| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gays Against Groomers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This page is currently under extended confirmed protection. Extended confirmed protection prevents edits from all unregistered editors and registered users with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits. The policy on community use specifies that extended confirmed protection can be applied to combat disruption, if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Extended confirmed protection may also be applied to enforce arbitration sanctions. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may submit an edit request to ask for uncontroversial changes supported by consensus. |
|
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | On March 19, 2023, Gays Against Groomers was linked from Twitter, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the Wikipedia policies on canvassing and neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
Frequently asked questions; please read before posting
[edit]- Q: They are not far right/propaganda/anti-LGBTQ/anti-trans/etc.! They are only against etc. etc.!
- A: That is not what reliable sources say. A 2023 RFC found a consensus for the terms "Anti-LGBT" and "Far-right". See also this listing of descriptors used by the sources.
- Q: Those sources are clearly biased! This violates WP:NPOV!
- A: That is not what NPOV means.
- Q: How can they be “anti-LGBTQ” if they’re gay?!
- A: Ignoring whether or not they’re being honest about their sexual orientation, it’s entirely possible for someone to advocate against their own (demographic’s) interests. See Self-hating Jew, Internalized racism, Internalized sexism, House negro.
This section is permanently on this talk page and does not get archived. It is for mobile-device users for whom the the normal talk page header and FAQ are not shown.
Please be cautious with statements like these
[edit]| we've just had an entire RFC about this. I don't think we'll need to rivisit the issue anytime soon. Discussion closed.--Licks-rocks (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This statement from the ADL could potentially open up a rather nasty can of worms and it might not be a good idea to draw undue attention to it: "while GAG claims that they cannot be anti-gay or anti-lesbian as they themselves identify as gay or lesbian, ADL's definition of anti-LGBTQ+ extremism includes any person who pushes false claims and conspiracy theories about all or parts of the LGBTQ+ community, regardless of how they personally identify" Wikipedia needs to focus on what reliable sources state about what they are as a fact, not extrapolations on the labels they use to describe themselves. Reliable sources have thus far described GAG as a far right, anti-LGBTQ hate group, as perpetuators of the utterly baseless groomer-libel and as stochastic terrorists. They have also exposed their frontrunners as having close ties with the trump campaign, the GOP and major right wing media trusts and think-tanks. Whether members of GAG identify as gay or not shouldn't even be brought up. It would be putting undue weight on GAG's own PR, and therefore legitimizing it. Also, as someone who has spent excessive time studying the far right and how they think, I feel it necessary to point out that this statement can be read as playing into the far right's rethoric that LGBTQ is a political movement/ideology (see also "gay agenda, "gender ideology", "transgenderism"). I would not be surprised if they are already framing it as the ADL "saying the silent parts out loud". 46.97.170.235 (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC) We are. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC) I don't agree with the narrative that the GAG are "anti-LGBT" when they're against drag shows that allow children and oppose gender reassignment surgeries for minors, not for adults. We are not talking about Yoweri Museveni either. -Alabama- (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC) Gender affirming care has positive impacts on trans youth, so yes in being against that they are specifically anti-LGBT, as such care benefits trans youth, who comprise the T. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC) Plus there are numerous reliable sources that consider them to be anti-LGBT. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC) LegalSmeagolian, what sources would you rely on to prove that statement? And what also happens with drag shows? -Alabama- (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about subjects of the article. If you want to have an off-topic discussion with LegalSmeagolian, go to their talk page. You said you don't agree with the "anti-LGBT" label, that's fine but unless you have actual reliable sources to challenge it, this discussion is meaningless. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Here's one from Dept. of Health - office of population affairs. DN (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC) |