Talk:Gays Against Groomers
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gays Against Groomers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
 | 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. |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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 relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the 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)
|