Talk:LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

“Gays Against Groomers”

There’s at least one group which promotes the groomer panic but whose members claim to be gay themselves. That should be worth noting as well, especially since this group was kicked off PayPal and responded by accusing the platform of something called “woke homophobia”. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:AFF0 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Concern-trolls are not a new phenomenon on the far-right, and wikipedia should not give undue clout to them. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Use of the Vox Article in the Overview section

The Overview section, quoting the Vox article, states, ""imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers." While Vox is a reliable source, per WP:RS, "Vox is considered generally reliable. Some editors say that Vox does not always delineate reporting and opinion content or that it is a partisan source in the field of politics." I'd argue that this article is an opinion piece, and uses much stronger language than the other sources. I'd like to change this section to something closer to the lede, mentioning that it is deployed against advocates of LGBT positive education for children. Does anyone share my concern with the Vox article or am I seeing an issue where there isn't one? Poppa shark (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you're seeing an issue where there isn't one. The Vox article is extremely well researched and cites a lot of reliable sources including academic studies. I also don't see any stronger language than other sources–what wording were you concerned about specifically? Also, the Vox article has three paragraphs covering how the conspiracy theory is deployed against advocates of LGBT positive education for children. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the statement from the from the Overview section too broadly describes who is being attacked. From the other sources I'm looking at, they seem to better clarify that the targets of this effort are those that are introducing LGBT friendly education. For example, the Politifact article says, "LGBTQ community — or even just those who discuss LGBTQ topics — are deliberately preying on children by discussing sexual orientation and gender identity."

The inews states, "Republican politicians and pundits, currently trying to pass dozens of anti-LGBT laws across the country, are firing the “groomer” retort at critics of it."

The Washington Post states, "The “groomers” framing played a prominent role in the passage of Florida’s law prohibiting discussion of sexual identity among young children in schools."

Slate and others specifically cite the Pushaw tweet that accuses opponents of "Don't Say Gay" of being groomers. All of these examples are targeted towards a smaller part of the community.

Whereas the Vox article makes more broad statements like this: "Increasingly, though — and perhaps most worryingly — conservatives also seem to be using “grooming” to mean left-wing indoctrination generally." "The term — which describes the actions an adult takes to make a child vulnerable to sexual abuse — is taking on a conspiracy-theory tone as conservatives use it to imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers." Those lines seem to go beyond what any of the other sources are saying. Additionally, given the tone of that piece and the note on Vox from WP:RS, makes me feel that it shouldn't be relied on as a sole source for a statement.

I'm looking at it more closely, and I think it would be a non issue if the "liberals more generally" were removed from that section. But again, I came to the talk page to see if anyone shared my concerns before making any changes Poppa shark (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It is an accurate assessment of what conservatives are pushing. It's definitely a non-issue. 46.97.170.38 (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it really a conspiracy theory?

Looking through it, appears that the concern of some people, after all. Is starting to be the rule to bring Drag Queens to read the stories for Children. And there was various cases of trans people assaulting women in school bathrooms. I think that it's better to call it accusation, rather than conspiracy theory. Could we discuss it a bit? 170.0.160.141 (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

See the talk page above, this will explain why we say it is. Also can you bring some sources to the claim people are being assaulted?Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

trans women have sexually assaulted other women (which proves nothing about trans women of course because so do cis women) but I’ve never seen anything about school bathrooms. Either way purely anecdotal. Dronebogus (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

It is always important to remember that Wikipedia is wrong, by its own admission. This is because Wikipedia's mission is not to present the truth, but what primary, secondary and tertiary sources report. To properly use Wikipedia, it is important to recognize that it is a reflection of what Reliable Sources (defined as sources voted to be reliable by Wikipedia's editors here and here) are stating, nothing else. I hope that helped. If you wish to include any information in this article, please make sure to provide sources that were voted to be reliable. - LilySophie (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That's because WP is a tertiary source, which means that it sums up what existing secondary and primary sources have to say on topics. X-Editor (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Counterfactual claims, hypotheticals, kvetching, trolling and other disruptive chatter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's hard to justify why people voicing their concerns over child grooming is a "conspiracy theory". The fact that Vox (possibly others) claims that the term is referencing (or attempting to reference) all LGBTQ people hardly warrents it being a conspiracy theory. It is a claim by Vox, which should be investigated and clarified (meaning: debunked). More work should be done on this page to separate opinion from fact. Doing so would no longer result in it being considered a conspiracy theory. This type of article (as it stands) hurts public opinion and trust in Wikipedia. Http204 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC) This article isn't based on Vox, and no reliable sources have debunked the assertion that "LGBT grooming" is an unsubstantiated political narrative. If you believe alternative facts have been documented by reliable sources, you are welcome to present them here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC) It's not "concerns over child grooming", it's concerns characterizing anti-discriminatory education/cultural exhibits as "grooming". Even the most basic anti-discrimination pro-tolerance flyers make the rounds among the people who advocate for this. Your own framing is brazenly dishonest. Adamsmo (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC) When sexually explicit materials are used for the "education" and "cultural exhibits" involve drag queens dancing in front of a sign that read "It's not gonna lick itself", aren't YOU the one using dishonest framing? You basically used the euphemisms "ant-discriminatory education" and "cultural exhibits" to obfuscate the OBVIOUS CONTROVERSIAL NATURE of such "education" and "exhibits". This entire article is an example of how wikipedia has turned into a mouthpeice for far-left propaganda. It is NOT neutral in any way, and portrays a controversial subject from a one-sided perspective and uses BIASED and UNRELIABLE media -- mostly opinion pieces -- as the sources. It is also actively being modded in order to ensure that it remains biased. Wikipedia is dead. This article proves it. Unfortunately, I don't think it can be saved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:C081:9220:582D:7230:E1C1:DB81 (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Cope and seethe all you like, this article has many high quality reliable sources. --Pokelova (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC) What does "warrent" mean? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Are you the same people that said the large LGBT group going against groomers are trolls and don't deserve a mention? You all just continue to destroy this site IonovBee (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Not to be too high and mighty here, because I know that I've fallen for the same thing myself on occasion, but please can I remind everybody of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:DENY? Rather than argue with trolls and SPAs is it best to just roll up or, in really egregious cases, simply remove their attempts at disruption and issue warnings for disruptive editing if they persist. Nobody has to expend their time engaging with people who are clearly only here to waste our time and to distract us from doing something more productive. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

PP

Do we need talk page protection? Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You won't get it asking here. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I know, I was gaging support for asking. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I've put in a request at RFP. Generalrelative (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And it's now protected! Hopefully it'll die down in the next couple of days, and we'll go back to the baseline "not a conspiracy" level once Twitter's attention shifts somewhere else. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If it keeps up let me know and I'll protect again. I probably won't go more than a week or so at a time, since it's a talk page, but I'll try and keep up on requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the recent tweets of the account who tweeted about this page last night, it seems they've already moved on to raging at a couple of other unrelated topics (with no mentions of Wikipedia). Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

With regards to cleanup, do we want to just HAT all of the comments and maybe also flag them for immediate archiving? Or shall we just remove them? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I would have simply removed them but they've been replied to, so I'm hatting. Feel free to flag for immediate archiving too. Generalrelative (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Tagged them with Cluebot's ArchiveNow template, hopefully that'll send em into the archives next time the bot runs. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sweet. Generalrelative (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory in the name

There was a previous discussion Talk:LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory/Archive_1#Improving_article_title that discussed the alledged conspiracy theory in the name and a list of sources were provided. A quick look at the list seemed to roughly half of them dont refer to any conspiracy theory relating to grooming, and almost none of them use the term "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory". Can someone please post a list of actual RS that use the term of this article? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a descriptive title, so we don't need sources to say "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory". As far as I know, the RS have not settled on a name for this phenomenon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

If it is descriptive we need sources to describe it as such. We dont just use conspiracy theory on every article that our OR thinks it describes as such and a couple of sources support our pet theory. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You read the prior discussion, and you think it's fair to characterize the decision-making process so far as what "our OR thinks it describes as such and a couple of sources support our pet theory"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You said above it was descriptive. I see only one source in the prior discussion that uses this term. Is there a consensus of sources that use this term? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a descriptive title appear in the plurality of RS, so long as the verifiable content of the RS as a whole supports the characterization. Newimpartial (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

There was an RM on this just over 2 months ago. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see that above. Looks like no-consensus to me. I see closed by an editor who frequently edits has 5 different pages with LGBT in the name/subject, the user's third most common edit is LGBT book awards Lambda Literary Award for Children's and Young Adult Literature, and the wikipedia user ID handle contains a Rainbow flag (LGBT). Sound like a uninvolved editor close to you? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you claiming that an editor who frequently edits LGBT topics is somehow biased against the lunatic right-wing conspiracy theorists who claim that LGBT people are grooming children, and that only straight editors can edit topics about LGBT people without bias? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No consensus? It was closed as "retain status quo". And they've never edited this article nor talk page besides making that closure, so they seem fully uninvolved. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You're the one who sounds like like you're not uninvolved, tbqh. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem was what else should we call it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory is now a label when another disparaging label cannot be found nor agreed upon? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No it was the label agreed upon because we could not find what that did not imply this might be real. Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Two double negatives in one sentence, I have no idea what you are saying. What are you trying to not say? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Its simple enough, this is a false claim, and we needed to say that in the title, so as not to imply there was any validity to these claims. This was agreed upon as the best way to say that this is a false narrative. Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

But Conspiracy theory says "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful or sinister groups, often political in motivation, especially when other explanations are more probable." Why are we deviating from the wikipedia definition of something to expand it to include all allegedly false claims? Are we now doing this same approach at many articles? (using a non-mainstream interpretation of a word in the title to discredit it). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We are not, as this is a claim that a sinister group (the LGBT community) (and powerful due to social pressure and political allies) are conspiring to groom kids. Also it is political in nature, as it is used in campaigns to win seats to stop the grooming. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This article does not refer to LGBT community in the title as you assert. It is more of a wictionary type entry that describes a particular behavior. You are conflating the matter to pretend that this article states that everyone in the LGBT community is doing it. Maybe there are some nutso sources out there that might argue this, but that would fall under WP:OSE. A fringe interpretation of the term could also be discussed in the article as a section (your fringe theory that this term is being applied to the community). Do you have any evidence that this term is meant to apply to the entire article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You appear confused and disoriented. What does the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions have to do with the topic at hand? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your comments in which you insult another editor by calling them "disoriented" is not WP:CIVIL. This article is not subject for AfD and nothing relating to a deletion essay is relevant. We are discussing if this is a conspiracy theory. I have read here there is a total of 1 source that calls it a conspiracy theory, vox (on RSP noted as dubious in political articles.) I have also read that there wasnt another good disparaging term to use, so conspiracy theory was selected. If I am incorrect, feel free to refute provide evidence. Lay off on the insults while you are at it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you help us understand why you linked to WP:OSE? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

sure: the argument being put forth for the label that another demeaning term that is better cannot be found is List_of_fallacies#Fallacy_of_relative_privation Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 08:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:OSE links to a subsection of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Chaya Raichik/Libs of TikTok has recently described the LGBT community as an evil cult that brainwashes and grooms youth. Someone might say she's a "nutso source", to use your wording, and I'd probably agree, but she's certainly some of the most influential people pushing the grooming conspiracy theory and not a fringe source. And it's not Wikipedia's job to polish the turd of this discourse by painting its proponents as more moderate than they are. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you share the tweet where Libs of TikTok has described "the LGBT community" as an evil cult? 2601:280:C081:9220:582D:7230:E1C1:DB81 (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

OwO what's this? https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1607741993089892353 --Pokelova (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The article and sources suggest the following: (a) the term groomer is being used (b) it is being used to refer to people teaching LGBTQ ideology in schools (refer first paragraph) (c) it is used as a way of saying "that's ideology grooming" (refer Lindsay), or "political predators" (refer Rufo's tweet), however (d) it is suggested that the term is also being used to suggest that some teachers (LGBTQ or not) are using LGBTQ ideology to in fact groom children sexually (refer overview), and (e) there is no evidence that LGBTQ people commit child abuse at a greater rate than non-LGBTQ (overview). Therefore, there is a conspiracy theory that exists that suggests LGBTQ teachers are child groomers. As you can see, the points and links provided in the article are trying to pull together such inconsistent and varying points, that the exact narrative being alluded to as being a conspiracy theory is very unclear to the reader. Perhaps this explains the confusion, even on the Talk page. It would be more helpful to remove 'conspiracy theory' from the title, as already suggested. I'd suggest we rephrase this as a 'meme' or similar, then add sections to describe controversy surrounding the usage of the term. Http204 (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding what you think is confusing here. There doesn't seem to me to be any ambiguity as to whether this is a conspiracy theory. Also: what is "LGBTQ ideology"? Generalrelative (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"LGBTQ ideology" is what the term "groomer" is referring to (largely) in the public space. This article refers to it as "LGBT-positive education". However, since the entire claim of the article is regarding the usage of the word, I'm referring to the usage itself. James Lindsay is invoked in this wiki page, who is well known for using the term "groomer" to refer to what he calls "ideological grooming", "queer marxist ideology" etc. Other usage is along the same lines, of "ideology grooming" as opposed to "child sexual grooming". It makes no sense to refer to a usage of a word, whilst ignoring how the word is used, particularly by the people mentioned in the article. Here's an article that better explains the usage by James Lindsay: https://dailycaller.com/2022/07/22/twitter-groomer-media-matters-james-lindsay/ Http204 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I do not understand you. "LGBTQ ideology" is what the term "groomer" is referring to (largely) in the public space? I thought that "groomer" referred to sexual predators. Specifically, those who "groom" children for sexual abuse. The idea that teaching people about the existence of LGBT individuals in a value-neutral way is somehow a form of "grooming" is of course a conspiracy theory, as a vast array of reliable sources attest. Here is a small sample that state this explicitly:

• "The Long, Sordid History of the Gay Conspiracy Theory" New York Magazine [1]
• "Why So Many Conservatives Are Talking About ‘Grooming’ All Of A Sudden" FiveThirtyEight [2]
• "The right’s moral panic over “grooming” invokes age-old homophobia" Vox [3]
• "Republicans’ Anti-LGBTQ Conspiracy Theories Are Fueling Far-Right Threats to Pride Celebrations" The New Republic [4]
• "How Stochastic Terrorism Uses Disgust to Incite Violence" Scientific American [5]

It wouldn't be hard to find more. Generalrelative (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Do any of these refer to "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory" other than vox? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not making a common-name argument. These are substantive arguments. You might try reading them. Generalrelative (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There are some mentions of QAnon conspiracy theories, the idea that homophobia is a conspiracy theory, but no mention I can find on any specific conspiracy theory regarding the usage of the term "groomers" to refer to LGBTQ education. The closest I could find:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/the-long-sordid-history-of-the-gay-conspiracy-theory.html

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-many-conservatives-are-talking-about-grooming-all-of-a-sudden/

These are out of 46 articles, and there are clearly articles available from reliable sources discussing the issue of LGBTQ education in schools. It's hard to argue that "groomer" is a conspiracy theory from the articles provided. From the articles, the sources provided, and the people linked, "Groomer" is being used as a way of making a claim of either ideological and sexual grooming regarding LGBTQ education. The claim is clearly controversial according to many sources. There is already a link recognizing mainstream concern that "teachers and parents that support discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity in school are groomers" under Public Opinion. Http204 (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"The idea that teaching people about the existence of LGBT individuals in a value-neutral way" is a value claim: You are claiming that it's value-neutral. However, the public figures who are invoked by the article are voicing concerns on claims that they're not value-neutral. Either we accurately present their claims, or we are wasting our time entirely. Http204 (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What do "the public figures who are invoked by the article" consider value-neutral LGBT education? And why should astroturf social media accounts watered by dark money be the authorities of what counts as value-neutral LGBT education? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"What do "the public figures who are invoked by the article" consider value-neutral LGBT education?" - quite possibly, nothing. But I'm not sure how that changes whether or not their usage is directed at LGBTQ education. Like I said, I'm only trying to "accurately present their claims". Http204 (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

If these people's position is that no LGBT education should exist, they're biased, and their claims about bias in the people they oppose shouldn't be taken at face value. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, you are using the strawman phrase "the existence of LGBT individuals". The existence of LGBTQ people is not a matter of controversy at all, neither in the public space, but specifically in this article. Also, it is of no relation to the claims of grooming. Http204 (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The confusion is because there are two separate claims circulating: 1) LGBTQ people are grooming children, and 2) an excess of sex-positivity, often under the cover of LBGTQ-inclusivity, is weakening safeguarding structures, which is assisting predators (of any sexuality) to groom children.

1 is a baseless slur, often made by right-wing punditry, as detailed in the article, but 2 is a separate claim, and unfortunately left-wing punditry uses the baselessness of 1 to dismiss concerns regarding 2, which I imagine they consider to be fair game given that some right-wingers use 2 to deviously imply 1.

What you might consider is starting a new article Critiques of sex-positivity, to include some of what you’re talking about, and to more clearly separate 2 (which doesn’t belong in this article) from 1 (which does). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm dubious that this is independently notable. But hey, anyone is welcome to try to find reliable sources and build an article. With regard to this discussion what I'm seeing is one brand-new account pushing WP:PROFRINGE claims who will not succeed. Cheers y'all. Generalrelative (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It might be used as a baseless slur (if indeed it is), but it is also used by BBC as a term in itself. If the term has two meanings, then the article either covers both or is a disambiguation article. Relating to this "an excess of sex-positivity, often under the cover of LBGTQ-inclusivity, is weakening safeguarding structures, which is assisting predators (of any sexuality) to groom children" I am not sure if the sources state that, I think it might be more similar to simply Child grooming. Generally speaking grooming refers to engagement with a minor (I think) and the LGBT part refers to engaging with a minor for some LGBT aim. I too am not experienced in this subject to create a new article, I just know a duck when i see WP:QUACK. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is only one meaning to groomer (in the context of children "someone who builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.". Thus accusing anyone of being a groomer can only mean you are accusing them of grooming children for sex. Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There are other "grooming" pages on Wikipedia, however, "cult grooming" is not one, which I imagine would be the correct name for what is being called ideological grooming.

These are not my definitions, but looking at the link I provided above:

“Lindsay told the DCNF he uses the term to refer to both sexually predatory grooming and ideological grooming into what he called 'queer Marxist ideology.'

I call people who engage in either of these grooming behaviors ‘groomers’ because it’s wrong to do and because that’s what they’re doing: grooming,” Http204 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

By this definition, straight people modeling heteronormative behavior would also be a form of grooming. I'm having a hard time seeing this as a serious concern. Generalrelative (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Grooming seems to have a few definitions, see [6]. It seems the point you and Slatersteven (immediately above) are asserting is that it applies only to #4 (if using this dictionary.com entry). Or if we use wictionary (which I suppose we would prioritize?) then you are both presuming it means #5. However grooming (and groomer as the derivative) has a broader meaning and would not necessary be negative or predatory as both of you are arguing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

And how many of those can refer to gay people going into schools to do something wrong, that needs to be stopped and that is a threat to children? I will avoid the obvious snark and just ask, provide one source (any source, does not even have to be RS) that says that these worries about anything other than sexual grooming. Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't find a dictionary definition for "cult grooming", however, it is a term that is quite common in societies usage. It would also seemingly correlate to existing references in the wiki page that upon investigating are in fact referring to ideologies.

The page suggests the term "groomer" was popularized by James Lindsay. Lindsay uses the phrase "ideological grooming", as already mentioned. Whilst the claim was made by Lindsay himself, the publication it appears on (DailyCaller.com) is rated 100/100 on NewsGuard.

Also, the page also suggests the term was popularized by "Christopher Rufo, who tweeted about 'winning the language war'", the tweet that the in question clearly is not referring to sexual grooming. It reads:

"Winning the language war: use the term "political predators" for describing teachers who indoctrinate their students and treat the public school system as a recruiting ground for their private ideologies."

So, to answer your question, grooming a child for a cult or ideology (whether we agree that's what they're doing or not), would be considered something that is wrong in schools. Http204 (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The links:

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1432787777133760515

https://dailycaller.com/2022/07/22/twitter-groomer-media-matters-james-lindsay/ Http204 (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Lindsay told the DCNF he uses the term to refer to both sexually predatory grooming and ideological grooming into what he called “queer Marxist ideology.”", this is the problem, they do not tell you in what context they are using it when they using it, also this source does in fact support the idea this is about an attempt to push an ideology, that it is political, and a conspiracy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The source does support the idea that it is regarding the pushing of an ideology. However, the ideology in this case is LGBTQ education. So, given LGBTQ education is real, and it's a mainstream concern being reported in mainstream media, whilst referring to it as "grooming" might be controversial, it's difficult to argue that referring to it as "grooming" is a conspiracy theory. Http204 (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it?, as there is no evidence there is an attempt to push a queer Marxist ideology.”, there is a claim. Thus there is a claim of a conspiracy where there is no evidence, hence, conspiracy theory. The slur (groomer) is being used to imply children are in danger, the claim it is some "ideology" is a conspiracy theory. Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

However grooming (and groomer as the derivative) has a broader meaning and would not necessary be negative or predatory as both of you are arguing. And... that's the point when this discussion officially went off the rails. There is no point arguing further. Folks who disagree with the status quo can start an RfC and see how far that gets them. We are being trolled here. Generalrelative (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it is not used by BBC as a term in itself. It is used by the BBC as an accusation placed by one particular vicar, and discredited by other commentators. Newimpartial (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what are you trying to imply. Are you saying there's been a rise in sex educator-perpetrated abuse, and that this is tied to greater "LBGTQ-inclusivity"? Do you have any data to back up this frankly scandalous claim? 17:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Considering that Chaya Raichik, the person behind the Libs of TikTok account, has called for teachers who are out as gay to be fired from their jobs, it's obvious that the people behind this campaign do wish to see acknowledgement of gay people's existence removed from the public sphere. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem, outlined in this journal:

"Although the term ‘conspiracy theory’ lacks any fixed definition, it does serve a fixed function. Its function, like that of the word ‘heresy’ in medieval Europe, is to stigmatise people with beliefs which conflict with officially sanctioned or orthodox beliefs of the time and place in question."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2021.1917364

Whilst the term "groomer" is being used to stigmatize teachers of LGBTQ education, we risk making the same error here. Currently, the term "conspiracy theory" is being used as a way of stigmatizing people with a certain belief: in this instance, people who believe that LBGTQ education is pushing a harmful ideology (sources already cited). It is not wikipedia's role to decide if LGBTQ education is harmful or not. It is a mainstream concern (already cited), so therefore we should remain neutral to both sides and remove "conspiracy theory" from the title. Http204 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

"Whilst the term "groomer" is being used to stigmatize teachers of LGBTQ education" - this is of course a claim. It's not our role to suggest either way, per se. Http204 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What reliable sources dispute what you refer to as a claim? "Claims" that are undisputed within the HQRS are otherwise known (and treated) as "facts". Newimpartial (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

As much as we don't want this to become a right-wing echo chamber, we also don't want this to become a left-wing echo chamber. Since the question of LBGTQ education is in the mainstream debate, neutrality is key here. It's not our role to declare this a conspiracy theory. The Vox source is the only source that loosely supports the claim, although their representation of the conspiracy is different to ours. I think we should stay out of the debate. Http204 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, if I was going to change it, it would be to “groomer (slur)” simply because it’s the closest to a WP:COMMON NAME. Dronebogus (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

At this stage I will remind you that wp:blp also applies to talk pages. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Since at least one editor has been misrepresenting what the sources say, I'll append quotes to the short list of sources I provided above. Note that not all of these are currently referenced in the article, so anyone who's interested should feel free to expand our coverage.

• "The Long, Sordid History of the Gay Conspiracy Theory" New York Magazine [7]

  Gays were accused of subverting schools, communities, even whole nations, and it’s within the context of this long and ignoble history that the present hysteria over malevolent “groomers” working surreptitiously to corrupt the country’s youth must be understood. To comprehend America’s latest moral panic, it is necessary to recognize homophobia as not only a form of prejudice like any other but as a conspiracy theory.

• "Why So Many Conservatives Are Talking About ‘Grooming’ All Of A Sudden" FiveThirtyEight [8]

  “Grooming” is a term that neatly draws together both modern conspiracy theories and old homophobic stereotypes, while comfortably shielding itself under the guise of protecting children. Who, after all, can argue against the safety of kids? But by adopting this language to bolster their latest political pursuits, the right is both giving a nod to fringe conspiracy theorists and using an age-old tactic to dismantle LGBTQ rights.

• "The right’s moral panic over “grooming” invokes age-old homophobia" Vox [9]

  Following the recent passage of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law and a wave of other homophobic and transphobic legislation throughout the country, current right-wing rhetoric has focused on accusations of “grooming.” The term — which describes the actions an adult takes to make a child vulnerable to sexual abuse — is taking on a conspiracy-theory tone as conservatives use it to imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers.

• "Republicans’ Anti-LGBTQ Conspiracy Theories Are Fueling Far-Right Threats to Pride Celebrations" The New Republic [10]

  Both have espoused conspiracy theory–laced views on abortion and LGBTQ rights—with McGeachin claiming that “radical leftists and satanists” who oppose abortion bans “unapologetically characterize killing babies as a ‘religious abortion ritual’” and Rogers repeatedly linking support for LGBTQ youth to “grooming.”

• "How Stochastic Terrorism Uses Disgust to Incite Violence" Scientific American [11]:

  With the support of former President Donald Trump, the pedophile conspiracy theory has contributed to a widening spiral of threats and violence, including the deadly January 6 Capitol insurrection. A revival of the “groomer” smear against the LGBTQ community (a reference to a pedophile) has ramped up the aggression.

Once again, material of this kind is easy to find from reliable sources. Folks claiming that reliable sources don't describe this as a conspiracy theory have not bothered to check (assuming good faith, that is). Please note that this comment is meant for uninvolved editors who happen by. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for copying the wording into the thread. I had gone through the articles and made the notes myself, but thanks for copying it into the discussion for clarity.

I have already acknowledged that a number of sources refer to conspiracy theories. I had not misrepresented that. The question was related to whether a reliable assertation can be found as to a concrete/official conspiracy theory relating to what we are talking about in the article. The Vox article does call it a specific conspiracy theory, however, it's representation is of "all LGBTQ" people, whereas our article refers to LGBTQ education, so the representation was a little different.

The sources you sited referred to:

- homophobia is a conspiracy theory

- "Groomer" is used by conspiracy theorists

- References to conspiracy-theory tone

- "conspiracy theory–laced views" "linking support for LGBTQ youth to “grooming.”"

- "the pedophile conspiracy theory"... presumably "about Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates and others", with a relationship to a “groomer” smear

If the remaining community disagree with my reading, then I'm happy to concede to that.

I'm going to leave interpretations here, and leave it to the community to read and follow the original posters question and intention.

@Jtbobwaysf:, I hope your question gets clarified. Http204 (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Http204: You did summarize my position well, in that we have vox saying LGBT is a conspiracy theory. He we have another vox source saying

“Groomer” accusations against liberals and the LGBTQ community are recycled Satanic Panic.

here. Already on WP:RSPVOX says "Vox does not always delineate reporting and opinion content or that it is a partisan source in the field of politic." We aren't going to add the Satanic Panic claim to the article are we? How does that absurd position make us feel about the other claim the same publication made? The rest of the sources provided in the list above seem to seek to advocate that this article is akin to bad xyz, is a smear, etc. All of that can be addressed in the article in due course, my position is related to the name of the article and I still havent read much here to change my position on that (other that clear statements that some dont like the LGBT groomer or GLBT grooming name. But we do also have RS such as BBC (I added above) using the term without any negative slant on it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

To what BBC source do you refer? I can't seem to find the link. Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have posted that to make it easier, oversight on my part, maybe I posted in a section above, or just forgot. Here it is. LGBT grooming claims vicar 'knows nothing', says peer, and A vicar has described LGBT inclusive education in schools as "a form of child grooming" that "opens the door for sexual predators". Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think that source says what you think it says. The BBC does not use "grooming" without any negative slant on it - the article is quite clear about the "negative slant" - and also never uses the term in its own voice. Rather, the headline refers to the "LGBT grooming claims vicar" (emphasis added) and attributes the claim to the vicar in the article text (quoting him). I see no basis in the BBC article for the assertion that "LGBT grooming" is anything other than a conspiracy theory/slur/moral panic/anti-LGBT trope. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I see no basis in the BBC article for the assertion that "LGBT grooming" is anything other than a conspiracy theory/slur/moral panic/anti-LGBT trope." - Can you point out where in the article it presents the vicar's claim as a conspiracy theory, slur or trope? I can't see any myself, and unless you are able to, I would think that in itself would be the basis. Http204 (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The article presents the vicar's statements as "claims" and devotes most of the text to criticism of those claims. There is no basis in the article to treat the claims as factual (as you apparently do). Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting my stance. Assuming this is unintentional, I'll clarify. I am arguing for a neutral wording, not a wording that presents the claims as factual.

We both agree that there is no basis in the article to treat the claims as factual. However, what I was asking about is "where in the article it presents the vicar's claim as a conspiracy theory, slur or trope".

We also both agree that the article has presented the vicar's claims as 'claims', and there is considerable criticism of those claims.

It is a article that is worded neutrally in my opinion, and presenting a claim and its criticism. I don't believe either of us have presented any statement within the article that suggests it's wording is not neutral (ie: the claim is either factual, or a slur/trope). I still believe the article presents the claim as being a genuine concern of the vicar. Http204 (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You seem to believe that if one article - while presenting a WP:BALANCE of commentary critical of a claim - does not pronounce the claim "false" in its own editorial voice, that therefore we must treat the claim as of an indeterminate truth-value in spite of the many other HQRS that establish the claim to be false. However, I am unaware of any basis in WP policy for your apparent belief. Newimpartial (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This branch of the comment thread is regarding the BBC article. My belief is that the wording is neutral, for reasons already discussed. This is along the lines of your statement "does not pronounce the claim "false" in its own editorial voice".

My overall stance, which relates to the entire LGBT article, I'm not suggesting we treat it as true, false, or indeterminate. My belief is that it should be "nonjudgmental language", (refer NPOV).

I think the BBC article has been discussed, and I'm interested in establishing a title. Http204 (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

As an alternative, should we consider moral panic as a descriptive term title, pending a settled WP:COMMONNAME? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why changing from one descriptive and supported title to another, somewhat less common in general speech, would be necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

So what is the alternative "LGBT grooming theory"? Everyone who objects has said why, it's now time to offer an alternative. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned “groomer (slur)” above. Dronebogus (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but I want to know what the more vociferous want. As without alternatives, we can't change the title to anything. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. There is clearly a consensus in favor of the current title. As mentioned in one of the initial comments above [12], a requested move was closed just over two months ago. The rationale for challenging it was to imply that the closer was biased due to their LGBT identity [13]. Not going to work. Move on. Generalrelative (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's perfect, but an improvement, in my opinion. Http204 (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Already expressed my approval for this term at WP:FTN, but I'm voicing it here too. Groomer (slur) is an infinitely better title. DFlhb (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Given "conspiracy theory" has an actual meaning, and "LGBTQ grooming theory" reads more as a descriptive title (which it's meant to be). I would agree with this change. Http204 (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

No, that isn't NPOV, any more than "LGBT grooming hyothesis" would be NPOV. That's pseudo-neutrality.

The only alternatives would be formulations like "LGBT grooming trope", "Anti-LGBT grooming rhetoric", or the aformentioned "slur". (I personally prefer "Groomer (homophobic or transphobic slur)", myself. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I really think the word canard is what y’all are looking for, and it has relevant parallels in antisemitism. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

So that I can understand your thinking, can you please explain your reasoning behind suggesting that the title should not be NPOV? Http204 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The title should be NPOV - NPOV here requires accuracy, not false neutrality. We do not have an aticle, for example, on the "Adrenochrome ritual killing hypothesis", we have one on the QAnon conspiracy theory Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify my question, can you please point out within NPOV, where you believe this title should not be neutral (you've used the phrase "false neutrality"). How are you coming to this conclusion, and please site the section of NPOV that you believe constitutes this title not being presented in a neutral wording? Http204 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You are misconstruing my position; I am saying that "LGBT grooming theory" is not neutral, as it lacks the precision that is required of article titles (as well as the "grooming theory" formulation which essentially WP:OR. This is not a "grooming theory" that may be true or may be false; it is a grooming conspiracy theory/rhetorical trope that is established (unanimously by the HQRS) to be false. The only neutral and accurate course is to indicate the conspiracy theory in the title, the same logic that gives us an article for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory rather than for "Cultural Marxism". Newimpartial (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe we need to get into a debate over whether or not Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory here. We are discussing "Groomer" and this is the page we are on.

We are both understanding your position. You are suggesting that "NPOV here requires accuracy, not false neutrality". Please support this claim, by pointing exactly to NPOV. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view Http204 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:YESPOV: Avoid stating facts as opinions, and WP:PRECISION, which is linked from NPOV and also has the status of governing policy. Newimpartial (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything in either of those articles to suggest that "NPOV here requires accuracy, not false neutrality". Therefore, I don't see anything in those articles that suggest "LGBTQ grooming theory" is an inappropriate title. It is not stating an uncontested and uncontroversial fact as an opinion. Plus it is defining the scope of the article, in my opinion. Thanks for explaining your thinking. My preference would be for non-sympathetic, non-disparaging wording in the title, such as "LGBTQ grooming theory". Http204 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed non-sympathetic, non-disparaging wording appears to present a thoroughly discredited trope as though it might or might not happen to be true - in other words, lending credence to this instance of anti-LGBT rhetoric that is not in line with the HQRS. Your proposal thus runs contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:FALSEBALANCE and even WP:V. You could try, nevertheless, to propose a WP:RM that runs counter to these policies, but I would be very surprised if it received much support. Newimpartial (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is a BBC article about water [[14]], you will not how it does not say water is wet, this, however, does not mean it can be used to say water is not wet. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I dont know what this is supposed to mean, maybe some sort of WP:OSE argument. Seems there are other editors that are comfortable with removal of the conspiracy theory name and no consensus here in this discussion. Wondering if you were maybe mocking the discussion or I just didnt understand the meaning? Or maybe you share my view that is it laughable that everything be a conspiracy theory. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. Everything is not a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories, and there is consensus that "LGBT grooming" is one. The debate is over, time to drop the stick. Generalrelative (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023

The line "Research has shown that LGBT people do not molest children at higher rates than non-LGBT people.[2][3][4][5]" should be removed along with the corresponding citations. The latest research of all of the citations provided is from the citation 5 having collected data in 1993 (published 1994), but the events of this article reference an event/phenomenon that occurred in the 2020s.

Further, citation 2 is just a secondhand reference to citations 3, 4, and 5. Yet citations 3 and 4 are themselves both referencing citation 5 in regard to this statement. So all other citations other than 5 are redundant here. However without any alternative citations at least within the relevant time-frame of this event or additional research demonstrating the universality, in regards to both time and location, of the results of this research from a single regional children's hospital in Colorado in 1994, then this can't be asserted as factual for the purposes of this article.

The following link provides additional publicly available information regarding the setting of the study referenced as citation 5. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/94/1/41/59154/Are-Children-at-Risk-for-Sexual-Abuse-by?redirectedFrom=fulltext 73.35.22.88 (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

So? if this is the best or most recent data we use it, if it's not produce the data that contradicts it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The content is adequately referenced and no plausible reason to remove it has been offered. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Researchers find connection between groomer slur on Twitter with real world violence

[15] Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2023

The Libs of Tik Tok are not a far right group. 2601:18F:4100:ED50:5C:21FB:24D:6ECB (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It is; please see the sourcing on the Libs of Tik Tok page. However, I doubt the Twitter logo of that account meets MOS:PERTINENCE, and don't see what illustrative point it serves. Can't we replace it with some mob standing outside a Drag Queen Story Hour or something? I saw a few good pics of that recently, though not sure if they're Creative Commons. DFlhb (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Picture

DQSH

Re: this diff: @Generalrelative I'm not sure what you mean by 'helpful'; there's a whole paragraph on Drag Queen Story hour protests (and violence), and the pic was intended to illustrate that. I tried looking for a picture where there was violence, but didn't find a freely-licensed one. DFlhb (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we can have both the pic and the LoTT, there are no other images in the article after all so it isn't like its crowded. Happy to work on the spacing for them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that the suggested presentation of the "Drag Queen Story Hour" incident in the image caption gives WP:UNDUE credence to the subject of the conspiracy theory, especially when it's drawing focus as the only image (or one of the only images per HEB's suggestion) in the article. An image of a protestor with "grooming" explicitly mentioned on their sign might be appropriate, but we should take care to avoid turning this article into a WP:COATRACK for all gensex-related culture war issues. Generalrelative (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that care should be taken and its definitely fair to say that these are not ideal images. I do think they're better than nothing though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Before finding the picture I added, I came across pictures from the same protest, that had "You Call It Storytime, We Call It Grooming" placards (which are definitely better illustrations), but skipped over them since they all showed protesters' faces extremely clearly. The pic I added had the benefit that no one can be identified, thus posing personal safety concerns. That avoidance isn't grounded in policy, but my own punctilious desire to minimize harm. I eagerly agree that a pic with "Groomer" placards would be much better, but ideally no faces would be identifiable. DFlhb (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

These are both fair points. Of course, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, not every article needs images, but if we can find something obviously relevant (and without unnecessarily identifying subjects) it should be included. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Libs of tiktok

We also use the libs of tiktok logo on this article. Would that be ok under the fair use policy? I know logos are ok on the main article, are they ok on somewhat unrelated articles? I am referring to this in which I did add a wikilink (without endorsing the logo which was already there). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not being used under fair use, their logo is in the public domain in the U.S. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC on conspiracy theory in the name

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

---

Is LGBT grooming a conspiracy theory? (and should it be used in the article name) YES/NO

Per WP:RFCBEFORE, this has been discussed above Talk:LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory#Conspiracy_theory_in_the_name. Note: This is not a discussion of proposed alternative titles, this is only if this article subject is or is not a conspiracy theory.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

This is not an appropriate use of an RfC. See WP:RFCNOT. Renaming pages is the purview of requested moves. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I have struck that part of the RFC. First we can address the is or is not question. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for an RfC because the consensus is already clear from the above discussion (Talk:LGBT grooming conspiracy theory#Conspiracy theory in the name) where the overwhelming preponderance of editors have voiced support for the fact that "LGBT grooming" is a conspiracy theory. You are therefore disrupting Wikipedia by insisting we all go through the same discussion again. Just drop the stick and move on. Generalrelative (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Agreed. A requested move was closed as "retain status quo" just over three months ago. Jtbobwaysf then attempted to relitigate in the section above by implying that the closer was biased due to their LGBT identity. This is not WP:RFCBEFORE. This is a profound failure to WP:LISTEN. Generalrelative (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed I cant rule out it being a non-neutral close. However, that is not a review of that close. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean by this. Generalrelative (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The subject of this close is if the article subject is or is not a conspiracy theory and is not a review of a proposed move, which would be found WP:MR. My response was to your diff that showed my comment on an earlier move proposal. In the discussion above Talk:LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory#Conspiracy_theory_in_the_name you will see that there seems to be some discussion if this is really a conspiracy theory. If it was only me putting for this question I would not have run an RFC per LISTEN. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

There was one other user besides you (a brand-new SPA account) in that discussion who questioned whether it is a conspiracy theory. The overwhelming consensus was clearly against you. Generalrelative (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You announced (twice) your intention to use this RfC to rename the article or to follow it up with a renaming discussion. Both this RfC and an RM would involve weighing the evidence that RS treat this as a conspiracy theory. Assuming that your view wins the day, why have two discussions? To be clear, I would prefer zero discussions, I see this as a backdoor RM, and I think the stated (and doubled down) reasons for questioning the previous RM's close are abhorrent. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Is LGBT grooming a conspiracy theory?"

That is not for us to answer, go by what RS say. Also its hard to see how this can really be the subject of an RFC, as it is asking far too broad a question, what is the purpose of this RFC, and what action is to be taken based on the decision? THis is a very flawed RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close as a bad RfC per everyone above. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close (Summoned by bot) What is the question? Do LGBT people ever 'groom' children, obviously yes, sometimes. Are there consistently exaggerated claims/slurs/accusations/fears that LGBT people do so so disproportionately and in some underhand coordinated fashion, and is 'grooming conspiracy theory' a reasonably concise and accurate summary of the phenomenon behind those claims, the phenomenon which is the subject of this article? It seems yes from the discussion above and sources. A bad RfC per everyone above. Pincrete (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural close - this appears to be a misuse of the RfC process to re-litigate a recent, well participated discussion the result of which an editor doesn't like. Newimpartial (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
• Close per all of the above. This appears to be an attempt to relitigate recently established consensus. Consensus can change, but not this fast. --Jayron32 14:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Baptist abuse

At least one WP:RSOPINION noting this facet, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/24/right-ignoring-southern-baptist-convention-abuse-scandal/ Sennalen (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

What facet (paywalled)? Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The people who signal-boost imaginary LGBTQ grooming ignore proven Southern Baptist grooming. Sennalen (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Mmm as this is a BLP issue, i would like a better source than an Op-edd. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly shouldn't name names. Sennalen (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2023

I suggest a request for (a) reference(s) (a [who?] notation) after the word "experts" in the following sentence from the first paragraph:

"These accusations and conspiracy theories are characterized by experts as baseless, homophobic and transphobic, and as examples of moral panic." Sweetiesteph23 (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. The names of said experts can be found in the "Responses and criticism" section. The lead paragraph is only a summary of the article and does not need to include finer detail such as that. --Pokelova (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Early 2020s?

I'm not sure thats accurate, there were plenty of such conspiracies around 10 years ago, they only got a bit more popular in 2021 but that means nothing. 178.138.193.1 (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It might help if you provide some souces talking about a conspiracy of LGBT people grooming children. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Semantics

Perhaps 'grooming' as the operative word here is not being meant to describe child sexual abuse but 'grooming' in a sense of encouraging and initiating minors into the LGBTQ culture and lifestyle. I am a professional counselor who has heard both side of this. Many definitions over the past few years, including racism and gender, have come to mean different things to different people. Based environmentalist (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

But that is not what it means. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This article seems to be suferring from WP:Recentism

The theory that the LGBT movement is trying to, in one way or another, "groom" (or recruit) children can be dated as far back as the 1970 (with Anita Bryant), if not even before that. Yet this entire article (with the exception of the first paragraph in the "origins" section) focuses only on events after 2020. It says almost nothing about the 30+ years (from the 1970's to the early 2000's, when the Christian-invented, LGBT "recruitment"/grooming theory started to die out) that this sentiment existed, its sociopolitical effects during the 80's and 90's, and all the historical background therein.

This looks a lot like a violation of the Wikipedia:Recentism policy, which say that: Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. The ajective "imbalanced focus" heavily applies to this article.

I suggest that this article:

• should have its lead paragraph set to something like: Since the late 1970's, and noticiable after the early 2020's, certain members of the Conservative Movement, mostly in the United States, have falsely accused LGBT people, as well as their allies and progressives in general, of systematically using LGBT-positive education and campaigns for LGBT rights as a method of child grooming or LGBT recruitment.
• maybe include a section on the LGBT recruitment theory BEFORE the 1970's
• include a section on the 1970's Save Our Children campaign and its sociopolitical effects
• include one or more sections after that, each discussing whatever reliable sources say that happened after Save Our Children and the current LGBT grooming theory
• and then include the current, post-2020 grooming conspiracy theory.

The lgbt recruitment page has some good information that could be placed in this article as well.

If anyone want to do it, I think there is a "recentism" template that could be put at the top of this article. 🔥 22spears 🔥 20:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be great to add more content on the history of the conspiracy theory. Which sources best cover the info you're providing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that we don't have any sources that cover those things in the context of the current phenomenon. You appear to be working backwards, you've decided what you think should be in the article and now want to find sources for it rather than finding articles and summarizing them as has been done to create the current page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The current article does have some sources putting this controversy into the context of late 20th century LGBT "grooming" conspiracy theories:

• The Long, Sordid History of the Gay Conspiracy Theory
• The right’s moral panic over “grooming” invokes age-old homophobia

Furthermore, these two others reliable sources could be also used:

• Accusations of 'grooming' are the latest political attack — with homophobic origins
• How 1970s Christian crusader Anita Bryant helped spawn Florida's LGBTQ culture war
• With anti-LGBTQ laws proliferating, older activists say history is repeating itself

I don't think we should look at this controversy only through the context of the current 2020's groomer theory or the 1970's Save Our Children movement, that would be a bit short-sighted in my opinion. We should make this article talk about the whole issue in a greater, historically comprehensive view that does not give WP:UNDUE weight to recent events. I think that would be in the interest of everyone here and seems to be what WP:Recentism and WP:NPOV are telling us to do: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news." Though the 2020's groomer theory is not a "minor event", the current article seems to give a disproportional significance to it in the detriment of the 1970's-onwards LGBT grooming theories despite the fact that many reliable sources do agree that these two events are tied to each other, and all of this due to recent events that are currently in the news.

Doing all of these changes would required major parts of this article to be re-written, so I think we should make some early changes here and there and add the "recentism" tag to the top of this article to make other editors aware of the way that the article should be continue to be changed:

{{recentism}}

🔥 22spears 🔥 23:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if there's sourcing to do what is proposed. It should be feasible to wikilink Anti-LGBT_rhetoric#Recruitment somewhere, but not in the current instances of the word "recruit", which are both in quotations. Sennalen (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not certain if you realize this, but you are asking for a major change in the article's scope. Much of the "grooming" conspiracy theory seems to derive from an ongoing moral panic concerning pedophilia, dating to the 1970s. Quoting the article on moral panic itself: The moral panic over pedophilia began in the 1970s after the sexual revolution. While homosexuality was becoming more socially accepted after the sexual revolution, pro-contact pedophiles believed that the sexual revolution never helped pro-contact pedophiles."" ... "The sexual part of child abuse became prominent in the United States due to the encounter of two political agendas: the fight against battered child syndrome by pediatricians during the 1960s and the feminist anti-rape movement, in particular the denunciation of domestic sexual violence. These two movements overlapped in 1975, creating a new political agenda about child sexual abuse. Laura Lowenkron wrote: "The strong political and emotional appeal of the theme of 'child sexual abuse' strengthened the feminist criticism of the patriarchal family structure, according to which domestic violence is linked to the unequal power between men and women and between adults and children." Although the concern over child sexual abuse was caused by feminists, the concern over child sexual abuse also attracted traditional groups and conservative groups. Lowenkron added: "Concerned about the increasing expansion and acceptance of so-called 'sexual deviations' during what was called the libertarian age from the 1960s to the early 1970s", conservative groups and traditional groups "saw in the fight against 'child sexual abuse' the chance" to "revive fears about crime and sexual dangers". "" Dimadick (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding some of your specific concerns:

"certain members of the Conservative Movement, mostly in the United States, have falsely accused LGBT people" Conservatism is a school of political philosophy, not a unified political movement. Anti-LGBT_rhetoric by American conservatives should be emphasized.

"LGBT recruitment theory BEFORE the 1970's"" Then you should probably search for this material yourself. Our current text on LGBT recruitment depicts it is a talking point for the New Right, which in its current incarnation only dates to 1964. "The second New Right objected to a perceived decline in morality, including increased drug use, more public and open displays of sexuality, rising crime rates, race riots and unrest from civil rights protesters, and Vietnam War protesters."

"include a section on the 1970's Save Our Children campaign" No objection from me. But Save Our Children, had limited influence outside the Republican Party. : "Historians have since connected the success of Save Our Children with the organization of conservative Christian participation in political processes. Although "occasional antigay appeals from the right" existed prior to the campaign, "the new right struck pure gold in Anita Bryant. A mother, celebrity singer, former Miss America ... the chirpy Bryant was the ideal model for its antigay crusade." Within two years Jerry Falwell developed a coalition of conservative religious groups named the Moral Majority that influenced the Republican Party to incorporate a social agenda in national politics. Homosexuality, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), abortion, and pornography were among the issues most central to the Moral Majority's priorities until it folded in 1989. For many gay people, the surprise at the outcome of all the campaigns in 1977 and 1978 instilled a new determination and consolidated activism and communities in many cities where the gay community had not been politically active. Despite its success, Save Our Children brought widespread opposition and boycotts towards Bryant by the LGBT community and its supporters in the entertainment industry, tarnishing her reputation and ending her career as an entertainer." Dimadick (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Should we call "non-LGBT people" "straight people"?

I think it's the more natural and common term. Another disagrees. What say you? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The context for others is this revert by me. There's two issues here with using "straight people" instead of "non-LGBT people". One is that the term straight has some negative connotations, as the corresponding historical term for homosexual individuals was bent (for a citation, see cite #21 in Heterosexuality). The second is that it's actually less precise and erroneous in this context. Many LGBT people are not homosexual, as the term groomer has is used to disparage heterosexual trans, non-binary, and genderqueer individuals, as well as heterosexual LGBT allies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair points. Personally, I've always taken "straight" to also mean "cis", but I'm also pretty personally ignorant of modern lingo. Is there any reason you want to emphasize "pedophiles" in that Vox quote, rather than any other arbitrary word not intended to be linked to a broader discussion by the writer (like "liberals")? I'm pretty sure MOS:LINKQUOTE applies. That's less important, though, as is the WP:OVERCITE thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

These days cis and het are considered two separate and distinct topics, unless you're informally referring to someone as cishet. On the wikilink, honestly I'd be fine with moving it to the first non-quotation use of the word paedophile. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty, I didn't even know "het" was "a thing". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Also less important, would you (or anyone else) object to me writing "Research has shown that non-LGBT people molest children at a higher rate than LGBT people?" More positive and less wordy. "Straight" and "non-LGBT" are equal, bytewise, just wordier in the syllables. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It might ruffle some feathers, but if it's supported by the sources (and from a quick glance it appears to be) it might be acceptable. I'd probably hold off to see what other folks say here though before changing it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I've had enough ruffled feathers today, I'll wait, too. Logically speaking, though, if it's basically already true and verified, it'll remain so, in any topic. Just an inversion. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, if the Overview is about groomers/grooming, is research about molesters/molesting even pertinent? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Short answer yes, it's necessary to demonstrate that the grooming allegations are false. This is one of those topics that heavily overlaps with fringe theories and pseudoscience, and so the fringe theories content guideline comes into heavy play with regards to how we write our content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a great social scientist and don't specialize in these perversions, but from what I do know, grooming a child and molesting a child are two distinct offences. It's possible (though unlikely) that one side can lead in the latter and another in the former. Like how sometimes the point leaders in a hockey league don't always score the most goals. Deferring to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, there is a world of difference between molesting or otherwise sexually abusing a child, and grooming a child.

However this article is about a conspiracy theory and slur that gets massively misused by those actively using it. In day to day use of this term by those who use it, this is somewhat of a rather darker version of the old think of the children trope. In a sense it's divorced from the plain meaning of the term groomer, but is designed to invoke the same disgust response and outrage behind the sentiment of "oh, those people are clearly harming those children".

Or if you prefer the TLDR; version, it's a form of disinformation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe a significant portion of the American public is disinformed on when and when not to use the term "conspiracy theory" rather than "lie". This is a questionable case, perhaps "loosely speaking". But it is not "think of the children", by any decent Canadian understanding of those words. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You're not wrong on conspiracy theory versus lie, but I'm honestly not sure it would be possible to convince enough editors that renaming this article to something like LGBT grooming lie is policy compliant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

sources

page is lackning in sources and is not summarized well. 5.150.233.29 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

There are 47 sources used. Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, VOX and many others here are not reliable sources. I cannot use Fox News in most of my edits, nor do I want to. This reads like an op-ed with no rebuttal. Based environmentalist (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes they are WP:RSP, if you want to challenge this take it to wp;rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Source number 50 is supposed to be the Associated Press topical style guide on transgender issues, but the link leads to the topical style guide on abortion. I searched for transgender in the page and no results came up. 77.137.66.53 (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed... or at least I tried. User7681 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Percentage of population believing in the conspiracy

I think the lead should mention that roughly half of Republican voters believe in the conspiracy. This is a significant piece of information. PalmScrost (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

What are the sources for that? I mean there are a lot of loud Republicans, but where is the evidence that this is half, not just a vocal minority being allowed to drive the narrative? Rankersbo (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It is right there in the article section: LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory#Public_opinion. PalmScrost (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about that. So the question was should this be at the top rather than the bottom? Rankersbo (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It should be summarized in the lead in addition to what's already in the article. PalmScrost (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree Geysirhead (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

See also section

I going to see if I can add these into the article or remove ones that are already linked or are a stretch for inclusion. Per seealso, a well written article will have few to no see also links. This section seems bloated to say the least. Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Add what, and remove what? Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

If I/we can add a link from the see also section into the main body, and then remove it from the see also section, that is optimal. --Malerooster (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources for further history

Check the article North American Man/Boy Love Association for additional sources to expand the history on this article. In December 1977, police raided a house in the Boston suburb Revere. NAMBLA formed in reaction to it. Further down, you'll find "In 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA— the first U.S.-based organization to be a member—as well as Vereniging Martijn and Project Truth, because they were judged to be "groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia"." The Wikipedia article also covers their involvement in the New York Pride Parade and groups who opposed them; for instance GLAAD also issued a statement that "deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD." Sources are available on that wiki page. Denaar (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

What does that have to do with a conspiracy theory promoted by anti-LGBT bigots? Dimadick (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it is used as a source for smearing the LGBT+ community of today and as whole. But we need sources that focus on the conspiracy theories against the LGBT+ as a whole, extrapolating from past scandals (valid or not) would be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR IMO. Rankersbo (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: I found an EXCELLENT source! This is from Reason; per WP:RSP reliable for facts but be aware of bias. It's really long, and substantial about the topic, so it's good for showing notability about the topic as well as being a great resource. [16]. I noticed on the Noticeboard discussion of this page; someone made an excellent suggestion to move this to "Groomer (slur)" to focus on the use of the word as is is now. This is a history of the word in Journal of Interpersonal Violence from before it's current use, that documents how a word that originally means "Preparing (someone) for (something)" became to be associated with Child Abuse. [17]. This one might be useful too. Denaar (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That topic is covered in the article about child grooming, but has limited connections to LGBT people. Dimadick (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

A Modern History of 'Groomer' Politics: "Then Christopher Rufo, the activist who did more than anyone else to inject the term into today's politics, redefined it as a "spectrum of behavior." Children, he tweeted in 2022, "can be groomed into a sexual identity, groomed into an ideological system, and, in some cases, yes, groomed for abuse." The rhetorical aim was clear: It was a way to raise the specter of the child molester without having to demonstrate that any specific person is a child molester." I think the article directly correlates to this article - it's covering the same idea. Denaar (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

MAybe as a see also. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"conservatives"

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

---

Please can we clarify that this term is being used specifically to describe a United States usage of the term which has practically fuck all to do with Conservatism? We're not all Americans you know...  Tewdar  13:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

We do say "mainly in America". Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The term groomer is derived from the practice of child grooming, but conservatives are using it to "imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers," as described by Vox. - and yes I see what conservatives links to. Not good enough. What's wrong with "right wing groups in the US" or something?  Tewdar  13:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

From Conservatism article: The United States usage of the term "conservative" is unique to that country - indeed...  Tewdar  13:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

VOX should not be trusted as a reputable source. The fact that this article links to tabloid style journalism and then locks it for editing only feeds into the right-wing 'Big Tech' narrative. Based environmentalist (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Vox is generally considered reliable by Wikipedia. If you disagree, you're free to explain why you believe it's "tabloid style journalism".

Frankly, we don't care about the right-wing 'Big Tech' narrative. Wikipedia isn't big tech, for one thing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps replacing the word conservative with republican would be more appropriate and accurate, the US has a very 'idiosyncratic' definition of conservatism that is not in line with the rest of the world. Washusama (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the article currently does an alright job in making it clear that this is an American conspiracy theory and not something with any larger traction around the globe. I'd welcome additional thoughts, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Requested move 13 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a rough consensus against the proposed title as not a good fit for the subject of this article, and sources were given to show that the current title is not just WP:SYNTH. (non-admin closure) {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

---

LGBT grooming conspiracy theory → Groomer (slur) – Reasoning: Not a single source on the article actually calls it a conspiracy theory, so calling it one on Wikipedia violates WP:SYNTH. We have one use of: "conspiracy-theory tone", "politics", "label", "trope. One source mentions "the Gay Conspiracy Theory" which talks about the prosecution of homosexuality in history, not "Groomer" specific. We've got some that use the term and talk about conspiracy theories "like QNON and Pizzagate" in the same article. One "compares it" to another conspiracy theory. We have one use of "Myth". One use of "politics". Multiple uses of "rhetoric". But most the articles on the page are "this is an example where someone used the word groomer as an insult".

On Google, "groomer conspiracy theory" gets 831 results. "groomer slur" gets is 6200.

This is every source on the page, a link, and a description of the terms in that source, if anyone wants to do a deep dive. (That way you can see every source even if they are removed from the page when you're reviewing it).

• Walker, Jesse (February 2023). "A Modern History of 'Groomer' Politics". Reason.com.[18] In Depth History on Subject, NPOV No use of conspiracy theory, uses "Groomer Politics", Warning/Specter of the Groomer
• Kirchick, James (May 31, 2022). "The Long, Sordid History of the Gay Conspiracy Theory". Intelligencer. New York. [19] "The Long, Sordid History of the Gay Conspiracy Theory Today’s right-wing campaign against “groomers” is America’s latest moral panic." "groomer as a term of opprobrium" (the public disgrace arising from someone's shameful conduct). "“groomer” discourse" '
• Romano, Aja (April 21, 2022). "The right's moral panic over "grooming" invokes age-old homophobia". Vox. [20] Terms: "is taking on a conspiracy-theory tone" "recycled Satanic Panic"
• Keveney, Bill (May 2, 2022). "Weaponized grooming rhetoric is taking a toll on LGBTQ community and child sex abuse survivors". Phys.org. [21] Is this a Blog? Uses "Weaponized grooming rhetoric", does not call it conspiracy theory.
• Czopek, Madison (May 11, 2022). "Why it's not 'grooming': What research says about gender and sexuality in schools". Politifact. Retrieved August 26, 2022. [22] "Grooming” is a term..."
• "Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation". lgbpsychology.org. Retrieved August 26, 2022. [23] Doesn't use the word "Groomer" or "Grooming".
• "Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children". August 2, 2017. Archived from the original on August 2, 2017. Retrieved August 26, 2022. [24] Doesn't use the word "Groomer" or "Grooming".
• Jenny, C.; Roesler, T. A.; Poyer, K. L. (July 1994). "Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?". Pediatrics. 94 (1): 41–44. [25] Doesn't use the word "Groomer" or "Grooming".
• "How 1970s Christian crusader Anita Bryant helped spawn Florida's LGBTQ culture war". NBC News. April 14, 2022. Retrieved October 5, 2022. [26] Doesn't use the word "Groomer' or "Grooming" or "conspiracy"
• Dodds, Io; Woodward, Alex (April 14, 2022). "GOP 'groomer' smears are sparking a new wave of anti-LGBT+ violence: 'This is going to lead to tragedy'". The Independent. Retrieved May 27, 2022. ... trolls called on Twitter users to disrupt conversations among LGBT+ people with the phrase "OK groomer", a play on the Generation Z meme "OK boomer" ...[27] "GOP ‘groomer’ smears", Groomer meme. In Depth, on Topic
• Strudwick, Patrick (April 13, 2022). "How 'groomer', the dangerous new anti-LGBT slur from America, is taking hold in Britain". i. Retrieved July 29, 2022. [28] "anti-LGBT slur".
• "The anti-trans brigade is attacking children's charity Mermaids for helping its users protect their identity. Yes, really". PinkNews. March 26, 2020.[29] "Twitter users accused Mermaids of ‘grooming’ children."
• "Transphobia and the Far Right". Hope not Hate. March 16, 2022. [30] Mentions various conspiracy theories, does not call "grooming" a conspiracy theory. Does say someone "compares (LGBT+ education) directly to sexual grooming"
• Donald Moynihan (April 7, 2022) [2022-04-05]. "The QAnon catchphrases that took over the Jackson hearings". The Washington Post. Washington, D.C. ISSN 0190-8286. OCLC 1330888409.[please check these dates] [31] The "conspiracy theory" in this article is QAnon. 'He uses “grooming” to describe children being exposed to ideas he dislikes rather than actual sexual abuse.'
• "How the Intellectual Dark Web Spawned 'Groomer' Panic". The Daily Beast. April 27, 2022. Retrieved May 16, 2022.[32] "lies about Disney “grooming” children can directly be traced back to dark webbers Christopher Rufo (whom the Times profiled this week) and James Lindsay" Doesn't call it a conspiracy theory.
• "'A nightmare scenario': How an anti-trans Instagram post led to violence in the streets". TheGuardian.com. July 28, 2021.[33] unrelated article that has one throw away line "There has been a recent rise in false accusations of grooming and pedophilia against trans people". Mentions Pizzagate and QAnon.
• Stahl, Jeremy (April 27, 2022). "The Hate-Fueled and Hugely Influential World of Libs of TikTok". Slate Magazine. [34] "pushing discourse designed to demonize supporters of LGBTQ rights as sexually predatory “groomers” of children". Doesn't mention any conspiracy theories.
• Persaud, Chris. "Babylon Bee CEO of Juno Beach backs Twitter firebrand who calls LGBTQ people pedophiles". The Palm Beach Post. [35] "If you’re against the … bill you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children," No mentions of conspiracy theories.
• "The Twitter activist behind the far-right 'Libs of TikTok' is an Orthodox Jew. Does that matter?". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. April 19, 2022. [36] Pushaw again, "Pushaw to describe a new state law banning discussion of sexuality in grades K-3 as targeting “groomers” — likening the law’s opponents to sexual predators. Pushaw’s use of the term has become commonplace among conservatives." No Conspiracy Theory.
• Levesque, Brody (December 28, 2022). "Libs of TikTok tells Tucker Carlson: LGBTQ+ are a poisonous cult". Los Angeles Blade. [37] Quotes Libs using the word grooming, comparing it to recruiting.
• Mathis-Lilley, Ben (April 21, 2022). "How One Florida Woman With Twitter Problems Plunged Us Into a Nightmarish National Conversation About "Grooming"". Slate.[38] Another mention of Christina Pushaw's tweet with "groomer" in it. Says she pushed an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory in a prior tweet and apologized for it.
• "'Groomer' debate inflames GOP fight over Florida law". The Hill. April 8, 2022.[39] "“Groomer” is the new favorite term..." No talk of conspiracy theories.
• Cameron, Joseph (April 5, 2022). "Conservatives Are Smearing 'Don't Say Gay' Opponents as Pedophile 'Groomers'". Vice.[40] mearing ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Opponents as Pedophile ‘Groomers’.. no use of Conspiracy Theory.
• Paterson, Alex (April 8, 2022). ""Doom & Groom": Fox News has aired 170 segments discussing trans people in the past three weeks". Media Matters for America. [41] "long-debunked myth that trans people pose a threat to minors and seek to groom them."
• "Drag Queen Story Hour's radical origins and the subversive sexualization of our kids". Fox News. Retrieved October 22, 2022. [42] Doesn't use the word Groomer, Grooming, Conspiracy Theory, etc - used pedophiles once, "the goal of elevating those at the bottom of the sexual hierarchy—including pedophiles—"
• "Anti-LGBTQ threats, fueled by internet's far right 'machine,' shut down trans rights and drag events". NBC News. Retrieved June 17, 2022. [43] No use of the term grooming, groom, groomer, or pedophile. Talks about criminal charge: "The 31 men associated with Patriot Front were charged with criminal conspiracy after the event."
• "Proud Boys crashed Drag Queen Story Hour at a local library. It was part of a wider movement". CNN. Retrieved June 21, 2022.[44] Used one time: "slung insults such as “groomer.”"
• "Proud Boys Stormed a 'Drag Queen Story Hour' Event for Kids". Vice. June 13, 2022. Retrieved June 13, 2022.[45] Doesn't use the terms groomer, grooming, etc - mentions someone "earlier this month was found guilty of seditious conspiracy by a federal jury in Washington..."
• "Sparks, Nevada drag queen story hour disrupted by armed Proud Boy". Lose Angeles Blade. June 27, 2022. Retrieved June 27, 2022.[46] Doesn't use the terms groomer, grooming, etc.
• Stack, Liam (June 6, 2019). "Drag Queen Story Hour Continues Its Reign at Libraries, Despite Backlash". The New York Times. Retrieved June 6, 2019. [47] Doesn't use the word Groomer, Grooming, etc.
• "Attacks on the LGBTQ+ Community Amount to Stochastic Terrorism". The Advocate. August 16, 2022. Retrieved August 16, 2022. [48] No use of Groomer, Grooming, etc.
• "Digital Hate: Social Media's Role in Amplifying Dangerous Lies About LGBTQ+ people" (PDF). Center for Countering Digital Hate. [49] "OK Groomer" "Slurs like Groomer". Mentions twitter users pushing conspiracy theorys - QNON, Vaccine Re-education Camps, Pizzagate, but not in relation to grooming.
• "After ' Don't Say Gay' bill passed, LGBTQ online hate surged 400%". NBC News. August 12, 2022. Retrieved August 22, 2022.[50] Uses "Rhetoric" through-out, reporting on the study above.
• Paquette, Danielle (August 24, 2022). "A Mich. library refused to remove an LGBTQ book. The town defunded it". The Washington Post. [51] "But the same term kept coming up... grooming."
• Macfarlane, Andrew (March 1, 2023). "Auckland library closes after drag queen storytime protest". 1 News. TVNZ. [52] One use of the word: "One person can be heard loudly saying "we've asked them to stop grooming children"." No use of conspiracy.
• Harris, Katie (March 1, 2023). "Police intervene as queer community targeted by protest at Avondale, Auckland, library drag reading". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on March 2, 2023. Retrieved March 4, 2023.[53] No use of the term groom, grooming or conspiracy.
• "Outrage over nearly-nude drag show for mums and babies: 'Abhorrent'". au.news.yahoo.com. Retrieved March 4, 2023.[54] "thousands of social media users to accuse(d)... artists of "grooming" children,"; drag queen accused of "of "grooming" kids by reading a story on..."
• Ellery, Ben; Beal, James; Tomlinson, Hugh. "Drag is new front in culture wars". Retrieved March 4, 2023. [55] "by protesters holding signs with slogans including “stop grooming kids”," - not about the term, no use of conspiracy theory.
• "'Baby drag act' cancels sold-out show blaming 'trolling and unfair media coverage' following furious online backlash". LBC. [56] Doesn't use the word "groom" or "groomer" anywhere.
• Drennen, Ari (July 23, 2022). "Twitter says slandering LGBTQ+ people as "groomers" violates its rules". Los Angeles Blade. [57] List of examples of using "groomer" as an insult, no mention of conspiracy theories.
• Clift, Eleanor (July 22, 2022). "Republicans Went From Pushing a 'Groomer' Panic to Forcing Kids to Give Birth". The Daily Beast. [58] "Groomer Panic". " word ‘grooming’ has been used as a tool to create hysteria and to create a social panic", "grooming, a wildly exaggerated allegation"... etc, no use of conspiracy theory.
• Rodgers, Kaleigh (April 13, 2022). "Why So Many Conservatives Are Talking About 'Grooming' All Of A Sudden". FiveThirtyEight. [59] "“Grooming” has become the most recent scare tactic of choice for the right." "“Grooming” is a term that neatly draws together both modern conspiracy theories and old homophobic stereotypes". Mentions QNON.
• Lavieties, Matt (April 12, 2022). "'Groomer,' 'pro-pedophile': Old tropes find new life in anti-LGBTQ movement". NBC News. [60] Calls use of the term "Old tropes" and part of a "long tradition of making accusations". "rhetoric mirrors that of a QAnon conspiracy theory - Pizzagate".
• "Trans People Are Being Slandered As Groomers And Pedophiles By The Far-Right". Canadian Anti-Hate Network. April 7, 2022. [61] "word groomer" and "groomer narrative". Mentions: "conspiracies about large pedophilic cabals of cannibal elites have long been a feature in Canadian covid conspiracy spaces"
• Logan, Nick (July 2, 2022). "Transphobia is gaining ground in the U.S. Gender-diverse people in Canada worry it could happen here". CBC. [62] "harmful language". Compares it to the "the "great replacement" conspiracy theory".
• "'Grooming': The ubiquitous buzzword in LGBTQ school debate". AP NEWS. March 29, 2022. Retrieved August 19, 2022. [63]
• "Transgender Coverage Topical Guide". AP Stylebook. Archived from the original on August 2022. [64] "false terms groom or groomer"
• Ennis, Dawn. "New From AP: Use 'Accurate, Sensitive, Unbiased Language' To Cover Trans People". Forbes. [65] Doesn't use the word "Groomer" or "Conspiracy" related language.
• "False online accusations of 'grooming' against LGBTQ people are spiking, experts say". NBC News. April 19, 2022. [66] "Accusations", ""Groomer” rhetoric", mentions it's use as an insult.
• "In rare move, school librarian fights back in court against conservative activists". NBC News. August 13, 2022. [67] throw away sentence using the word groomer, doesn't call it a conspiracy theory.
• Berman, Nora (August 29, 2022). "Libs of Tiktok is fueling a pogrom against trans youth". The Forward. Retrieved August 30, 2022. [68] calls it a "groomer trope"
• Up North News [69] calls it a "label"

Denaar (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Alternatively, it could be renamed "LGBT Grooming Accusations" or something like that.

Although "slur" fits well, since this is a slur rather than a theory.Ang720 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Grooming", not "gromming" Dimadick (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Ang720 (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support "Groomer (slur)" would make me think it is talking merely about the word, its use, spread, etc. in internet chat culture. That is "groomer" purely as a term of insult or injury in popular culture. But the article seems to be focusing a bit more deeply about it as an accusation of something substantive, that is as slander, rather than a mere slur. I mean the term is nowhere in the three lede paragraphs. I know slander & slur can be synonymous, so maybe I'm overthinking it. I agree it is better than the current title, but I'm wondering if there are other suggestions. Walrasiad (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• 'Oppose Per the above, this is not just about the word, but about wider accusations of a conspiracy to corrupt children. Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment Right now, the sources on this page is mostly a list of times when people "used the word groomer". Can you provide evidence our sources call it a "Conspiracy Theory?" A year ago, there were a few sources that hinted about it, but none that actually called it one, and now, that's blown over and no one uses it anymore. We have more sources that call it "rhetoric" than anything else. Since we're required to follow WP:VP, "Conspiracy Theory" can't stay - it's not compliant with WP:NPOV either. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICT, changing the name doesn't mean not explaining what the article is about. We also already have the original "Anti-LGBT rhetoric" / Conflation with child abuse, suggesting a name change says we have to treat it like a dictionary entry just doesn't have merit. Denaar (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  • [[70]] [[71]] [[72]] [[73]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

    The title should be the most-searched term people will use to find the article per the naming guidelines. We could add something controversial in the body, but we need to avoid using WP:Wikivoice:

    55: "The term — is taking on a conspiracy-theory tone". It would be WP:SYNTH to quote this and say "is a conspiracy theory".

    56: This one uses ""grooming" smear" - saying the term is an insult. But it doesn't support it as conspiracy theory, instead, it says people using the term: "expands to include... theories... such as QAnon"... QAnon is a conspiracy theory. This source suggests we should add a line to the QAnon page.

    57: This is the first one that actually calls it a conspiracy theory... but it's not used in the article anywhere. Is one article enough to meet WP:Notability for the term? No - it's not, we need multiple in depth sources for it. "And yet that DeSantis and his peers on the right have latched on to an outlandish conspiracy theory regarding grooming".

    58: " QAnon, the far-right conspiracy theory envisioning a ring of cannibalistic child-sex traffickers at the heart of the American republic, are running for Congress." That's... QAnon. "moral panic over “grooming” is how they reference it.

    Denaar (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  • So this isn't actually about the name of the article is it then? You object to the content of the article and think that changing the name will better your chances in that content dispute. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

    No, it is about getting the name of the article, and the entire article, in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Right now it's got problems with WP:Wikivoice, WP:Recent, WP:Synth, the sources don't always support what's written on the page, etc.

    Changing the name doesn't change the topic - the use of the word Groomer as part of a bigger strategy to demean political opponents. It started as a mere insult, and has grown into something much bigger - I completely agree the article should be focused on that. But the search term should be based on "groomer" - that's what all the links linking to the article are using. Denaar (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear this RfC is just about the name of the article, if you want to discuss the entire article do so elsewhere. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose The cited sources support that this is a conspiracy theory. We don't need to have those direct words used, when sources are constantly saying this mirrors that of a QAnon conspiracy theory, a tool to create hysteria and to create a social panic, and comparisons to the "great replacement" conspiracy theory. This is a pedantic argument over phrasing, not an actual issue with the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Per: WP:CRITERIA we should use the term people "most search for". In the Inter-Wiki links... no one is linking "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory" to this page - they are linking "Groomer". In addition, not a single source supports it is a conspiracy theory. I detailed it out for every single source that is currently on the page. When the term first went viral, a few pieces had concern it might be similar to QNON in the long run, but there is no follow-up saying that has happened. That was a "blip" that went away in less than a year. Denaar (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a non-starter of an argument. This is a conspiracy theory, and your repeated insistence otherwise is not a good look.

That aside, while page titles generally use the WP:COMMONNAME standard, we make exceptions for specific issues around things like these conspiracy theories, because we need to be accurate. We don't give credence to these conspiracy theories by just giving them a generic title.

And that's as far as I'm going to argue with you, since you're rapidly approaching WP:BLUDGEON territory. Just sit back and let people say their peace. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, Groomer (slur) is a notable topic in its own right but it only partially overlaps with the subject of this page which is a conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a vote - you need to speak to how the name is supported through Wikipedia policy. If you feel it's supported through sources, you can provide them and quote them. Denaar (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A comment was requested about whether the community thought that renaming the page to Groomer (slur) was an improvement. That is what I am here to speak on, if you would like input on the new question you're asking I suggest you open a different RfC so as not to clutter this one up. In addition please review WP:BLUDGEON. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Its a conspiracy theory, or is based on conspiracy theories or is some variant of it [[74]] [[75]] [[76]] [[77]], there are more. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't WP:REFBOMB. Take time to explain how each supports your point of view. Denaar (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I did "Its a conspiracy theory, or is based on conspiracy theories or is some variant of it " all of those sources support that. " the anti-LGBTQ conspiracy theory," " the ‘grooming’ conspiracy theory". RS refers to it as a "anti-LGBTQ conspiracy theory", there is no need to us to water down the article title in some kind of wp:faslebalance. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

59 - isn't on the page or used as a reference for the page. It's #2 you've found - we still are showing more sources use the other terminology. "Perhaps the most prevalent and damaging of these is the “groomer” conspiracy theory".

60 - "groomer slur". You're kidding me. This one isn't on the article either, but it uses it as both "slur" and conspiracy theory. Up to 3 - still not a consensus of articles, still doesn't show why we shouldn't use the most common search term over this one.

61 - Another one not used in the article. Doesn't even say it in it's own voice. "To that end, GLAAD has accused Gays Against Groomers of promoting the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory." - they know it's controversial, so they attributed it to someone.

62 - Also not on the article. This one calls it.. "a trope". "term 'groomers' as an anti-LGBTQ slur" attributes "baseless "grooming" conspiracy theory," to someone else, it says a report called it that, it's not saying "it clearly is that" and detailing out the theory.

Our sources are still more likely to call it "rhetoric" then conspiracy theory, and rhetoric is a much more neutral term. Those articles are pointing out it's a political tactic to slander their opponents, NOT a conspiracy theory - and more sources that that point of view, so it's the dominant point of view. The other point of view (conspiracy theory) is the minority one - it should be mentioned but shouldn't be given such WP:Undue weight.

Denaar (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If there's no conspiracy theory how can you slander someone by associating them with the conspiracy theory? Without the conspiracy theory there is no slur for LGBTQ people and their allies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant, this is about the page title, I am providing reasons why I said opposed to the change. And no its is not a minority one, you want more, well you have sid not to link spam, but there are more (a lot more). Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is that the most used search terms should be the title of the article. I'm pulling in all the different reasons we should change it - to keep a neutral point of view, to use the most common search term, to use the dominant term that most people use, etc. Denaar (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

How would that work exactly? Would the terms be separated by commas? Can you point to a single article in which the most used search terms are the title of the article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

OK "Grommer" first hits have nothing to do with this, "Groomer (slur)" 2,560 "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory" 23,600 hits. So I am unsure you are correct. But this is my last comment here, its time for others to ship in. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Using the slur is how you associate someone with the conspiracy theory, anti-LGBT shorthand, or a shibboleth for a particular kind of anti-LGBT activist/troll. The broader ideas are a better topic for an article than a word used in relation to it. Also: On Google, "groomer conspiracy theory" gets 831 results. "groomer slur" gets is 6200. - that it's not used in the same three-word quote doesn't mean the subject is less prominent. For example, '"groomer" "conspiracy"' gets 589,000 results while '"groomer" "slur"' gets 201,000. There are tons of results for both of them. In this case, however, they're not the same subject. There's a lot of rhetoric about "grooming" in addition to people being called "groomers". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as it conflate a term that may be used within the US political realm with a term used in other scenarios such as the current issues of grooming in the UK [78]. The current name may not be best but it is far better than the given change. --Masem (t) 15:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - If the only RS was, for example... "Known conspiracy theorist James A. Lindsay calls people he disagrees with groomers" (which he is, and has done), then it would likely qualify as SYNTH. When looking at the sources below (some not in your list above), they frequently refer to the term being used as a form of conspiratorial theory. There also seems to be a tweet by the ADL (at the bottom, not on your list) that more explicitly calls the use of the term a form of conspiracy theory. Coming from them, it seems to leave little doubt, at least for me personally.

1. "Perhaps the most prevalent and damaging of these is the “groomer” conspiracy theory, which baselessly proposes that LGBTQ people and their supporters prey on and exploit children by discussing issues relating to sexuality and gender."
2. "The response to a donations request for a rock climbing and barbecue event in Canada’s Rocky Mountains has gone viral for its overt transphobia and QAnon-like “child grooming” conspiracy theory"
3. "For those engaged in it, the moral panic over “grooming” accomplishes what earlier iterations of the Homintern, like any conspiracy theory, did: offer soothingly simple explanations for perplexing phenomena."
4. "The term — which describes the actions an adult takes to make a child vulnerable to sexual abuse — is taking on a conspiracy-theory tone"
5. "“Grooming” is a term that neatly draws together both modern conspiracy theories and old homophobic stereotypes, while comfortably shielding itself under the guise of protecting children."
6. "The “groomer” smear also plays into a conspiracy theory that underpins the propaganda of Raichik and other like-minded influencers: that LGBTQ people and their sympathizers have entered mainstream institutions to prey on children, recruit them to “transgenderism” and divide them from their families."
7. "Not unique to Twitter, the ‘grooming’ conspiracy theory has grown rapidly on social media sites and fringe forums in recent months, promoting the false idea that LGBTQ+ people inherently pose a sexual danger to children."
8. On June 22nd 2023 the Anti-Defamation League Tweeted "The baseless “grooming” conspiracy theory - which falsely claims the LGBTQ+ community wants to abuse children - was the most-cited anti-LGBTQ+ trope, with at least 191 anti-LGBTQ+ incidents making explicit references to “grooming” or “pedophilia.”"

DN (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above and I ask that the nominator not refbomb in the future, especially when the references you're citing go against your claims. :3 F4U (they/it) 23:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I supported this move a few months ago; no longer do. It makes much more sense for the article to be about the wider theory than about the word itself. Current title is fine. DFlhb (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose—The groomer disambiguation page already fulfills all needed navigational purposes. Kate the mochii (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the slur itself is a significant part of it, this is about more than that. If they swapped out that slur for another that would not make for a different topic. If we were to get to a point where "groomer" was being used as a slur for non-LGBT people to a significant degree then we might need an article about it in addition to this this one. I am aware of it being used as an Islamophobic slur in some parts of the UK, so I don't want to rule that out completely, but that's not what is being proposed here and so I'll leave it to anybody who thinks that is a worthwhile idea to make their case separately. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per The Hand That Feeds You Horse Eye's Back and DanielRigal. Also, I'd suggest Denaar be careful that they don't stray into BLUDGEONing the opposition, as they seemed to be doing earlier in the discussion. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Daniel Rigal; the conspiracy theory is broader and older than the latest fad slur. -sche (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose "groomer" as a slur is used in other contexts unrelated to LGBT, so the proposed name is an expansion of scope and deemphasizes the focus on the LGBT concerns. So "(slur)" is a bad disambiguator -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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

"Experts"

The first paragraph talks about "experts" but cites none. Can someone at least add a "citation needed". Ang720 (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the body and, in most cases, citations should be avoided whenever possible. The sentence referring to experts is a summary of the Criticism section, which has plenty of references. Silverseren^C 04:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The idea that the lead doesn't need sources is incorrect:

Per MOS:LEADCITE, "Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads."

Also WP:WIKIVOICE, However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views.

Actually - the entire lead is written in "Wikivoice" when it shouldn't be.

Denaar (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Referring to "experts" is falling into the argument from authority fallacy, so should be removed. Something either is or isn't a conspiracy theory depending on the evidence or lack thereof. 81.174.155.84 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

And the experts are the ones providing us with citations to determine it's a conspiracy theory. Per WP:OR, we aren't the ones making that determination. Claiming this is argument from authority is misplaced. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Additional scientific research

The overview section states the following: "Scientific research has shown that LGBT people do not molest children at higher rates than people who are not LGBT", which has four sources; the first two are arguably subjective, the third is specifically concerned with parents and the fourth is lacking in sample size. I propose also adding this research (which contradicts the claim) to the sources to paint a more complete picture, perhaps in a separate sentence immediately after the one in question. Swesbed (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

You propose adding a 30 year old study to offer a more complete picture of the current medical consensus? How does that work? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The two other studies cited are from 1994 and 2004, so it's not that farfetched to add one from 1992. On search engines, this study is the first one that comes up regarding this topic. It would be remiss not to add it to this article. Swesbed (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We can remove the 1994 one if you would like, thats also probably too old. We have newer science so why would we be remiss to not add this to this aticle? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Are there Wikipedia guidelines on when a study is considered "too old" to be cited? I think it's dangerous to discount research just because it's of a certain age. Swesbed (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

When Homosexuality was in the DSM, it was based on studies done in prisons and mental institutions that found homosexuals in those settings... weren't well adjusted individuals, which is understandable. Evelyn Hooker was the first scientist to study a sampling of homosexuals and compare them to matched control heterosexuals, and the results were that homosexuals were no more likely to be mentally ill then heterosexuals. The full text of the study you found is on research gate [79], and it says: "All individuals in the study were referred to us by psychiatrists who were assessing them either for lawyers (the majority of these subjects) or within the prison system. A few cases were referred to us by the Children's Aid Society or by probation officers". This study also isn't looking at "incidents of adults sexually abusing children" but "do the people we're studying fit our definition of pedophile". So, the participants weren't a random sampling at all, and it isn't focused on the rates of child sexual abuse but a "diagnosis of pedophilia" in people facing or convicted of criminal charges. It's useful information, but you can't treat it like a population sampling, the study wasn't designed to do so, that is why it's called "an exploratory study". There was another studies where they thought a gene was associated with criminal behavior, as it was common in a prison population, but when they looked at the general population the gene was just as common in people who'd never been in trouble with the law. That's the danger of prison studies. Denaar (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Generally the danger is in not discounting research of a certain age. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)