn't disqualify it as a source but should be taken into consideration when using it as one. However, none of the coverage is significant. 2. "AZ Mirror" Gomez, Gloria Rebecca (February 17, 2023). "GOP anti-drag bill would send performers to prison for up to 10 years". Arizona Mirror. [8] Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? B Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Organization Descriptors? "far-right anti-LGBTQ organization" Summary: The article only mentions Gays against Groomers in two sentences. 24. MacDonald-Evoy, Jerod; March 16, Arizona Mirror (March 16, 2023). "Arizona Senate passes anti-drag bills". Arizona Mirror. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? B Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group Descriptors? anti-LGBTQ group Summary: Total of 3 sentences. Mentioned in passing; focus of article is on the bill like the above article. LGBTQ Nation Describes itself as an Online LGBTQ Magazine. Previous Reliable Sources Discussion:[9] Discussion above describes the site as highly biased, suggests better sources should be preferred. Like the discussion above, almost everything here has better, more reliable sources which should be used first. Almost every article is a reference to something another news group posted, or a summary of items posted on social media. One original interview but not about GAG in particular. 4. "Owen" Owen, Greg (December 6, 2022). "Wisconsin school board member sues over new sex-ed curriculum". LGBTQ Nation. [10] Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Unclear Descriptors? "anti-LGBTQ+" Summary: Article is about a lawsuit against a school, group is described in 7 sentences. The news is sourced from an article by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, I would "go to the original source" on this one. 7. Owen, Greg (December 26, 2022). "Gays Against Groomers spars with counter-protestors during its anti-LGBTQ+ rally in Florida". LGBTQ Nation. [11] Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account Descriptors? "newest addition to the online anti-LGBTQ+ biosphere" Summary: About the Florida "Protect the Children" Rally, Dec 2022, sponsored by multiple groups. The reporting is based on twitter posts about the protest, not by a reporter at the event or interviews with attendees, and despite the title isn't focused on GAG, but on social media posts about the rally. We have other sources covering this event. 14. Owen, Greg (December 28, 2022). "Trans rights activist Imara Jones on the anti-trans hate machine the far right has assembled". LGBTQ Nation. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group Descriptors? frontline hate group Summary: Interview with Imara Jones. Only one question is about them, and response is phrased as speculation. Mentions the group and says they aren't a non-profit and have only been around 6 months, makes them sound non-notable. 32. "Anti-trans hate group Gays Against Groomers has been banned from PayPal & Venmo". LGBTQ Nation. September 21, 2022. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group Descriptors? Vehemently anti-trans group Summary: Quotes other news sources like the advocate along with screen shots of Twitter. 36. Bollinger, Alex (August 3, 2022). ""Gays Against Groomers" Jaimee Michell compares trans health care to Nazi human experiments". LGBTQ Nation. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Individual Descriptors: anti-LGBTQ activist Summary: This is a summary of an interview between OANN and Jaimee Michell. Normally, I would say "skip this article, don't use it - go to the source". However, the source is OANN. Per WP:OANN: One America News Network should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. Daily Dot Looking around the site, it looks like a Celebrity Gossip or Click Bait type site, not a news organization. The subject is viral videos and other viral social media content. "Topless Mom" and "Fatfobic Tiktoker" and "broken McDonalds Ice Cream Machine" videos are all examples on the front page when I viewed it. The Tag line admits site is biased but claims to be serious: "all things politics and technology with a focus on the far right and conspiracy theories." Yet... Ice Cream Machine Videos. Per WP:DAILYDOT: There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. 5."Goforth 2022a" Goforth, Claire (June 29, 2022). "Is 'Gays against Groomers' the new Libs of TikTok?". Daily dot. [12] Significant? Y Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account Descriptors? "Critics say that Gays Against Groomers is a transphobic, far-right “astroturf” campaign" - doesn't tell us "who" but not in their own voice. Summary: Article that is actually about the group, biased language. This is the only article that counts as "significant coverage", specifically of their Twitter Account. We need multiple articles with significant coverage that are also reliable sources. 8. Goforth, Claire (August 25, 2022). "Why does Twitter keep suspending, reinstating Gays Against Groomers?". Daily Dot. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account Descriptors? No direct description Summary: This would probably be an ok article to source "has been banned from social media" as that is probably not controversial, if we don't have another source, but it's not contributing to notability. The Advocate The Staff page doesn't list any editors. The Legal notice describes the company as "Equal Entertainment" and says "You should not act or rely on this information" which suggests a lack of editing and fact-checking. They used to (still do?) have a Monthly Print Magazine. The site has been acquired twice, in 2017 and 2022. There are more reliable sources, I'd skip using this one all together. 6. "Wiggins" Wiggins, Christopher (December 16, 2022). "Anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Way Up on Twitter Since Elon Musk's Takeover: Study". The Advocate. [13] Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account Descriptors? "far-right influencers like (list)" Summary: Short article referencing a study about Twitter that mentions the group - but isn't about the group. 5 - 6 sentences, not in depth coverage. 12. Wiggins, Christopher (February 21, 2023). "Gays Against Groomers Is Not a Grassroots Organization: Report". The Advocate. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account Descriptors? "hate account" Summary: Article is an 'expose' of the Founder, talking about their work history and previous social media accounts, however, it's written like gossip. 15. Wiggins, Christopher (September 14, 2022). "Right-Wing Extremists to Protest School Board Meeting Over Pride Flags". The Advocate. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Descriptors? No direct discription Summary: About California painting flags on school buildings, and social media responses to it. 1 sentence about Gays Against Groomers. 18. Wiggins, Christopher (September 8, 2022). "Miami-Dade School Board Rejects Naming October LGBTQ+ History Month". The Advocate. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group Descriptors? N/A Summary: About Miami Dade Board. Only 3 sentences about GAG. 19. Broverman, Neal (December 4, 2022). "Gays Against Groomers Headline Anti-LGBTQ+ Rally in Ft. Lauderdale". The Advocate. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group Descriptors? calls itself a nonprofit Summary: About Florida Rally. Mentions the group, but a huge list of groups were involved: The rally was organized by Moms for Liberty -- which works closely with Republican governor Ron DeSantis to demonize trans youth, trans-inclusive doctors, and drag queens -- along with organizations like Gays Against Groomers, Florida Fathers for Freedom, and Moms for Liberty Miami. 27. Cooper, Alex (December 19, 2022). "Protesters Storm Gay NYC Council Member's Apartment Building". The Advocate. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account Descriptors? None Summary: "Erik Bottcher tweeted that people calling themselves "gays against groomers" had earlier vandalized the walls in front of his office." In response to that Tweet, GAG said they had no members there. Per WP:BLP, Contentious material about living persons... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. 34. Cooper, Alex (November 23, 2022). "Gays Against Groomers Blames Gender-Affirming Care for Club Q Massacre". The Advocate. 34. Advocate. "Cooper 2022": Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Individual Descriptors: "anti-trans hate group" Summary: Article isn't about the group. It's an article documenting twitter responses to a segment on Fox News (opinion/entertainment) where the founder of the group was interviewed. It's not in depth coverage of the group or even mostly about the group. We might go to the original source taking WP:FOXNEWS into account. 39. Ring, Trudy (October 28, 2022). "LGBTQ+ Rights Groups Worry Elon Musk Will Allow More Hate on Twitter". The Advocate. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Accounts Descriptors: no description Summary: One partial sentence about GAG. 40. Wiggins, Christopher (November 2, 2022). "Elon Musk's Twitter Is 'Hellscape' for LGBTQ+ People, Critics Say". The Advocate. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Accounts Descriptors: "group" Summary: Article about Twitter, includes one line and a screenshot of a tweet. 41. Wiggins, Christopher (September 21, 2022). "Google Bans Anti-Trans Hate Group Gays Against Groomers". The Advocate. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Accounts Descriptors: "anti-trans hate group" Summary: Short article talking about services that have banned the group. Media Matters for America If you look at source 13... it's a Fox News Clip, with a transcript. It doesn't even make commentary about it. The source is... Fox News. Frankly, seeing this brings down the value of all of Media Matter's articles as a reference. Also - Many articles don't have an author. Per WP:MEDIAMATTERS, "There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed." "Media Matters for America is a web-based, not-for-profit, 501 (c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." 10. Carter, Camden (July 6, 2022). "Instagram is allowing accounts to spew hate at LGBTQ people, while also claiming to support the community". Media Matters for America. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? N About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Descriptors: push far-right narratives Summary: Isn't in-depth about the group, is screenshots from multiple Instagram accounts. 11. Gingerich, Mia (February 7, 2023). "Grifter Gays: How conspiracy theorists and right-wing operatives created Gays Against Groomers". Media Matters for America. Significant? Y Independent? y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Descriptors: N/A, doesn't describe the group directly as anything Summary: This was has a lot of information; but I don't feel the source is reliable, it reads like a smear article against the group. 13. "Jaimee Michell, who is cisgender, tells two cisgender men on Fox News that Twitter banning "trans against groomers" is "transphobic"". Media Matters for America. September 26, 2022. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: N/A Descriptors: N/A Summary: No original content or commentary. Article is a post of a Fox News clip with transcript of part of the clip. Them.us Describes itself a s "LGBTQ+ News and Movies". Focuses on Culture and Entertainment. Does have editorial staff [14] but reading the Wiki page on it, it's described as inspired by Teen Vogue but focused on LGBTQ. 33. This Gay Conservative Twitter Account Is the Latest Trying to Use Drag to Stir Outrage". Them.us. July 1, 2022. Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account Descriptors: Great Value version of Libs of Tiktok Summary: Re-report of daily.dot, would describe as an opinion piece. "According to the Daily Dot, GAG has been around for less than a month" 37. "This Right-Wing Activist Somehow Blamed Trans Health Care for the Club Q Shooting". Them.us. November 23, 2022. Them.us Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Individual Descriptors: anti-transgender activist group Summary: Michell's appearance on Fox News.

Take Ways:

• While I disagree with the media's use of "Anti-LGBT", there are 8 sources describing the organization that way, so I'll agree it seems justified. I disgree with the media use on this, not the editors here.
• Far-right isn't nearly as well supported, there are 3 sources and they come from our most biased sources, I still stay that should be removed from the lead. 4 sources say Anti-transgender, so it's a more common description and we aren't using that.
• There isn't any description in the article of how the group describes themselves - for a Neutral POV, we also need that. It doesn't need to be in the lead, but I'm not sure where to add it to the article.

Next Ask:

I'd like the editors of this article to look over the sources - what do you think are the 1 - 5 best sources in terms of reliability and coverage? Are there better articles - more in depth, more reliable? What are the best sources? I want to focus on the best resources and use those to add in-line citations to the existing article.

Denaar (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel like this article has a bit of a Gish Gallop going on is an interesting way to begin a post that dumps 49k of argumentation in one go. Zaathras (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I was told: "The article is not poorly sourced, nor does it run afoul of any Wikipedia standards." It took me a week to read every single article on the page. I could remove the poor sources, but I worry it would lead to an edit war and the article wouldn't be improved. So it's better for us to discuss what the best sources are, and I'll help out by sourcing as much of the article with them as possible. Denaar (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"I could remove the poor sources, but I worry it would lead to an edit war and the article wouldn't be improved". It might also lead to more precise and user friendly discussions instead of that giant wall of text. It is probably better to take it one issue at a time instead of advocating for some kind of wholesale change. It takes (at least) two to edit war, so it's not just up to those that disagree with any changes you desire, it's also up to you. DN (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, given that the user has rated a lot of reliable sources as "Reliable? N" above, it would probably be better to let someone with a better grasp of Wikipedia policies edit the page, since removing reliable sources with spurious claims of non-reliability will be undone by any number of people. -sche (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you give a couple examples of the reliable sources you're referring to? Oktayey (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, look in the article. When you see a small-font number inside a bracket, click it. That is a citation to a reliable source, and at the moment there are 41 examples for you. Happy reading. Zaathras (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Your condescension is not appreciated. I think it's quite clear I was asking for an example of a reliable source that OP labeled unreliable. Oktayey (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

When we look at reliable sources, it depends on what we are using them for. For instance, someone added a primary source to the article. It verifies a specific fact. But it doesn't count for notability, because primary sources are excluded from considerations of Notability. Not all 41 examples on the page help with the Notability requirements of WP:SIRS. 3 sentences in an article about a different topic don't meet "significant and in depth" coverage of the subject. Denaar (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Do all sources need to meet ALL those guidelines? That seems like the highest possible standard, and doesn't necessitate removal of sources or AfD. If it follows policy, and there is consensus, isn't that acceptable? DN (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Organizations and Businesses have a higher notability standard to prove the organization is Notable WP:SIRS. I want to get this article sourced, but - I don't want to do that and just have it be deleted for not having the sources needed.

Not every source we use on the article has to meet those qualifications, but that's what I was focused on first. Someone pulled a primary source (their IRS filing) which doesn't show they are notable, but I don't think anyone objects to it be used as a reference for the article, it's obviously accurate and I can't find a secondary source with the same information.

Same with some of the biased articles - we can use them but just have to be careful with how they are used. I don't think we can get away without using them. Denaar (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit, I still rely on WP:RSPSS a lot of the time, but even if a source is not rated as reliable for one thing, it may be reliable for another thing, or the same thing in a different context. It's kinda, I don't know, fluid? DN (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I used Wikipedia policy, looking at previous discussions under WP:RSP for every source. However, I'd rather have a consensus on the best sources to build the article around then solely rely on my judgment. Denaar (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have just made quite a few changes without consensus, were those from your list? DN (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Just checking RSP is not enough to determine if a source is reliable, as RSP is only for sources that have been discussed multiple times. You should also search the WP:RSN archives, as many sources are only discussed once. But even then, if a source hasn't been discussed it's not a sign that it's unreliable or reliable. Just that no-one has had reason to discuss it yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious about your third point. I don't think there's any need requirement in WP:NPOV for a description [...] of how the group describes themselves, unless you have sources that talk about that aspect (WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, etc). As, you've gone through these sources with a fine tooth comb you should know weather the sources regally devote space to describing how the group sees themselves. If they do, then that should be include it in the way the sources do. If they don't, we shouldn't (per WP:NPOV and a bit WP:MANDY). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I would support adding anti-trans in addition to the other descriptions. In terms of better sources, I wouldn't imagine evergreen papers of comment or journal articles for what amounts to a twitter page. If there are better sources I think we would all value those. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There does seem to be RS in that regard. DN (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It's trivially easy to find SIGCOV of this group in RS, e.g. [15]/[16], [17]. (Advocate.com has been discussed at RSN a number of times and considered reliable, even used as a source about other sources when deciding whether they are reliable.) -sche (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This was the only discussion that came up on a search, and it's specifically "is it reliable as a source of someone being gay or not?[18] It seems the print magazine was considered pretty reliable, but they were purchased in 2022 and put a legal disclaimer on the website not to rely on any information on the site. So unfortunately, the new ownership doesn't seem to enforce the same editorial standard it used to have. Denaar (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Disclaimers like that are typical, and The Advocate is a solidly reliable source. One of the major LGBTQ news outlets. I think your arguments here are very unlikely to be successful, and I urge you to avoid AfD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

There's also a couple more sources listed in discussions in the archive, for example here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I have to admit I have been wondering myself if this group is really all that notable, as it seems very hard to do searches for information that brings up any hits. But that is an wp:afd issue. What it is not is a reason to remove stuff, either the organization passes wp:n, in which case we say what wp:rs say, or it does not, and an AFD is launched. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2023

On the first page it says "GAG helped organise a anti-lgbt rally". It should say "AN* anti-lgbt rally". 220.233.4.7 (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I have done it, but I think "A" is better. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Why? Mooonswimmer 16:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Not too sure it "an" does not look quite right. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Marking done, "an" is definitely correct. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Far-right

The source given says “and other far right groups”. It is semantically ambiguous whether this means they are far right. It is also a single subjective opinion on a contentious claim which is not owned as far as I can tell by the group. BozMo talk 16:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Not really as they belong to that grouping (after all if I say "cats and other animals" I am not saying a cat is not an animal), it is not ambiguous at all. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not this organisation is far-right has been discussed endlessly over the last few months. See Talk:Gays Against Groomers/Archive 1#Sources claiming far-right & anti-LGBT, Talk:Gays Against Groomers/Archive 2#Not an anti-LGBTQ+ group, not a "far right" group., #Better in-line Sourcing Needed, and numerous drive by edit-requests and removed comments in the talk page history. The current consensus is that the existing sourcing is more than adequate, and is why we had to add a FAQ to the top of the talk page.

I'm also not sure if {{fact}} is the right template to use for this. {{better source needed}} or {{additional citation needed}} seem to fit the thrust of your issue better. {{fact}} is meant to be used for unsourced factual statements, and your concerns aside on the strength of it this has a citation to a reliable source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The source beside "far-right" directly describes GAG as being on the far-right - members of the Log Cabin Republicans and the far-right anti-LGBTQ organization Gays Against Groomers. Unless you mean another source given. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it the article author's assumption that being against child sex-change procedures is inherently "far right"? Bws92082 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

My preference is to remove it from the first sentence, take it out of WP:Wikivoice, and instead attribute to whomever is describing them that way. But, there is a lot of opposition to that view. The compromise was to review all the sources, find the ones that call them far right, and directly source it. With WP:Lead it says "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead" - even though it's an organization, it's still a contentious statement about living people, so it needs an inline citation at the minimum. Denaar (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It did have, so your objection had been dealt with before you made it, and now has more. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am aware it was sourced, because I am the one who sourced it. Which you can check here: [19] Denaar (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

My mistake that was aimed at the OP. As has been every comment about the misapplication of that tag. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - I was just trying to give the history of the compromise. Denaar (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We aren't discussing an unsourced statement in the lead here. If you check the wikitext in the diff where the {{fact}} template was added, you can see that it already had a citation to a reliable source. Also the applicability of BLP to groups is both complex and non-obvious. Hence why I queried above why if {{fact}} was actually the right template to use, as this wasn't an unsourced content issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

More sources [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] (not perfect but enough to say it has far right links). Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There's even more sources in the table in this discussion in archive 2 from when we discussed this back in April. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Lets put two good ones in. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like overcite but sure. If we're going for three citations total, how about we add The Advocate and The Intercept? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Those two should do. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done in this edit. Citations were already in the article and named for re-use, so easy to re-use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This article comes across as biased and could potentially be libellous.

Other than media articles, there’s very little substance behind the claims made in this article. My concern that it’s coming across as extremely biased. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts and I’m of the opinion that media articles, don’t constitute facts. You can say anything you want on a “news” website. That doesn’t make it a fact. The article should constitute what is officially known about the the organisation. You can’t call someone far right and anti LGBT because a left leaning media site has. It’s biased at best and libellous at worst. I’ve raised this with wiki but they have directed me here. This article, whether you agree with the organisation or not, should be about facts. Other wiki pages about other organisations have not been targeted in this way. Bias has no place here. Nonya394 (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

See wp:nlt. Slatersteven (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I wasn’t making a legal threat. Simply stating that the article could be construed as libellous while making a point that it is extremely biased.

The article you have linked reads “ A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified.” 2A02:C7C:375C:7B00:A558:5EA6:1D50:15A0 (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Just advising you to be careful. We only repeat what wp:rs say. Everything we say here can be wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I respect 100% what you're doing. I’ve been going through all sources, if a source is only available within the USA can it be included in the article? As [2] is unavailable outside of the USA. Nonya394 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. [2] on Anti-LGBTQ+ Nonya394 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It can be used, yeah. If you click the link on the word Archived on "Archived from the original", you'll find a version on the Wayback Machine which is available worldwide to verify what's in the source. As an editor in the EU myself, I usually use the Wayback Machine to check any articles blocked for me by GDPR regulations etc. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for a speedy response. Nonya394 (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Lede

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I fully support protecting children's innocence. The current LGBTQ+ movement seems to want to sexualize children. In earlier times this would most likely been considered grooming by pedophiles. GAG is against sexualization of children. Most importantly the lede for this article is inaccurate. Here's what the GAG web page intro says: "A nonprofit organization of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children under the guise of LGBTQIA+" WP should have the academic standards to provide accurate information. The current lede is inaccurate and most likely biased. Good academic writing says you are to be clear, concise and objective. What research was done when writing this most likely inaccurate lede. Link: https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/ I would highly encourage contacting and interviewing the GAG founders and their leadership (they are living beings) to find out who, what, when or where the group was founded. I'd also interview experts who deal with this subject. A good place to start would be law enforcement followed by child psychologists who have studied and understand the methods used to take advantage of children. There's lots of work to do before this article is fair, unbiased and accurate. Good luck! MDaisy (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC) North Korea also describes itself as a Democratic People's Republic, but the reality, found in reliable sourcing, shows the reality, that it is a totalitarian dictatorship. GAG's self-perception is irrelevant to this article. Zaathras (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC) The statement they are anti-gay is biased to the point of almost laughable. They are gay and they support LGBQ+ lifestyle. To write they are anti-gay is inaccurate. Also, without interviewing experts you can not claim their actions are inappropriate. Interview professionals and they will tell you the actions taken in recent Pride events would most likely inappropriate arrest able behavior. Also, teaching children your biological sex can be wrong is scientifically invalid. The majority of the time babies are born biological male or female. There are exceptions (Turner's syndrome for example) and those exceptions are rare medical occurrences. BTW I am straight but I do support protecting our innocent children. As a society protecting our children should be our highest goal. GAG is trying to do that. 150.195.48.205 (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this I've not been Wiki writing in a very long time so forgive my mistakes. I can't make it any clearer GAG members support the LGBTQ+ lifestyle. The current article says the opposite. Their concern is how the LGBTQ+ lifestyle is being displayed. They want to protect children. Also, I'd suggest using the term conservative rather than far-right. Conservative is neutral in tenor. I'd gone in and done some editing but the article seems to be locked. Thank you. MDaisy (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly advice you read the talk page above and it's archives (1, 2), as this has been discussed again and again. The long and short of it is we only report what is covered in Reliable sources and using the language you would find in those sources (WP:NPOV). We don't care what the group describes themselves, outside of where the sources care. The sources that have been found either describe them as far-right and ant-lgbt or don't contradict that characterisation. If you have some reliable sources (see WP:RSP for the sort of sources we mean), that contradict the current article or describes them in the way you talk about them above then please present them. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that Aristotle logic is not the main guiding principle on Wikipedia.

The law of excluded middle does not necessarily apply.

An organization can both be anti-LGBT and not be anti-LGBT, if there are two reliable sources making both of these statements. 187.252.192.58 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@187.252.192.58 Does it not say how they describe themselves? DN (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I would not oppose adding to the lead "Gays Against Groomers describes itself as a coalition of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children.” This was the most neutral sounding source I could find, most are much more descriptive in regard to their extremism. DN (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

disinformation, bias and sources not supporting the articles claims

This article is in dire need of a complete revision from a neutral and unbiased viewpoint. For example, this article claims the subject is "Anti-LGBT", despite this articles topic being an LGBT organisation. I understand people wanting to express their opinions, and there are outlets you can do that, like social media. However Wikipedia is a place for factual information to flourish. The writers of this article should give Wikipedia:Disinformation and "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" a read. Niko (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! The very beginning of this article is off to a biased start as I believe it says the group is anti--gay. Here's what the GAG home page says:

Gays Against Groomers is a 501(c)4 organization of gay people who oppose the recent trend of indoctrinating, sexualizing and medicalizing children under the guise of “LGBTQIA+

The group clearly states they are gay. They also state the group was founded to protect children. Here is the very first sentence of the WP article states Gays Against Groomers (GAG) is an American far-right and anti-LGBT organization You can't get more biased than that.

This article needs better research as the contributors have shown bias. MDaisy (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Gay, not transgender or Bi, so they are not LGBT. Also they may claim it, that does not make it true watch this "I own your house" There I have said it, is it true? This article is sourced to RS, that is the only "research" we do.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Or See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs as the term LGBQT+ encompasses all people who affirm this lifestyle. BTW I am straight, married and a mother. I have no axe to grind when it comes to whatever your sexuality is as I am for unbiased writing. The lede is off to a poor start and is biased as it ignores accepted terminology for the gay lifestyle. Here's are websites that define it: https://gaycenter.org/about/lgbtq/, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/LGBTQ One definition comes from Merriam-Webster which is the dictionary. For your edification the dictionary is a neutral source that defines language. The article is off to a poor start as it's biased. MDaisy (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No I am demonstrating why wp:or is not a good basies for an argument. This is my last reply to this, see FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find where this has ever been a request for comment. Because Consensus can change WP:CCC, and to avoid WP:OWN (No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it).) I think the next step is a Request for Comment like this:

The article Gays Against Groomers currently states they are a "right-wing" and "Anti-LGBT" group, in Wikipedia's voice, in the first sentence of the lead.

• A: Should right-wing be in the lead in Wikipedia's Voice?
• B: Should Anti-LGBT be in the lead in Wikipedia's Voice?

Denaar (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure if you want one have one. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ve not been Wiki writing for many years due to situations like this. Accuracy and neutrality should top the list in any form of good writing and does the writing follow the wiki’s voice? My understanding Wikipedia is supposed to have neutral and accurate articles. Also, wiki writing is a group effort. Has anyone contacted an admin for assistance?MDaisy (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@MDaisy, Neutrality on Wikipedia has a specific meaning that you seem to be missing. Per WP:NPOV, "neutral point of view (NPOV) [...] means 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." We don't give equal time to views not present in reliable sources. Again please try reading some of the pre-existing discussions, where these topics have been discussed. And yes it has been at the administrator noticeboard before [see link] (with the response from multiple long standing editors being that it followed "the rules") Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Does WP strive for accuracy in their writing? If they do the lede starts with Gays Against Groomers (GAG) is an American far-right and anti-LGBT organization which is inaccurate. As the organization was founded by gays, they are most likely not anti-gay unless they want to found an organization that hates what they practice. A better sentence would be the Gays Against Groomers is an American far-right organization created to protest gender-affirming care...I fully understand neutrality as that goes with good writing. I'm also a retired writer and my editor would have had words with me if I wrote a lede as written in this article. Thanks! MDaisy (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

We simply don't have the same idea of "neutrality". We call your idea WP:FALSEBALANCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@MDaisy, As I say "neutrality" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, which is not necessary the same as the words commons use. It's a term of art (Please actually read WP:NPOV for the full explanation). No, Wikipedia doesn't strive for "THE TRUTH™" but for "Verifiability". (See the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth). What you're proposing, that we abandon our longstanding policies (over two decades at this point), for solely follow the sources at every turn, because we know better than them (engaging in original research is banned on Wikipedia per WP:OR).

As to it not being appropriate to include such descriptors in traditional writing, the whole point is that we a following the lead of sources. They are the ones who call them anti-lgbt. Check the sources next to the two descriptors and you will see that, that's the way they are characterised. Do you have any articles that primarily characterise the org as only protest[ing] gender-affirming care? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Articles should follow the 5 Pillars - WP:PILLARS - I think the discussion here is WP:VER - we do have at least one, maybe two sources that call them "right-wing", and many sources that call them "anti-lgbt" however, are those unbiased sources? I feel that the the sources using the most inflammatory language are clearly the most biased. Per WP:Due - if it's the majority view, it should be easily sourced. If there is an important minority view, we should be able to name the opposition. The problem here, is edtors are being asked for reliable sources that say "they aren't X" when the reliable sources don't directly say "they aren't X" - they just don't call them that. You can't prove a negative. Reading the past decisions making - the arguments run into problems with WP:Synth - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." I do think we should include negative critique, but wikipedia tells us not to put negative critic as a statement of fact, but attribute it per WP:Voice. I just don't understand why we aren't following the guidelines in this case. Denaar (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Limiting descriptions to the way the subject wants to be perceived also ignores the WP:PILLARS. You say we/they aren't following guidelines, and while that may or may not be a valid view, it needs to be backed up by something instead of just being repeated, ad nauseam. As you are already well aware, that is the definition of bludgeoning, and we are all guilty of it from time to time, but it's important not to ignore. If it's a policy issue, an admin can likely clarify that, but this is probably the wrong discussion to try to instigate policy changes, if that is the goal here.

"The problem here, is edtors are being asked for reliable sources that say "they aren't X" when the reliable sources don't directly say "they aren't X" - they just don't call them that. You can't prove a negative." That may not be the only problem here. It's true that proving a negative isn't reasonable, but it's also unreasonable to ignore reliable sources that do exist. Part of 5P is also assuming good faith, and as far as I know, none of us are WP:NOTHERE. So what substantive evidence, that it is all just unsupported disinformation due to bias, has been presented here? Cheers. DN (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This user seems to be arguing exactly what I was months ago: that almost all of the media coverage about this group is from sources clearly at ideological odds with it, which is to say, biased.

I was dismissed back then, being told the consensus was against me. Since then, it looks to me like a steady stream of different editors have showed up with the same view, and have been promptly chased off. At what point have enough people chimed in in opposition to this supposed consensus? Or do their opinions not count because they're no longer here to represent? Oktayey (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Oktayey: Editors who oppose WP:PAGs always lose. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope so. Oktayey (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia always lambastes extremist organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

As long as the sources used to do so are reputable and unbiased, as WP policy requires, I see no problem with that. Oktayey (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If a Cat Political group reports on a Dog Political group, you think the Cat Political group might be biased? Does having a political point of view count as biased on Wikipedia? Let's see... WP:BIASED. "Common sources of bias include political..." I guess so! And what does this say over here? WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." WP:IMPARTIAL - "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." Denaar (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't do WP:GEVAL to extremist and non-extremist sources. They are not in the same league. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, there is already a consensus that these are biased sources:

• Amnesty International: "Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty and in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion."
• ADL: "Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution."
• The Intercept: Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed.
• SPLC: As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source.

Not reviewed:

• AZ Mirror, their own description in their about says they "provide a platform for progressive opinions" - which is a political bias.

Now, compare that to a neutral group like the Washington Post that calls them a... "Social Media Account". They even call Desantis and Matt Walsh "right-wing" - but not far right; because they are trying to promote a neutral point of view. Archive link [23]

They don't say "it's not a far-right group" - they simply fail to label them at all. And that's the trend, the reliable, neutral sources avoid such statements. Denaar (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen any attempts at attribution (which I generally have no issue with), but I wasn't under the impression that was what we are talking about here. Like I have already said, if you want to change policy, this is not the place. Did you try WP:NPOVN? Is it accurate to say it still seems like we are talking about ignoring what the majority of sources say, including expert authorities on far right extremism such as the SPLC and ADL, and only adhering to an oddly narrow interpretation of policy that isn't applied to similar groups?

GAG isn't anything new or special, despite the advertising. Repeating the same arguments over and over is not helping, and your one "nuetral" article, that does not go specifically in depth about GAG enough to genuinely convince me that it should hold weight over experts, states "Social-media accounts like “Libs of TikTok” or “Gays Against Groomers” — which contributed to the focus on Target — have generated audiences by plucking LGBTQ-related content and outreach from their intended context and presenting them to the political right as targets. Sometimes, the attacks extend offline." (That looks like the only mention of GAG in the article, hardly enough worth mentioning, let alone set a precedent for other RS) I might be wrong but I don't see personal interpretations as to how policy should be applied to this group in spite of how it is applied most everywhere else, as proof that the horse isn't dead. DN (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, sources which are biased against extremist organizations have the right kind of bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is far-left filth. It’s just a humourless RationalWiki or left-wing Conservapedia at this point, as the above comment demonstrates. 2A00:23C4:AA1D:4A01:BC9D:B5E1:1CF7:254F (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous! Wikipedia actually endorses the neoliberal world order. (Many Wikipedians will reject this label, but Wikipedia as a whole does that.) tgeorgescu (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Read wp:soap, you will not win any arguments by breaking our policies. Ohh and read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

And see FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

RFC Anti-LGBT, Right Wing in lede

The article Gays Against Groomers currently states they are a "right-wing" and "Anti-LGBT" group, in Wikipedia's voice, in the first sentence of the lead.

A: Should right-wing be in the lead in Wikipedia's Voice?

B: Should Anti-LGBT be in the lead in Wikipedia's Voice?

C: Should far-right be in the lead in Wikipedia's Voice?

Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes to both according to WP:GEVAL. Pro-extremist sources are not in the same league with anti-extremist sources.

  You have been making it clearer and clearer that you don't like our NPOV policy, Til. That's your prerogative, but until you get it changed it isn't your prerogative to try and change it article by article. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  RFC amended to reflect what the article currently says. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  That means: Yes to B and C. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to B and C , No to A As A would be redundant. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B and C, as per the cited sources. I agree that A would be redundant. – GnocchiFan (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B and C, as this is well sourced, maybe more so than is really required. A is redundant as it is already covered by C. Also, describing an extremist movement as "right-wing" runs the risk of conflating normal right-wing politics with... um... this. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B and C as clearly supported by reliable sources. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• No to all 3 - should not be listed in Wikivoice, but attributed as opinions. Per WP:BLPSTYLE "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." I looked at every single source on the page to see if there was a consensus in our sources on how to describe them - and there isn't. [24] The only source at the time that called the group "far-right" was AZ Mirror which isn't listed, but it is a "progressive" source. If you look at WP:RSP, it describes the intercept as "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed." The Advocate doesn't call the organization far-right, it calls them right-wing. It says their founder has participated in "far-right social media circles" and was employed by a "far-right" employer. Per WP:BLPBALANCE "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association". "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." In addition, under WP:BLPSOURCES, "contentious material" is defined as "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". If you review the history of the talk page, the material is challenged over and over and over - by different people all the time, so the contentious material definition applies. "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." Per WP:WIKIVOICE "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." "Prefer nonjudgmental language." "basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." When we only look at the best, unbiased sources... we get a different point of view then when we look at the sources with a significant bias attached. Maintaing a NPOV "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Denaar (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B, no to C, fence on A. I frankly think the RfC should have been restarted early on because it was a bad RfC in the first place, owing to the fact the main statement in the RfC is not even true (there was never any inclusion of "right-wing" in the lede), but I'll vote in this as it's been made. I share the concerns Denaar has regarding the lack of sourcing for the far-right label here - three sources, only one of which outright describes the group as far-right, does not inspire confidence that this is a widely enough applied descriptor to put it up in the lede. There are sufficient sources describing GAG as being anti-LGBT so I think this should be in the lede, but far-right does not have the same backing from sources atm. I don't think we should be discussing label A because this being included in the RfC in the first place seems to have been a case of misreading. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B, indifferent to the rest The sources are pretty clear on point B (see also previous discussions), but I am personally indifferent towards the other two. I'd say "Anti-LGBT" usually goes along with "far right", but that's not really a source-based argument, and those should take precedence here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B and C. No to A In my opinion, both B and C are adequately supported by the sources for our purposes, though the sourcing for B is a bit stronger than for C. But on the point of sources for B, I noticed earlier that The Independent published an article on 16 July that states The [Fox News] article quoted a founder of the far-right Gays Against Groomers activist group (square bracket added for context clarity). A is redundant to C, hence why I'm opposing it.
  I would disagree heavily with Denaar's !vote above that BLP is the policy we need to follow most closely. The extent to which BLP applies to groups is complicated and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. While GAG are heavily active on Twitter, unlike for example Libs of TikTok who is largely a single person, GAG are also a group of activists who attend protests and partake in political lobbying across the US. While it is unclear as to exactly how many members they have (I've not been able to find any reliable source for this), it seems sizeable enough that I would argue that per BLPGROUP, the BLP policy cannot apply to the organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• No to all Wikipedia policy says in WP:BIASED and WP:VOICE that claims made by biased sources should be attributed to those sources in the article's text rather than being stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice.
  A. The source calling this group right-wing is The Intercept, which WP:RSP acknowledges is considered biased by "almost all editors".
  B. The sources calling this group far right are AZ Mirror and The Advocate, which, if memory serves, 10 seconds of reading their articles reveals quite severe bias.
  C. The sources calling this group anti-LGBT are ADL (which WP:RSP specifically calls out as being unsuitable for classifying groups in Wikivoice), AZMirror (again), TIME (which is called generally reliable on WP:RSP with the exception of op-eds, which I think the cited article feels like), and LGBTQ Nation (which is biased on its face).
  In order to ensure this survey's reaches those who've been chased off, I'm planning to notify the non-blocked editors who've previously been involved with this article and have not yet commented here.
  Oktayey (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Let me tell you straight: all people are biased. Therefore, all sources are biased. The problem for us is if they have WP:GOODBIAS or bad bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  The page you linked is an essay. It doesn't nullify the policy guidelines I cited. Oktayey (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  That you continuously misinterpret and misapply policy is becoming disruptive. Zaathras (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Simply saying I'm misinterpreting and misapplying the policy does not make it so. Oktayey (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  When multiple experienced editors are telling you that you're misinterpreting and misapplying the policies and guidelines that you're citing, over a prolonged period of time, not just on this talk page but also at NPOVN and ANI, then you almost certainly are doing so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Assuming that one who is ideologically outnumbered is wrong is an example of the common belief fallacy. I have previously explained to excruciating ends my reasoning, and I find the retorts I've received unconvincing at best. Oktayey (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  The interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are enshrined in the consensus mechanism. If a group of editors through discussion, across multiple talk pages and dispute resolution noticeboards, finds your repeated arguments on this point to be non-convincing, then that is not an ad populum fallacy, it is simply how our processes work. That you find what others have said to be unconvincing is, I'm afraid to say, not our problem because consensus does not require unanimity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  It sounds kind of like you're moving the goalposts from "you're misinterpreting and misapplying Wikipedia's policy" to "your view doesn't matter if nobody agrees with it".

  I never denied that Wikipedia is consensus-driven. The consensus, however, can be at odds with the facts, hence the common belief fallacy. Oktayey (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• B and C, yes, A is superfluous. What this group is, what it does and what its beliefs are as well, well-supported by reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• B and C, yes "Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group describing itself as an 'organization of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children,'" (NBC News May 2023) I'm sure someone here will say NBC is biased too, and again, that seems to miss the point others are trying to make. I also don't mind adding attributions if that helps us move on and focus on more important aspects, but I agree that they aren't necessary, IMO. DN (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B and C. Indifferent about A (redundant). The sources have been reviewed numerous times. Hist9600 (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B and C— so A is not needed. Here are a couple of more sources: Los Angeles Times Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group and Star Tribune Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group.— Isaidnoway (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B but not Wikivoice for A & C (Summoned by bot) Far too many of the current sources simply speak of linkage to or support by or of R-wing elements and the sources themselves appear to be too few and too partisan to be treated as being wiki-voice-able anyhow. If we have to look that hard for mentions, the claim is better attributed. But being anti-LGBT appears to be a/the defining characteristic, and is stated explicitly by sources. Pincrete (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC) … ps I've just gone back and looked at the rest of the lead. The 'Right-wing' connection is covered so (over?) comprehensively that the adjective is almost redundant in the opening sentence: "alongside other far-right (organizations) … who had previously been employed by right-wing communications firms … which was attended by the Proud Boys … they have been promoted by right-wing media outlets such as" - this is already approaching overkill for so many mentions in two shortish paras. One of these 'connections' is actually factually wrong, it is "GAG members Jordan Toste and Anthony Raimondi (rather than GAG itself) who helped organise the rally that the Proud Boys attended according to the ADL source used. Pincrete (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to A. No to B and C. while calling it right-wing, despite its organizers coming from a multitude of political backgrounds, right-wing would be the best way to describe it at the moment. I would consider adding "Pro-LGBT" or "Pro-LGB" in the future. Niko (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have any Reliable Sources that characterise it as Pro-LGBT or Pro-LGB? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes to B. Neutral between C and A, but leaning towards C, as far as I've seen. sources (and we can only go by what reliable sources say per WP:NPOV) characterise it as anti-LGBT. I've also seen a mixture of "Far-Right"s and "Right-Wing"s used. It is not Wikipedia's job to sugar coat what the balance of sources are saying. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B and C, per DanielRigal and Sideswipe9th. Reliable sources are pretty clear that they are both anti-LGBT and far-right. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B and C (at which point A is redundant), per OwenBlacker. -sche (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B and C (Option A is superseded by Option C). I find WP:EXTRAORDINARY to be met. SWinxy (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B and C but add attribution. Agree that Option A is redundant. Theoretice (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes to B and C, A is redundant. Reliable sources don't lie. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep A, the group's founder is a gay woman. I don't see how someone can be against themself. Yousef Raz (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Huh? The first sentence in the lead says they're far-right, not right wing. I don't think this is a good RfC. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Good point, I just copy and pasted the suggestion made in the thread above. I shall change it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Does the article mention why GAG was formed? I have not read why GAG was created and its goal of protecting children. This would seem to be an important topic of discussion. It would also explain why they started the group. It would also affirm they are not anti-gay. For your edification I've provided a Twitter link to one of the GAG officials giving video testimony. There's nothing better for factual documentation than original source material. That's the first rule of a research paper. Provide original sources whenever possible. Link: https://twitter.com/againstgrmrs/status/1681481109157158914?s=20

MDaisy (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but this would be wp:or also this does not adress the question in this RFC. Any content must be based upon what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

As you have been told repeatedly, irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm collecting all of the reliable sources mentioned so far in the RfC that have described GAG as far-right. So far, in addition to the citations already in the article, we have:
  • The Independent who state The article quoted a founder of the far-right Gays Against Groomers activist group
  • NBC News who state Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group
  • LA Times, May 2023 who state he would donate $10 to Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group that protests drag queen story events
  • StarTribune who state But carrying the bill made Finke a target of the national Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group that campaigns against gender-affirming care for children.
  • LA Times, June 2023 who state She said she has been heckled by far-right groups such as the Proud Boys and Gays Against Groomers.
• I'll add to this list if more editors cite sources that have not already been mentioned in previous discussions (see here, and here or cited in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Since all those articles are from the past several months, I can't help but worry that there's circular reporting going on here; that those articles' authors repeated these claims because they saw it on Wikipedia, without realizing Wikipedia was repeating the claims from sources like The Advocate and Media Matters.

  But anyway, from a quick search, here are a few articles that do not describe GAG as far-right or anti-LGBT:

  The Los Angeles Times (non-paywalled mirror), who call GAG "A small LGBTQ group formed to protest story hours and all-ages drag shows"

  KVCR News, who state "Gays Against Groomers is a group of conservative gay people who believe that children should not have access to gender-affirming care."

  Florida's Voice, who state "Gays Against Groomers is a 501(c)4 organization of gay people who 'oppose the recent trend of indoctrinating, sexualizing and medicalizing children under the guise of LGBTQIA+.'”

  The Tennessee Star, who call GAG "An organization that fights against the 'sexualization, indoctrination, and medicalization' of children"

  Oktayey (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  And the evidence for WP:CITOGENESIS is...? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have any yet. I thought saying it was merely a worry of mine would make that obvious. Oktayey (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  The LA Times is the only one of these which is deemed a reliable source by WP:RSP. "FL Voice News" is not a reliable source, and by the looks of it, only publishes articles about conservatives or Republicans, and talks about "patriot-owned businesses" that support them at the bottom of the page. The Tennessee Star appears to just reprint from other sources - given many of their articles are from Breitbart, which is specifically blacklisted by Wikipedia - in fact, the article appears to come from Liz Collin of "Alpha News", a site run by a group of Tea Party Republicans who remain anonymous, which inspires zero confidence in its reliability. Finally, the KVCR source is fine, but the fact that one can only locate two sources doesn't exactly help. When you weigh up these sources vs the infinite amount of other, more reliable sources that describe GAG as anti-LGBT, it's clear that the descriptor is commonly applied. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  To get it out of the way first, the fact that only the LA Times is on WP:RSP doesn't mean much, considering the vast majority of articles this very Wikipedia page cites are also not from sources on RSP.

  The question is: Are sources the sources I provided any less biased than the sources I was assured are unbiased enough to support a claim in Wikivoice, such as Media Matters, LGBTQ Nation, and The Advocate? Oktayey (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Again, only two of the sources you provided are reliable. What the two unreliable sources, Florida's Voice and Tennessee Star, state doesn't really matter for us.

  For the LA Times, this is a case where I'd defer to WP:RSAGE. As the organisation does more things and becomes more noticed, sources about them will become more reliable. From a quick search, it seem the LA Times have published four articles on or mentioning GAG, two on 22 February 2023 (article 1, article 2), one in May 2023, and one in June 2023. Both the May and June articles describe GAG as a far-right group. Is the LA Times now biased because they've factually described GAG as far-right in two articles, when their older coverage did not do so?

  For the KVCR source, that was published only a couple of months after the organisation started publicly protesting. At the time there was little to know about the organisation itself, perhaps excluding that they had been suspended on Twitter multiple times for breaching the then policies of the site and been subject to some criticism. I would be interested to see how KVCR would cover the organisation today, versus in December 2022, but it seems they have not published any articles on or mentioning GAG in the intervening period. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sideswipe9th I mean, half of those articles being from a biased source is a better success rate than the GAG WP page itself. Over half of the sources are from "LGBTQ Nation", "them.us", "The Advocate" and "Media Matters". Niko (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is perfectly normal for specialist sources to be used on an article such as this. LGBTQ Nation, them.us, The Advocate, are all reliable sources that specialise in LGBT+ adjacent content. If you feel as though those publications are not reliable then I would suggest making a post at WP:RSN, however I would suggest that you bring evidence of their unreliability prior to doing so. It's also important to note that source bias on its own does not make a source unreliable. There has to be evidence that the source's bias is otherwise affecting their editorial content, and causing them to publish false or otherwise misleading content.

  Media Matters is marginally reliable, and our current consensus is that reliability should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However that case-by-case evaluation was undertaken back in March 2023, and the uses that are currently present in the article are considered acceptable by several long term editors.

  As for source bias in general, WP:RSBIAS already accounts for this where it tells us that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. In some cases a source's bias, assuming it's otherwise reliable, may make in-text attribution appropriate, however the "half of the sources" that you're referring to are already using in-text attribution where appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Just because a source is an LGBTQ+ news organisation does not mean it is biased or unreliable. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

As others have noted, this has gone way off-topic for way too long. If you must, continue discussion at WP:RSN or similar. Zaathras (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not in its entirety, but It does mean it is biased in favor of its own identity. Think about how a Christian magazine shouldn't be trusted to objectively report on an athiest group. Oktayey (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC) The Universal Code of Conduct is biased against homophobia; being in favour of tolerance and opposed to bigotry is not unobjective. We trust some LGBTQ+ sources to reliably report on LGBTQ+ topics because homophobia is not-neutral. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC) What are you saying? Are you arguing that a source can be expected to impartially report on its ideological opponent? Oktayey (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC) This is a question fit for those described at the blog American Loons. If you side with the homophobes you should be site banned. Hint: the two "ideological" sides aren't equal. The same as Martin Luther King's side wasn't equal to the Ku Klux Klan. He fought for human rights, KKK fought against human rights. Ronald Reagan stood for exporting human rights to other countries. What does his party now? Fights against human rights at home. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu, @Oktayey, @OwenBlacker, this is all totally off topic. As sources aren't discounted because of bias (but because of their unreliability). Arguments about the UCoC or who is fighting for rights is completely beside the point and only confuse matters. Oktayey, as has been repeatedly pointed out, and very succinctly by Sideswipe9th above, bias doesn't discount sources from being used, nor dose it impact on their reliability or on the descriptions used in the article when the multitude of other sources also use these same descriptions. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC) As I have repeatedly pointed out (though perhaps not recently), while a source being biased doesn't entirely discount it from being used, it does discount it from being used to substantiate claims made in Wikivoice, per WP:BIASED. Oktayey (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Respectfully, the way that you've been reading WP:RSBIAS for the last few months has been that any perceived bias in a reliable source requires attribution. Breaking the guideline point down a sentence at a time: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. This is pretty straightforward, articles should follow the NPOV policy. However keeping that in mind, it's important to remember that following the NPOV policy does not mean we cannot include negative descriptors, especially when those descriptors are the neutral point of view on a given topic. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. This is common sense, if we excluded every source that made a factual assertion that didn't meet those three descriptors, then in practice we would have very few if any reliable sources at all. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Again, common sense, and not uncommon in niche topics. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Not much to say on this, other than it's just a non-exclusive list of common biases. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. This is where your argument starts to fall apart I'm afraid. Context matters, and you and other editors have yet to actually present any evidence that the sources we use are unreliable in this context. 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. This is a pretty standard assessment for any source cited in an article. We should always be checking if a source meets the requirement for reliability before citing, especially as it's not uncommon for reliable sources to contain [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion and editorials}} alongside their factual reporting. Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate [examples trimmed] Key qualifier here, may make. RSBIAS does not require us always to attribute factual assertions for descriptors. If the descriptor is particularly widespread, it almost certainly is the neutral point of view on a given topic. For example, we can say that David Icke is a conspiracy theorist, or that the KKK is a white supremacist, far-right terrorist, hate group while still following the neutral point of view. Nowhere does this guideline point require us to discount [a source] from being used to substantiate claims made in Wikivoice when considering the full extent of sources on a given assertion, especially when the source meets the normal requirements for reliability. If what you said were true, then no enwiki article would be able to include descriptors that an individual or organisation disapprove of. That would also decidedly be non-neutral, as instead of describing a subject along the terminological lines that our sources use, we would be inserting our own editorial bias by disagreeing with the terminology our sources use, and be inserting ourselves as truth finders. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Thank you for actually diving into the weeds and prompting in-depth discussion. I find it hard to justify sinking 50 minutes into composing an essay when the other side isn't doing the same, but this really waters the garden of discourse. "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." This is where your argument starts to fall apart I'm afraid. Context matters, and you and other editors have yet to actually present any evidence that the sources we use are unreliable in this context. In the subsection just below the one WP:CONTEXTMATTERS links to, it elaborates on what that means: The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc. For example, a web site that purports to list an artist's works is likely reliable for the fact that the artist authored a specific work, if the web site list meets other criteria for reliability (e.g., not under control of the artist or otherwise questionable) [...] But neither the list web page nor the publisher's web site are per se reliable for any critical, artistic, or commercial evaluation of the work, or any rank ordering of merit, without further indicia of reliability. I think I've made analogies to illustrate why the sources' biases disqualify them, but I hadn't backed up those analogies with Wikipedia's guidelines, which is my mistake. See, a source cannot be trusted to fairly report on its ideological opposition because it lacks, as quoted above, incentives to be reliable, especially when it lacks the general tone of credibility for such reporting. I'm not saying there aren't still facts that such a source cannot be trusted to fairly report on, but this is why I made analogies like if you'd trust a magazine run by fans of Macintosh to fairly report on the usability of Windows. "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate [examples trimmed]" Key qualifier here, may make. RSBIAS does not require us always to attribute factual assertions for descriptors. If the descriptor is particularly widespread, it almost certainly is the neutral point of view on a given topic. That sentence is meaningless when isolated from the preceding sentences in its paragraph, which explain how biased sources may be reliable for some claims but not for others. It's saying that if the context suggests a biased source's reliability for a claim is questionable, the claim should be attributed to the source in the text. Writing "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate" would be meaningless without indicating which circumstances it is appropriate, which the paragraph's preceding sentences do. Oktayey (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC) That would disqualify all Jews from making NPOV-compliant claims about the Holocaust. A large number of WP:HISTRS could be summarily dismissed as either written by Jews or by philosemites. And all Christians from making NPOV-compliant claims about the Bible and the history of Christianity. And this is exactly what you're saying, just replace LGBT or pro-LGBT with Christians or pro-Jewish. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I think you're forgetting we're just talking about attribution requirements here, not the total rejection of a source. Remember, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective (from WP:BIASED). Such sources may be cited as long as they meet the criteria for a reliable source, but their bias warrants their claims be attributed to them in the text rather than be repeated in Wikivoice. Oktayey (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Again, is this customary practice in respect to Jewish WP:RS or Christian WP:RS? Then why should it be practiced in respect to LGBT WP:RS? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I would assume it's customary practice for those sources, since if it weren't, a Christian publication's claim accusing an atheist group of devil worshiping could be presented in Wikivoice. Oktayey (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC) The claim that atheists are devil worshipers is extremist and paranoid. It's not a claim usually made by mainstream Christian Bible professors. I mean look at the Bible articles: the majority of people cited therein are Christians and Bible professors, Jewish Bible professors are a large minority, and agnostics and atheists are a very tiny group besides the previous two groups. That means: we customarily trust Christians to provide us with NPOV-compliant WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Same applies to Jews studying the Holocaust. Again, what you miss is that we owe allegiance to WP:RS/AC, we do not owe allegiance to the middle path (half-way) between extremism and anti-extremism. NPOV isn't half-way between Jews and neo-Nazis. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC) I mean look at the Bible articles: the majority of people cited therein are Christians and Bible professors Again, per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective [...] Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context". For instance, a Christian scholar would be a reliable source to support a claim in Wikivoice that the Bible tells a story about Moses parting the Red Sea, but not for a claim in Wikivoice that there actually was a man named Moses who parted the Red Sea. This is because, being a believer, said scholar's will to remain objective regarding the historical reality (or lack thereof) of biblical events would be diminished. It doesn't matter if the consensus among religious scholars agrees that fantastic events like that actually happened—their bias is clear, so they cannot be used to support such claims in Wikivoice. we do not owe allegiance to the middle path (half-way) between extremism and anti-extremism You seem to be operating on the misapprehension that "unbiased" means "in the middle". Average Joe concluding that the Nazis were bad would not indicate bias, and an anti-semite concluding that the Nazis and the Jews were equally at fault would not indicate a lack of bias. "Unbiased" simply means "free from factors that could unfairly affect judgement". Oktayey (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Don't you find it a little odd how no unbiased sources referred to GAG this way until the Wikipedia page was created in February? This smells heavily of WP:CITOGENESIS, so I plan to reach out to those articles' authors to get to the bottom of this. Oktayey (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  3 appear to have been published at the same time as this article was created, it is thus (given that normally an article will not be written an hour before it is published) they were wroten beofre this article was created. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  What? That's blatantly untrue. This Wikipedia article was created in February, and none of those five articles were published earlier than May. Oktayey (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ahh, crossed wires, I was talking about then ones we use in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Anyway, you know that WP:OR about citogenesis is disregarded by default. Even if those authors saw the claim at Wikipedia, that is something different than "Wikipedia made me do it." tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sideswipe9th These all say far-right. None say anti-LGBT. Niko (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  True, but the purpose of this specific list is only to document which sources describe GAG as far-right and have been presented in this RfC. I could start a separate list if you desire to document sources that describe GAG as anti-LGBT or some other variation of the term (eg anti-LGBT+, anti-LGBTQ, etc). Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Reflist

References

July 2023 article in the Star Tribune

In case it is helpful, there was an article published this month in the Minnesota Star Tribune that also characterizes GAG as a far-right group. The formatted reference is included here in case it is useful to anyone to add as a reference for the main article on this particular point.

But carrying the bill made Finke a target of the national Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group that campaigns against gender-affirming care for children. In St. Paul, Republicans seized on the issue, repeatedly accusing her and the DFL of protecting pedophiles.

The characterization of the group is very much along the lines of the current description in this article. Hist9600 (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)