Talk:Gays Against Groomers/Archive 2

Not an anti-LGBTQ+ group, not a "far right" group.
Not sure who keeps adding that this group is a far right group, but that needs to stop. No far-right group would be advocating for same-sex marriage and gay rights. The organization has only ever advocated against gender transitioning of minors. The misinformation and bias in this article is abundantly clear, and it needs to be fixed. NeuroZachary (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please self-revert as there is quite clearly not a consensus for it. Secondly, please look at the FAQ at the top of the talk page, and review the previous discussion on why it is NPOV complaint to describe this organisation as far-right. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The group is not a far-right organization. Please cease spreading misinformation. NeuroZachary (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Many reliable sources describe the organisation as far-right. The NPOV policy means that we follow what the balance of sources say about a given topic, which means that non-neutral descriptors are acceptable per policy. Because reliable sources describe the organisation as such, to not describe the organisation in those terms would be to introduce our own POV about this organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In the time taken to write my last reply, NeuroZachary has been indefinitely blocked. Any objections to removing the NPOV tag that they added to the article? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not from me. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sideswipe9th. This has been discussed before, and consensus is that they are far-right and anti-LGBT. What matters is how reliable sources characterize them (WP:NPOV), not your own interpretations (WP:NOR). -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed on "far right" and "anti-LGBT". Also agreed on removing the NPOV tag. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 21:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reiterate my opposition to this consensus. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to argue that the provided sources are appropriate for claims like these. They are so blatantly ideologically opposed to GAG that their characterization of the group is worthless. Oktayey (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What source would you find acceptable to back up this claim? Personally, I would be fine walking back "far right" to just "right wing" because of how mainstream their rhetoric has become. The "anti-LGBT" claim looks nearly bulletproof to me.  HarryKernow  (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For starters, definitely not advocacy magazines. I think claims of a group's political position in WP:WIKIVOICE should be strictly backed up by solidly impartial mainstream publications that are professionally written and use objective, non-sensationalist language. Oktayey (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What you think, i.e. your personal opinion, has no bearing. Perceived impartiality does not play a part in determining whether or not a source is reliable. Zaathras (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked thru the sources last night. There appears to be an over-reliance on LGBTQ Nation (5) and The Advocate (10). Regardless, here was my overview I compiled.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Source !! WP:RSP rating !! Claims
 * ADL || Generally reliable || "anti-LGBTQ+ extremist coalition"
 * Time || Generally reliable || "anti-LGBTQ"
 * Advocate|| Not mentioned || "Michell and other far-right groups", "anti-trans hate group"
 * Phoenix New Times || Not mentioned || "anti-LGBTQ"
 * ABC News || Generally reliable || GAG uses "anti-gay slurs", mentions "online conspiracy theories" about drag story reading being a "weapon in the hard right culture wars"
 * The Intercept || Generally reliable || "Right-Wing", "far-right activists", "anti-LGBTQ+"
 * SPLC || Generally reliable || "extremist group", "anti-transgender activists"
 * }
 * It seems to me that "far right" is marginally defensible, but "right-wing" and "anti-LGBT" are both quintessential descriptors. Either way, these descriptors are certainly being used in mainstream media outlets.  HarryKernow  (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed some crucial details on WP:RSP. In particular, ADL, The Intercept, and SPLC are all explicitly noted to be WP:BIASED, and thus unsuitable for supporting the relevant claims in WP:WIKIVOICE—their claims must be attributed in-text.
 * Before we continue, do we agree on this? Oktayey (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there is an overwhelming consensus from these sources and therefore it isn't a particularly contentious claim. I also see this conversation has been had before with you. Please do not split hairs, and please do not act like you're the train conductor of this conversation - if you have a point, please say it immediately instead of "Before we continue".  HarryKernow  (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that a claim cannot be considered contentious if many similarly biased sources make it? I think that's simply contrary to reason—by exclusively citing sources that exhibit the same biases, *any* claim can be presented as not contentious.
 * Last time I checked, this article ignores sources like the LA Times (here's a mirror on the Seattle Times site to avoid the paywall) and Fox Business (obviously biased, but in the other direction) that label GAG as a "small LGBT group" and an "LGBT organization", respectively.
 * As for why I'm going step by step, I think the fact that you disputed a point I thought wasn't even up for debate demonstrates it nicely. Playing ping-pong with a rapidly increasing number of balls at once gets messy and exhausting. Also, I wanted to go to bed. Oktayey (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not ignore that I also included ABC News, Phoenix New Times, and Time. Since then I have added a few sources to the article as well, though I have not yet noted their word-for-word terminology in describing the group. Also do not ignore the widespread consensus that the slur "groomer" is itself pushed by far right conspiracy theorists, even among sources like the LA Times. Furthermore, you cannot seriously claim to be against (unattributed) biased sources and use just about the most clearly unreliable (at least most notoriously biased) political source out there to demonstrate this (Fox News). On the matter of LA Times printing just "small LGBT group" - we know that this is a dangerous understatement on LA Times' part from our other sources, especially considering the inclusion of the "T" which they are quite explicitly against. It makes me seriously doubt their integrity/reliability on this matter. In any case, that phrasing is clearly a tiny minority among sources I can find. On the "step by step" issue, I hope it is your intention to lay out your entire argument at once from now on. We need to make sure we are working with a mutual understanding, and intentionally withholding reasoning in order to grab control of a conversation can quickly create a dysfunctional conversation.  HarryKernow  (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware you cited other sources, but I was hoping to strike the most egregious ones from the conversation out of the gate to help save both of our breath.
 * As for "groomer", I've only seen the same biased sources report that it's a blanket anti-LGBT slur, and I think using that claim on its own to support labeling GAG as anti-LGBT would be WP:OR anyway. Also, I'm not sure you looked at that LA Times article you linked too closely, since it's clearly marked as an opinion piece at the top of the page.
 * Regarding Fox Business, I only resorted to citing them because this article already excessively cites biased publications, and even advocacy magazines. I don't understand how Fox Business would be disallowed due to bias when LGBTQN and The Advocate are fine.
 * About the LA Times article I presented, you can't just entirely discount a source's claim because other sources convince you it's a 'dangerous understatement', let alone sources that are far more heavily biased.
 * Finally, you accusing me of "trying to grab control of the conversation" makes me skeptical that you're trying to assume good faith. All I'm trying to do is engage in discourse in a precise and orderly manner, and you're coming off as pretty aggressive. I think my approach as already proven its worth by highlighting all these things we disagree about in advance—writing a full dissertation would effectively be putting the cart before the horse, since we'd wind up reaching these disputes regardless. Oktayey (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not an accusation, it's a matter of fact. Saying "Before we continue" is giving yourself explicit control over the flow of the conversation. Regardless, this conversation will go nowhere if you will not consider my sources holistically and if you are going to start calling into question my good faith. Consider bringing up any further concerns you have at WP:NPOVN. Furthermore, please review WP:CPP which explicitly covers behaviors like arguing "that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral", repeated use of "the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times", attempting "to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories", and editing "primarily or entirely on one topic or theme."  HarryKernow  (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) That 'matter of fact' is a technicality—it makes me sound as if I'm acting maliciously.
 * 2) Are you objecting to me evaluating the sources individually rather than treating them as a collective? If so, why?
 * 3) Why are you implying that I'm arguing "[my] own preferred source is neutral"? I never once asserted that Fox Business is unbiased—I immediately and directly noted their bias. All I asked was why you consider that particular biased source unsuitable for inclusion, but other—arguably much more biased—sources okay.
 * No offense, but I don't find the rest of the accusations worthy of responses. Oktayey (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You do not need to intentionally "act maliciously" to get bad outcomes. See "black box". You insist on pushing essentially one realistic source (LA Times) to downplay the labels the article uses and insist on questioning less than half of my sources listed. Furthermore, to suggest using Fox when WP:RSP specifically mentions their unreliability on cultural and political topics makes me seriously question your sincerity in questioning other supposedly biased sources. Finally, even if we were to completely remove the supposedly biased sources you've called out, the terminology (especially "anti-LGBT") would be fine to stay as-is.
 * When I linked WP:NPOVN, I didn't realize that you held the conversation at the top of the page where countless editors basically said everything I've said; you have been repeatedly bringing up the same articles and talking points for nearly 2 months. I think it is time you realized that without fundamental changes in how sources are describing the group, you aren't going to see any reductions in descriptor severity.  HarryKernow  (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll be real succinct: The only reason I'm presenting Fox is because it seems the local consensus here is that biased sources are permissible. I don't like the rules, but I'm trying to play by them, if you get what I'm saying. Oktayey (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is getting to be beyond a joke Oktayey, WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Pokelova (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not that it is biased, its that it is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP shows that Fox is a biased and marginally reliable source, but not wholly unreliable. It is merely unsuitable for substantiating exceptional claims, and a well-respected source like the LA Times labelling GAG an "LGBT group" indicates the claim is not exceptional. Oktayey (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Last I checked WP:RSP, fox news is listed as a highly suspect source for anything politics and science and it has been almost deprecated for those topics multiple times. I suggest you drop the topic --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The FAQ does not really explain anything. Even if sources are generally reliable, to the extent they are biased it is a misapplication to use them to state something in Wikipedia's voice. Rlendog (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bias is irrelevant, we deal in wp:v. Also it tells you all you need to know, "that is not what reliable sources say.", we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am now begging—please just try to understand what we're telling you.
 * Bias is not irrelevant. Wikipedia makes it clear in WP:BIASED and WP:WIKIVOICE that even if a source is considered "reliable", it may have bias that precludes it from being echoed in an encyclopedic tone. Oktayey (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And we have considered them, and found them to be acceptable. That is what the FAQ is saying. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not the final authority on what is and is not a biased source. Those discussions have been carried out on much larger forums long ago, and you are not going to change the results of those discussions by arguing with us on this talk page. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may be a voice of reason here without all the Wikilinks to policies, guidelines and essays. Facts on Wikipedia are very different than facts outside Wikipedia. Truth on Wikipedia is not necessarily more or less truth outside Wikipedia. When presented with a subject where sources contradict then we should make every effort to "get it right" even if that means a long and painfully slow process to gain consensus. However, when there is no sourced contradictions then we fall back to basic policy and guideline requirements. We are fully aware that not everyone reading is going to agree. We are fully aware that, outside Wikipedia, what we deem as truth may not be the case. We are just as fallible as our sources and we all know news sources feed off each other sometimes even mass producing the same stories to repeat to their viewing audiences. Wikipedia does not create "truth" or "facts". We only share the "truth" and "facts" that reliable sources provide. I agree that it is sometimes better to attribute contentious statements but I tend to look at that being more a case in BLP's (Biography of Living Person's) and probably shouldn't be mentioned at all if it is only found in one source, whether reliable or not. This is not the case here. So, those passionately arguing against the inclusion of what reliable sources are saying should step back and understand that Wikipedia saying something does not make it more true, in fact, Wikipedia isn't looking for the truth according to anyone, save what reliable sources say. If you disagree then disagree. I disagree with much that I find on Wikipedia. If I can find reliable sources that state something different then I will present those else it stays and I am not, nor are my beliefs or ways of life, harmed by it being here. My truth is dictated by my life experiences and not what is written on Wikipedia whether it agrees with me or not. -- A Rose Wolf  16:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that those editors that want the article to change take each point you oppose and present it along with the three best reliable sources that represent what you want the article to state rather than focusing simply on what you want removed. -- A Rose Wolf  16:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you re-open this conversation that was marked closed? This conversation is obviously going nowhere unless you have sources that rebuke the "anti-LGBT" and "far-right"/"ring-wing"/"conservative" labels. you have yet again ignored that this article relies on more sources than the ones you've said are biased. This is really getting beyond reasonable. Regardless, this discussion should not have been re-opened, Rlendog should have started a new section.  HarryKernow  (talk)  17:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I Fully agree. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I was just hoping to work step by step and first find common ground. That didn't work since what I assumed we'd agree on turned out not to be. Oktayey (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And we have considered them, and found them to be acceptable. That is what the FAQ is saying. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not the final authority on what is and is not a biased source. Those discussions have been carried out on much larger forums long ago, and you are not going to change the results of those discussions by arguing with us on this talk page. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If I may be a voice of reason here without all the Wikilinks to policies, guidelines and essays. Facts on Wikipedia are very different than facts outside Wikipedia. Truth on Wikipedia is not necessarily more or less truth outside Wikipedia. When presented with a subject where sources contradict then we should make every effort to "get it right" even if that means a long and painfully slow process to gain consensus. However, when there is no sourced contradictions then we fall back to basic policy and guideline requirements. We are fully aware that not everyone reading is going to agree. We are fully aware that, outside Wikipedia, what we deem as truth may not be the case. We are just as fallible as our sources and we all know news sources feed off each other sometimes even mass producing the same stories to repeat to their viewing audiences. Wikipedia does not create "truth" or "facts". We only share the "truth" and "facts" that reliable sources provide. I agree that it is sometimes better to attribute contentious statements but I tend to look at that being more a case in BLP's (Biography of Living Person's) and probably shouldn't be mentioned at all if it is only found in one source, whether reliable or not. This is not the case here. So, those passionately arguing against the inclusion of what reliable sources are saying should step back and understand that Wikipedia saying something does not make it more true, in fact, Wikipedia isn't looking for the truth according to anyone, save what reliable sources say. If you disagree then disagree. I disagree with much that I find on Wikipedia. If I can find reliable sources that state something different then I will present those else it stays and I am not, nor are my beliefs or ways of life, harmed by it being here. My truth is dictated by my life experiences and not what is written on Wikipedia whether it agrees with me or not. -- A Rose Wolf  16:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that those editors that want the article to change take each point you oppose and present it along with the three best reliable sources that represent what you want the article to state rather than focusing simply on what you want removed. -- A Rose Wolf  16:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you re-open this conversation that was marked closed? This conversation is obviously going nowhere unless you have sources that rebuke the "anti-LGBT" and "far-right"/"ring-wing"/"conservative" labels. you have yet again ignored that this article relies on more sources than the ones you've said are biased. This is really getting beyond reasonable. Regardless, this discussion should not have been re-opened, Rlendog should have started a new section.  HarryKernow  (talk)  17:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I Fully agree. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I was just hoping to work step by step and first find common ground. That didn't work since what I assumed we'd agree on turned out not to be. Oktayey (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

BLP - 'History' section
@Zaathras You said in your edit description that "none of [the removed content] is poorly-sourced".

WP:BLP says: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." (emphasis added), and "The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism."

The content I removed was supported by Media Matters, the Daily Dot, and LGBTQ Nation. Are you suggesting that sources which WP:RSP acknowledges no consensus exists regarding their reliability, and a source that is similarly sensationalist, are "high-quality sources" for the purposes of BLP? Oktayey (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The citations are not being used to source anything controversial or outlandish.


 * 1) GAG is a conservative organization. Fact.
 * 2) Jaimee Michell worked for the Trump 2020 campaign. Fact.
 * 3) Stop the Steal is widely and accurately described as a conspiracy theory. Fact.
 * 4) Alejandra Caraballo's investigative journalism literally cites numerous screenshots to support their findings. All facts.
 * Your editing history since March 2 has focused exclusively on this article, you really need to find another topic area to expand into. Zaathras (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the purpose of BLP's requirement that information about living persons be supported only by high-quality sources not to avoid jeopardizing people's reputations with flawed reporting? According to whom are the claims uncontroversial? Wikipedia doesn't accept "trust me bro" as a source. If an editor personally finds a claim about a living person from a low-quality source to be true, that's WP:OR, and if high-quality sources find them to be true, they can be cited. Otherwise, it stays off Wikipedia.
 * Also, I don't think you understand WP:SPA. There's nothing scandalous about primarily editing pages of a particular topic—that essay even acknowledges so. The problem the essay addresses lies in conflicts of interest and advocacy. Oktayey (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Media matter is "marginally reliable " as far as I know LGBTQ Nation has not been discussed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye, so I think we agree that Media Matters isn't a "high-quality source". As for LGBTQN, I believe its sensationalist reporting makes it fall in the league of "tabloid journalism", which WP:BLP warns against using. Oktayey (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You may think that, but others clearly do not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you saying others do not believe LGBTQN isn't a high-quality source? I think it's quite self-evident. The cited article utilizes strongly loaded language and displays no effort toward impartiality. Oktayey (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No I am saying that the people who used those sources think they are good enough, therefore you need to convince them you are right, so far you have failed to do so. It might be time to take it to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Would WP:BLPN not be more appropriate since this dispute involves the heightened sourcing requirements for claims about living persons? Oktayey (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, as one of the sources has not even been discussed, and it is only your opinion its not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, not relevant. We are not saying anything uncontroversial here, just simple factual statements. Zaathras (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems you missed my earlier comment. According to whom are the claims uncontroversial? If an editor personally finds a claim about a living person from a low-quality source to be true, that's WP:OR, and if high-quality sources find them to be true, they can be cited. Oktayey (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is all predicated on the idea that LGBTQ Nation is a low-quality source, which you so far have failed to convince anyone of. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * According to common sense, that is who. Zaathras (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that it can be difficult to see from a different perspective, but something thought to be common sense by one could be seen as nonsense by another. Isn't this the very reason Wikipedia requires information to be sourced? Oktayey (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What you are erecting is a WP:FALSEBALANCE. We're done here. Zaathras (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Take it to wp;rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty obvious that when the reliable sources unequivocally lobby against and condemn the subject of an article, you just have to assess where they are coming from, where the subject is coming from and weigh the media lobbying of reliable sources against the lobbying of unreliable sources.
 * Your probable endpoint to this process is to characterize GAG as a front group, gay assimilationist in composition and nature, and conservative. I agree that "far right" and "anti LGBT" are absurdities, at least if you are not attempting to frame their opposition to the expanded/inclusive acronym. But it looks like there are enough editors on this page willing to deny this. --86Sedan 11:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are enough editors on this page wiling to follow what the sources say on the subject. Zaathras (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Only that when considered individually, these "reliable sources" throw up virtually every red flag fleshed out in RS, with respect to the nature of the source, reliance on rumor, lack of corroborating evidence, bias in authorship, failure to revise primary inaccuracies of breaking news events. But as I say, it's virtually pointless to lawyer all of these points on an individual basis, so that challenge remains for other editors. 86Sedan 10:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then take it to wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no "challenge". You have a general whinge about sources that are accepted for use in this project. If this is not to your liking, then this may not be the project you wish to work on. Zaathras (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS
PER Per WP:RS "Contentious material about living persons.. that is unsourced or poorly sourced.. must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Read the sources. They state that there was a crime committed. There were two people arrested. The people arrested, Erica Sanchez, 44, of the Bronx, and D'Anna Morgan, 27, of Queens, were not with Gays Against Groomers, they are from Guardians of the Divinity. Advocate (27): Source is a tweet. ABC7 (27) Source is a tweet. Unicorn Riot (28) - the most complete report - reports they are form Guardians of the Divinity. Another report (https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-drag-queen-story-hour-protesters-arrested-for-trespassing-at-councilmembers-home), another reporting Guardians Of Divinity, (https://archive.is/), another reporting Guardians Of Divinity,(https://indypendent.org/2023/02/in-battle-of-dueling-protests-drag-story-hour-supporters-drown-out-the-opposition/), ... at this point, our only reference to Gay's Against Groomers is news reports pointing to a tweet early on during the event, while the more comprehesive/researched coverage corrects that to a different group.

Denaar (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What material are you talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit I just made that was reverted. The article stated that Members of this group committed a crime. The evidence cited by our sources is a tweet from Erik Bottcher early on during the event.  If you click on that tweet, the group denies responsibility, and claims "All of our members are in Phoenix right now."   That is OR, so we wouldn't include it on Wikipedia, but follow up news reports also correct the story.
 * PER Per WP:RS and WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons.. that is unsourced or poorly sourced.. must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
 * From WP:BLP: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
 * Denaar (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see, well if RS do not say it was GAG neither can we. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources do associate Erica Sanchez and Anna Morgan with Gays Against Groomers, e.g. and . Zaathras (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * on your, Unicorn Riot are actually a very reliable source and are highly regarded for their factual and investigative journalism in the topic of far-right activities in the US. Their coverage of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville was discussed in detail by the Columbia Journalism Review. I would be minded to take their reporting on Sanchez and Morgan at face value, especially as the article was published two months after the arrests and so not as subject to WP:RSBREAKING. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * IF that is true, that does not gainsay the fact that these two individuals are reported to be associated with the Gays Against groomers group. Zaathras (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources should be included as in-line quotations. This source isn't listed anywhere on the page at all.  You reverted, saying "Unicorn Riot" isn't reliable source... and you didn't remove it?
 * However - you're wrong that it's an additional source. Every source we have, openly quotes the same source: A tweet.  It's not an additional source of information, it's a news outlet repeating the same source - a tweet.
 * Sure, it's reported by third parties, but all those third parties are reporting... a tweet. That isn't a high quality source.
 * I would prefer removing the whole section, per the reasoning above.
 * Denaar (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this normal?
Is it normal for an entire talk page to be deleted? This seems like a troubling precedent. Jmaranvi (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * HAs it been, I can still see it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah but it lacks any of the actual discussion content (from prior to this week). Jmaranvi (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one for whom "[show]" is inactive text that doesn't link to anything? Is it a mobile browser issue? Jmaranvi (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's likely a mobile browser issue. The [show] link is working fine on desktop. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * One more reason mobile view is crap. Dronebogus (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Curiously, when I view either or, the collapsed boxes simply display expanded (with no "show"/"hide" button but all the content visible), whereas when I view this page in mobile view, the boxes appear collapsed, with a "show" button that does nothing, so the content is indeed inaccessible. Is there a problem specific to this page, or to the Talk: namespace, or to pages that use multiple cots ? (Struck the last one, this page doesn't have multiple cots anymore after archiving, but still has the issue.) Should we report this to WP:VPT? -sche (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just press "edit" or "view source". tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but why does the template behave differently on different pages, such that doing that is required here when it isn't required on other pages? It seems like there may be a fixable bug or deficiency in the code. -sche (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


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


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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2023
Change far right anti-LGBT to far right anti-Trans EditorKid (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources describe them as being against the entire spectrum, not just transgender. Being (allegedly) gay themselves doesn't mean they cannot be anti-gay. Zaathras (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all gay people think the same. The LGBT community is not a hive mind. They all have different perspectives of how the world could work. And what gives you the right to say who's gay and who isn't? Traptor12 (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No not a right, a responsibility, to reflect what RS say. One reason is are you correct "they all have different perspectives of how the world could work.", so we do not know the real reason for this movement. We know what they claim, but that does not mean it is true, people (even LGBT people) lie. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Against in what way? If they don't oppose the existence of homosexuals/bisexuals then that's just false. There's no evidence that they do. If anything this is just proving how the "reliable source" criteria is flawed. If you can find evidence that they secretly want to ban homosexuality then you'd have a case. Globe Holder (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well lets see, harassment of gay counselors (read out article), protesting against pride murals in schools (try reading our article), Protesting pride history months (it is all in the article), do you want me to go on? Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We're really not going to be coming to a different conclusion this time guys. Let's put the topic to rest. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those things prove they oppose the existence of gay people. Oktayey (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As has been explained to you over and over again we use the description not because we ourselves have "proved it", but because it is a very common description in the sources, and we only write things based on what sources say. Any argument about what we think is really true in their heart of hearts by you or Slatersteven is beside the point and off topic. If anybody thinks that the description in RSs have changed since the previous discussions then you should present that argument, otherwise the descriptors will remain. Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  06:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, all I was doing was pointing out that what Steven was presenting as evidence of GAG opposing homosexuality was not at all evidence of that. Oktayey (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I have a more up to date logo I would like to add.
I have a more up to date logo I would like to add. It's the one that says GAG all in one character. Is there a way I could do that? MARCIMPERIVM (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Source? Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They have a different logo on the website then the one that is on the article. Denaar (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

 One Off 

1. "Online Amplifiers of Anti-LGBTQ+ Extremism". Anti-Defamation League. January 24, 2023. "adl 2023".
 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account.
 * Descriptors? anti-LGBTQ+ extremist coalition (follow up specifies they use this term when a group "pushes false claims and conspiracy theories" about any part of the LGBTQ+ group.)
 * Summary: Article about social media accounts with a short description of each, does not qualify as in depth coverage. Per WP:RSPADL ADL can be a reliable source, but this is specifically a blog post based on a "partnership between ADL and GLAAD".

3. Burga, Solcyre (March 5, 2023). "Here's the Status of Anti-Drag Bills Across the U.S." Time.  "time"


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y	Reliable? Y Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Organization
 * Descriptors? "anti-LGBTQ"
 * Summary: Group only discussed in one sentence, insignificant coverage.

9. Salgado, Beck Andrew (October 28, 2022). "Right-wing activist groups targeted a recent Wauwatosa School Board meeting. They're 'just getting started.'". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "Salgado".


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary?	Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Organization
 * Descriptors? National Organization
 * Summary: This is a local paper. It's not primarily about the group, it's about a meeting, but has more coverage then most the other sources and is reasonably neutral.

16. Johns, Tim (September 15, 2022). "Pride flag murals at Castro Valley schools cause opposing rallies". ABC7News.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group
 * Descriptors? Group


 * GAG mentioned in one sentence.

17. ""Our Community Has Grit": An Antifascist Report from a Hot Weekend in SoCal". 'It's Going Down. September 7, 2022. 


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group
 * Descriptors? far-Right groups
 * Los Angeles Save the Children Rally, Sep 3. This is a website that posts Anonymous user-created submissions.  Author is Anonymous.  Mentions 8 different groups that attended a Rally, not about any of those groups.  One sentence mentions GAG.

20. Roa, Ray (December 5, 2022). "Photos: Florida trans-rights advocates outnumber anti-LGBTQ rally last weekend". Creative Loafing.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary?	Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group
 * Descriptors? No direct description
 * Summary: Arts and Entertainment site, has a slide show of a protest with 4 paragraphs about the "Protect the Children" rally in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 2022. Mentions group sponsored rally in one sentence.

21. Italiano, Laura (February 14, 2023). "The Proud Boys seditious conspiracy trial is underway. But the new leadership has moved on from the 2020 election to LGBTQ issues". Business Insider.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y	Reliable? (Assume so?) Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group
 * Descriptors? a group
 * Summary: Article is about the Proud Boys, small mention they attended the "Protect the Children" rally on the beach in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. One sentence confirms GAG was also in attendance.

22. Burkett, Eric (August 30, 2022). "LGBTQ Agenda: Use of 'grooming' slur up 400% on social media, pro-LGBTQ groups say". The Bay Area Reporter.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary?	Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Jaimee Michell/Social Media Account
 * Descriptors? "runs group"
 * Summary: About "a study by the Human Rights Campaign and the Center for Countering Digital Hate".  Site: "Serving the San Francisco Bay LGBTQ Community since 1971.  Includes 5 paragraphs and a photo of a tweet.  Not the main focus of the article nor in depth.

23. Weiss, Elias (January 20, 2022). "Republicans Push Anti-Trans Bill Past First Hurdle in the Arizona Senate". Phoenix New Times.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Mentions opinion of Robert Wallace
 * Descriptors? anti-LGBTQ group
 * Summary: Local news paper, but again - one sentence only: "Notable Republicans voiced their support, including... Robert Wallace, who heads up Arizona’s chapter of the national anti-LGBTQ group Gays Against Groomers,..."

25. Mizelle, Shawna (February 5, 2023). "Republicans across the country push legislation to restrict drag show performances". CNN.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Not Mentioned
 * Descriptors? None
 * Summary: Not a single mention of Gays Against Groomers in the article.

26. McKellar, Katie (January 19, 2023). "Ban on transgender surgeries for kids, puberty blockers headed to Utah Senate". Deseret News.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary?	Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Ryan Woods
 * Descriptors? Group
 * Summary: Article is a description of testimony about a bill in front of the Utah Senate. Ryan Woods is given 2 paragraphs, and GAG is only mentioned in passing.

35. Cravens, R. G. (March 28, 2023). "Missouri AG Advances Anti-Trans Policy, Citing Disputed Whistleblower Claims". Southern Poverty Law Center.

38. Cameron, Dell (November 11, 2022). "Elon Is Re-Verifying Neo-Nazis and Selling Blue Checks to QAnoners". Gizmodo.
 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? B Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group
 * Descriptors? anti-transgender activists, including the group
 * Summary: See WP:SPLC, "Gays Against Groomers held a rally, promoted by FRC, at the state Capitol" on March 20, 2023. Later on, says the rally was trying to stop the fillibuster of the SAFE Act pending in Missouri.  Mentions statements by Chris Barrett at the rally, Jamiee Michell's comments to Fox News.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Most Likely Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media
 * Descriptors? "one of the most prominent accounts attacking the parents of transgender children online"
 * Summary: The entirety of the coverage is "Gays Against Groomers, one of the most prominent accounts attacking the parents of transgender children online, has faced multiple suspensions on Twitter for hate speech. But its account now, too, bears one of Musk’s badges."
 * Per WP:RSPSS There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.

 Arizona Mirror 

The AZ Mirror is openly biased; it describes itself as: "focused on fearless journalism that shines a light on injustice and creates real-world change." This doesn't disqualify it as a source but should be taken into consideration when using it as one. However, none of the coverage is significant.

2. "AZ Mirror" Gomez, Gloria Rebecca (February 17, 2023). "GOP anti-drag bill would send performers to prison for up to 10 years". Arizona Mirror.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? B Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Organization
 * Descriptors? "far-right anti-LGBTQ organization"
 * Summary: The article only mentions Gays against Groomers in two sentences.

24. MacDonald-Evoy, Jerod; March 16, Arizona Mirror (March 16, 2023). "Arizona Senate passes anti-drag bills". Arizona Mirror.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? B Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group
 * Descriptors? anti-LGBTQ group
 * Summary: Total of 3 sentences. Mentioned in passing; focus of article is on the bill like the above article.

 LGBTQ Nation 

Describes itself as an Online LGBTQ Magazine. Previous Reliable Sources Discussion:

Discussion above describes the site as highly biased, suggests better sources should be preferred. Like the discussion above, almost everything here has better, more reliable sources which should be used first. Almost every article is a reference to something another news group posted, or a summary of items posted on social media. One original interview but not about GAG in particular.

4. "Owen" Owen, Greg (December 6, 2022). "Wisconsin school board member sues over new sex-ed curriculum". LGBTQ Nation.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Unclear
 * Descriptors? "anti-LGBTQ+"
 * Summary: Article is about a lawsuit against a school, group is described in 7 sentences. The news is sourced from an article by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, I would "go to the original source" on this one.

7. Owen, Greg (December 26, 2022). "Gays Against Groomers spars with counter-protestors during its anti-LGBTQ+ rally in Florida". LGBTQ Nation.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account
 * Descriptors? "newest addition to the online anti-LGBTQ+ biosphere"
 * Summary: About the Florida "Protect the Children" Rally, Dec 2022, sponsored by multiple groups.  The reporting is based on twitter posts about the protest, not by a reporter at the event or interviews with attendees, and despite the title isn't focused on GAG, but on social media posts about the rally.  We have other sources covering this event.

14. Owen, Greg (December 28, 2022). "Trans rights activist Imara Jones on the anti-trans hate machine the far right has assembled". LGBTQ Nation.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group
 * Descriptors? frontline hate group
 * Summary: Interview with Imara Jones. Only one question is about them, and response is phrased as speculation.  Mentions the group and says they aren't a non-profit and have only been around 6 months, makes them sound non-notable.

32. "Anti-trans hate group Gays Against Groomers has been banned from PayPal & Venmo". LGBTQ Nation. September 21, 2022.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group
 * Descriptors? Vehemently anti-trans group
 * Summary: Quotes other news sources like the advocate along with screen shots of Twitter.

36. Bollinger, Alex (August 3, 2022). ""Gays Against Groomers" Jaimee Michell compares trans health care to Nazi human experiments". LGBTQ Nation.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Individual
 * Descriptors: anti-LGBTQ activist
 * Summary: This is a summary of an interview between OANN and Jaimee Michell. Normally, I would say "skip this article, don't use it - go to the source".   However,  the source is OANN.  Per WP:OANN:  One America News Network should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability.

 Daily Dot 

Looking around the site, it looks like a Celebrity Gossip or Click Bait type site, not a news organization. The subject is viral videos and other viral social media content. "Topless Mom" and "Fatfobic Tiktoker" and "broken McDonalds Ice Cream Machine" videos are all examples on the front page when I viewed it.

The Tag line admits site is biased but claims to be serious: "all things politics and technology with a focus on the far right and conspiracy theories." Yet... Ice Cream Machine Videos.

Per WP:DAILYDOT: There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact.

5."Goforth 2022a" Goforth, Claire (June 29, 2022). "Is 'Gays against Groomers' the new Libs of TikTok?". Daily dot.


 * Significant? Y Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account
 * Descriptors? "Critics say that Gays Against Groomers is a transphobic, far-right “astroturf” campaign" - doesn't tell us "who" but not in their own voice.
 * Summary: Article that is actually about the group, biased language.
 * This is the only article that counts as "significant coverage", specifically of their Twitter Account. We need multiple articles with significant coverage that are also reliable sources.

8. Goforth, Claire (August 25, 2022). "Why does Twitter keep suspending, reinstating Gays Against Groomers?". Daily Dot.
 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account
 * Descriptors? No direct description
 * Summary: This would probably be an ok article to source "has been banned from social media" as that is probably not controversial, if we don't have another source, but it's not contributing to notability.

 The Advocate 

The Staff page doesn't list any editors. The Legal notice describes the company as "Equal Entertainment" and says "You should not act or rely on this information" which suggests a lack of editing and fact-checking. They used to (still do?) have a Monthly Print Magazine. The site has been acquired twice, in 2017 and 2022. There are more reliable sources, I'd skip using this one all together.

6. "Wiggins" Wiggins, Christopher (December 16, 2022). "Anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Way Up on Twitter Since Elon Musk's Takeover: Study". The Advocate.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account
 * Descriptors? "far-right influencers like (list)"
 * Summary: Short article referencing a study about Twitter that mentions the group - but isn't about the group. 5 - 6 sentences, not in depth coverage.

12. Wiggins, Christopher (February 21, 2023). "Gays Against Groomers Is Not a Grassroots Organization: Report". The Advocate.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account
 * Descriptors? "hate account"
 * Summary: Article is an 'expose' of the Founder, talking about their work history and previous social media accounts, however, it's written like gossip.

15. Wiggins, Christopher (September 14, 2022). "Right-Wing Extremists to Protest School Board Meeting Over Pride Flags". The Advocate.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account:
 * Descriptors? No direct discription
 * Summary: About California painting flags on school buildings, and social media responses to it. 1 sentence about Gays Against Groomers.

18. Wiggins, Christopher (September 8, 2022). "Miami-Dade School Board Rejects Naming October LGBTQ+ History Month". The Advocate.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group
 * Descriptors? N/A
 * Summary: About Miami Dade Board.


 * Only 3 sentences about GAG.

19. Broverman, Neal (December 4, 2022). "Gays Against Groomers Headline Anti-LGBTQ+ Rally in Ft. Lauderdale". The Advocate.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group
 * Descriptors? calls itself a nonprofit
 * Summary: About Florida Rally.  Mentions the group, but a huge list of groups were involved:


 * The rally was organized by Moms for Liberty -- which works closely with Republican governor Ron DeSantis to demonize trans youth, trans-inclusive doctors, and drag queens -- along with organizations like Gays Against Groomers, Florida Fathers for Freedom, and Moms for Liberty Miami.

27. Cooper, Alex (December 19, 2022). "Protesters Storm Gay NYC Council Member's Apartment Building". The Advocate.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account
 * Descriptors? None
 * Summary: "Erik Bottcher tweeted that people calling themselves "gays against groomers" had earlier vandalized the walls in front of his office." In response to that Tweet, GAG said they had no members there. Per WP:BLP, Contentious material about living persons... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

34. Cooper, Alex (November 23, 2022). "Gays Against Groomers Blames Gender-Affirming Care for Club Q Massacre". The Advocate. 34. Advocate. "Cooper 2022":


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Individual
 * Descriptors: "anti-trans hate group"
 * Summary: Article isn't about the group. It's an article documenting twitter responses to a segment on Fox News (opinion/entertainment) where the founder of the group was interviewed.  It's not in depth coverage of the group or even mostly about the group.  We might go to the original source taking WP:FOXNEWS into account.

39. Ring, Trudy (October 28, 2022). "LGBTQ+ Rights Groups Worry Elon Musk Will Allow More Hate on Twitter". The Advocate.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Accounts
 * Descriptors: no description
 * Summary: One partial sentence about GAG.

40. Wiggins, Christopher (November 2, 2022). "Elon Musk's Twitter Is 'Hellscape' for LGBTQ+ People, Critics Say". The Advocate.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Accounts
 * Descriptors: "group"
 * Summary: Article about Twitter, includes one line and a screenshot of a tweet.

41. Wiggins, Christopher (September 21, 2022). "Google Bans Anti-Trans Hate Group Gays Against Groomers". The Advocate.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Accounts
 * Descriptors: "anti-trans hate group"
 * Summary: Short article talking about services that have banned the group.

 Media Matters for America 

If you look at source 13... it's a Fox News Clip, with a transcript. It doesn't even make commentary about it. The source is... Fox News. Frankly, seeing this brings down the value of all of Media Matter's articles as a reference.

Also - Many articles don't have an author.

Per WP:MEDIAMATTERS, "There is consensus that Media Matters is marginally reliable and that its articles should be evaluated for reliability on a case-by-case basis. As a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed."

"Media Matters for America is a web-based, not-for-profit, 501 (c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

10. Carter, Camden (July 6, 2022). "Instagram is allowing accounts to spew hate at LGBTQ people, while also claiming to support the community". Media Matters for America.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? N
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media
 * Descriptors: push far-right narratives
 * Summary: Isn't in-depth about the group, is screenshots from multiple Instagram accounts.

11. Gingerich, Mia (February 7, 2023). "Grifter Gays: How conspiracy theorists and right-wing operatives created Gays Against Groomers". Media Matters for America.


 * Significant? Y	Independent? y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media
 * Descriptors: N/A, doesn't describe the group directly as anything
 * Summary: This was has a lot of information; but I don't feel the source is reliable, it reads like a smear article against the group.

13. "Jaimee Michell, who is cisgender, tells two cisgender men on Fox News that Twitter banning "trans against groomers" is "transphobic"". Media Matters for America. September 26, 2022.


 * Significant? N	Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: N/A
 * Descriptors: N/A
 * Summary: No original content or commentary. Article is a post of a Fox News clip with transcript of part of the clip.

 Them.us 

Describes itself a s "LGBTQ+ News and Movies". Focuses on Culture and Entertainment. Does have editorial staff but reading the Wiki page on it, it's described as inspired by Teen Vogue but focused on LGBTQ.

33. This Gay Conservative Twitter Account Is the Latest Trying to Use Drag to Stir Outrage". Them.us. July 1, 2022.


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account
 * Descriptors: Great Value version of Libs of Tiktok
 * Summary: Re-report of daily.dot, would describe as an opinion piece. "According to the Daily Dot, GAG has been around for less than a month"

37. "This Right-Wing Activist Somehow Blamed Trans Health Care for the Club Q Shooting". Them.us. November 23, 2022. Them.us


 * Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N
 * About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Individual
 * Descriptors: anti-transgender activist group
 * Summary: Michell's appearance on Fox News.

 Take Ways: 


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

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

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


 * I feel like this article has a bit of a Gish Gallop going on is an interesting way to begin a post that dumps 49k of argumentation in one go. Zaathras (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I was told: "The article is not poorly sourced, nor does it run afoul of any Wikipedia standards." It took me a week to read every single article on the page.  I could remove the poor sources, but I worry it would lead to an edit war and the article wouldn't be improved.  So it's better for us to discuss what the best sources are, and I'll help out by sourcing as much of the article with them as possible.  Denaar (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "I could remove the poor sources, but I worry it would lead to an edit war and the article wouldn't be improved". It might also lead to more precise and user friendly discussions instead of that giant wall of text. It is probably better to take it one issue at a time instead of advocating for some kind of wholesale change. It takes (at least) two to edit war, so it's not just up to those that disagree with any changes you desire, it's also up to you. DN (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know, given that the user has rated a lot of reliable sources as "Reliable? N" above, it would probably be better to let someone with a better grasp of Wikipedia policies edit the page, since removing reliable sources with spurious claims of non-reliability will be undone by any number of people. -sche (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you give a couple examples of the reliable sources you're referring to? Oktayey (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, look in the article. When you see a small-font number inside a bracket, click it. That is a citation to a reliable source, and at the moment there are 41 examples for you. Happy reading. Zaathras (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your condescension is not appreciated. I think it's quite clear I was asking for an example of a reliable source that OP labeled unreliable. Oktayey (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When we look at reliable sources, it depends on what we are using them for. For instance, someone added a primary source to the article.  It verifies a specific fact.  But it doesn't count for notability, because primary sources are excluded from considerations of Notability. Not all 41 examples on the page help with the Notability requirements of WP:SIRS. 3 sentences in an article about a different topic don't meet "significant and in depth" coverage of the subject. Denaar (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do all sources need to meet ALL those guidelines? That seems like the highest possible standard, and doesn't necessitate removal of sources or AfD. If it follows policy, and there is consensus, isn't that acceptable? DN (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Organizations and Businesses have a higher notability standard to prove the organization is Notable WP:SIRS. I want to get this article sourced, but - I don't want to do that and just have it be deleted for not having the sources needed.
 * Not every source we use on the article has to meet those qualifications, but that's what I was focused on first. Someone pulled a primary source (their IRS filing) which doesn't show they are notable, but I don't think anyone objects to it be used as a reference for the article, it's obviously accurate and I can't find a secondary source with the same information.
 * Same with some of the biased articles - we can use them but just have to be careful with how they are used. I don't think we can get away without using them. Denaar (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll admit, I still rely on WP:RSPSS a lot of the time, but even if a source is not rated as reliable for one thing, it may be reliable for another thing, or the same thing in a different context. It's kinda, I don't know, fluid? DN (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I used Wikipedia policy, looking at previous discussions under WP:RSP for every source. However, I'd rather have a consensus on the best sources to build the article around then solely rely on my judgment.  Denaar (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to have just made quite a few changes without consensus, were those from your list? DN (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just checking RSP is not enough to determine if a source is reliable, as RSP is only for sources that have been discussed multiple times. You should also search the WP:RSN archives, as many sources are only discussed once. But even then, if a source hasn't been discussed it's not a sign that it's unreliable or reliable. Just that no-one has had reason to discuss it yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about your third point. I don't think there's any need requirement in WP:NPOV for a, unless you have sources that talk about that aspect (WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, etc). As, you've gone through these sources with a fine tooth comb you should know weather the sources regally devote space to describing how the group sees themselves. If they do, then that should be include it in the way the sources do. If they don't, we shouldn't (per WP:NPOV and a bit WP:MANDY). Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  06:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I would support adding anti-trans in addition to the other descriptions. In terms of better sources, I wouldn't imagine evergreen papers of comment or journal articles for what amounts to a twitter page. If there are better sources I think we would all value those. Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  06:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be RS in that regard. DN (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's trivially easy to find SIGCOV of this group in RS, e.g. /, . (Advocate.com has been discussed at RSN a number of times and considered reliable, even used as a source about other sources when deciding whether they are reliable.) -sche (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This was the only discussion that came up on a search, and it's specifically "is it reliable as a source of someone being gay or not? It seems the print magazine was considered pretty reliable, but they were purchased in 2022 and put a legal disclaimer on the website not to rely on any information on the site. So unfortunately, the new ownership doesn't seem to enforce the same editorial standard it used to have.  Denaar (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Disclaimers like that are typical, and The Advocate is a solidly reliable source. One of the major LGBTQ news outlets. I think your arguments here are very unlikely to be successful, and I urge you to avoid AfD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also a couple more sources listed in discussions in the archive, for example here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2023
On the first page it says "GAG helped organise a anti-lgbt rally". It should say "AN* anti-lgbt rally". 220.233.4.7 (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have done it, but I think "A" is better. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why? Mooonswimmer 16:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not too sure it "an" does not look quite right. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Marking done, "an" is definitely correct. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Far-right
The source given says “and other far right groups”. It is semantically ambiguous whether this means they are far right. It is also a single subjective opinion on a contentious claim which is not owned as far as I can tell by the group. BozMo talk 16:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really as they belong to that grouping (after all if I say "cats and other animals" I am not saying a cat is not an animal), it is not ambiguous at all. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether or not this organisation is far-right has been discussed endlessly over the last few months. See Talk:Gays Against Groomers/Archive 1, Talk:Gays Against Groomers/Archive 2,, and numerous drive by edit-requests and removed comments in the talk page history. The current consensus is that the existing sourcing is more than adequate, and is why we had to add a FAQ to the top of the talk page.
 * I'm also not sure if fact is the right template for this. better source needed or additional citation needed seem to fit the thrust of your issue better. fact is meant to be used for unsourced factual statements, and your concerns aside on the strength of it this has a citation to a reliable source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The source beside "far-right" directly describes GAG as being on the far-right - members of the Log Cabin Republicans and the far-right anti-LGBTQ organization Gays Against Groomers. Unless you mean another source given. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it the article author's assumption that being against child sex-change procedures is inherently "far right"? Bws92082 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My preference is to remove it from the first sentence, take it out of WP:Wikivoice, and instead attribute to whomever is describing them that way. But, there is a lot of opposition to that view.  The compromise was to review all the sources, find the ones that call them far right, and directly source it.  With WP:Lead it says "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead" - even though it's an organization, it's still a contentious statement about living people, so it needs an inline citation at the minimum.  Denaar (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It did have, so your objection had been dealt with before you made it, and now has more. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware it was sourced, because I am the one who sourced it. Which you can check here:   Denaar (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My mistake that was aimed at the OP. As has been every comment about the misapplication of that tag. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I was just trying to give the history of the compromise. Denaar (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We aren't discussing an unsourced statement in the lead here. If you check the where the fact template was added, you can see that it already had a citation to a reliable source. Also the applicability of BLP to groups is both complex and non-obvious. Hence why I queried above why if fact was actually the right template to use, as this wasn't an unsourced content issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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


 * There's even more sources in the table in this discussion in archive 2 from when we discussed this back in April. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Lets put two good ones in. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like overcite but sure. If we're going for three citations total, how about we add The Advocate and The Intercept? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Those two should do. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ in . Citations were already in the article and named for re-use, so easy to re-use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This article comes across as biased and could potentially be libellous.
Other than media articles, there’s very little substance behind the claims made in this article. My concern that it’s coming across as extremely biased. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts and I’m of the opinion that media articles, don’t constitute facts. You can say anything you want on a “news” website. That doesn’t make it a fact. The article should constitute what is officially known about the the organisation. You can’t call someone far right and anti LGBT because a left leaning media site has. It’s biased at best and libellous at worst. I’ve raised this with wiki but they have directed me here. This article, whether you agree with the organisation or not, should be about facts. Other wiki pages about other organisations have not been targeted in this way. Bias has no place here. Nonya394 (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See wp:nlt. Slatersteven (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn’t making a legal threat. Simply stating that the article could be construed as libellous while making a point that it is extremely biased.
 * The article you have linked reads “ A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified.” 2A02:C7C:375C:7B00:A558:5EA6:1D50:15A0 (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just advising you to be careful. We only repeat what wp:rs say. Everything we say here can be wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I respect 100% what you're doing. I’ve been going through all sources, if a source is only available within the USA can it be included in the article? As [2] is unavailable outside of the USA. Nonya394 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies. [2] on Anti-LGBTQ+ Nonya394 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It can be used, yeah. If you click the link on the word Archived on "Archived from the original", you'll find a version on the Wayback Machine which is available worldwide to verify what's in the source. As an editor in the EU myself, I usually use the Wayback Machine to check any articles blocked for me by GDPR regulations etc. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a speedy response. Nonya394 (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I would change it to "Conservative Anti-Trans" myself but obviously people policing this page disagree with that - so it's on you to update the article with proper sources that defend your position if you think "far right anti-lgbt" is better. Denaar (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I wonder if there's three closed discussions right above this that handle the same question... Eh, it's probably nothing --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a shame you immediately assume bad-faith.
 * None of the above discussion changes the fact that the in-line citations do not support the sentence.
 * "On Wikipedia, an inline citation is generally a citation in a page's text placed by any method that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it."
 * WP:IC
 * It's a really simple ask - add citations that support the sentence.
 * Denaar (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Advocate sources says and Time says . The two sources seem to support the two claims that the group is "far-right" and "anti-LGBT" in that order. If you want to add any of the many sources that use those descriptors, such as those listed in HarryKernow's source table in the above section  then feel free. We are unlikely to use  when you offer no source based reason to do so.  Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  18:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


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


 * Denaar (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources say anti-LGBTQ/anti-LGBT (again see multiple source tables above). You can't just claim they meant anti-trans. If a source wanted to say the group is anti-trans exclusively they would say that. It is not the job of editors to analyse what source Really meant to say. Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  22:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The very first source says that they use the term "Anti-LGBTQ+" to mean "parts of the LGBTQ+" community.
 * I'm not arguing the article shouldn't mention these things. Per:
 * WP:Lead
 * The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.
 * Since this has been challenged to the point the article is locked, this means that we should have an inline citation - a good quality one - every time a controversial statement is made.
 * We're also required to be neutral, again, per WP:Lead:
 * The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.
 * Compare the lead here to Westboro Baptist Church:
 * The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an American, unaffiliated Primitive Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas, that was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps.
 * No one, not one person out there, is going to go out on a limb and try to defend WBC. But it's formatted with a neutral statement, says "it is considered" a hate group, not that "it is one".  It also has numerous citations backing it up.
 * Denaar (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Denaar for pointing out the obvious.
 * I'll steal the thread here to mention Gays Against Groomers was created to protest pedophillia in other words what could be considered lewd and lascivious behavior. I find this a worthy effort as I believe responsible adults want to protect children. Here is a quote from their page: What we are witnessing is mass scale child abuse being perpetrated on an entire generation, and we will no longer sit by and watch it happen. It is going to take those of us from within the community to finally put an end to this insanity, and that's exactly what we're going to do. Link:  https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/about
 * The above should be included in the article and I don't think it was done. A good article should include what the organization is about and what their goals are. The current version doesn't mention what I posted above. It does make GAG sound like they are against alternative lifestyles which they are not. They are for protecting children. Thank you, MDaisy (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They are for protecting children, they are most decidedly NOT, as shown by reliable sources covering this hate group. What they engage in is Think of the children-style moral panic. Their self-description is irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Does Wikipedia guidelines require inline citations? ABSOLUTELY:
 * WP:Lead
 * The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.
 * The opening of this page doesn't follow the guidelines at all:
 * ''The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.
 * Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead''.
 * Compare the lead of this to: Westboro Baptist Church, Fox News.
 * This is not up to standards.
 * Denaar (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How are you able to read that section? It's hidden from me. "[show]" is just inactive text. Jmaranvi (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm - try coming back with a browser, I can get them to expand in Chrome on a desktop. There is also an Archive page here
 * Denaar (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are the discussions closed, and not *only* closed, but also unreadable? What sort of extraordinary circumstances warranted such a heavy-handed approach? The mere fact that different users keep resurrecting the issue suggests that "consensus" was not the reason. But of course I'm only speculating, because, for some reason, I'm unable to read and determine exactly what occurred. Jmaranvi (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per a response I received in the section I opened, it appears to be mobile browser issue preventing me from reading. I apologize for thinking it was intentional. Jmaranvi (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Anti-LGBT, when you are LGBT. Some in the organization say LGB&T, to denote the difference. They also ignore the ++. Whoever wrote this page is way off base and illogical. 67.135.159.35 (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

By who?

"Twitter user Wajahat Ali".

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

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


 * Seems like the same non-concerns raised by user Oktayey a few months ago, and rejected. Zaathras (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines apply to all articles.
 * Denaar (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying PAGs don't apply here. As I think is proved by the extensive talk sections above and in the archive, most good faith editors believe the current status quo does follow the guidelines and that the sorts of changes your proposing would take us further away from Wikipediaes PAGs (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, etc). I suggest you read the above sections and come up with an argument that isn't just accusing others of wilfully and knowingly disobeying the rules, in the way you appear to me to be doing. Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  22:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling an article poorly sources is "accusing other of disobeying the rules"? It sounds like you are taking my critique of the article as a personal attack?  I'm critiquing the article as it stands, it's not up to Wikipedia standards yet.
 * Denaar (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is not poorly sourced, nor does it run afoul of any Wikipedia standards. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you read my comments, I've listed multiple places where it doesn't meet Wikpedia standards, along with providing a reference to Wikipedia's standards.
 * We've all been there - you add a source, it confirms something on the page, someone changes the text... and now the source is orphaned.
 * The answer is update the article so the sources are in-line at the appropriate spots.
 * I've read through the first 17 articles on the page taking notes, working through that first and brining up some points here before making changes.
 * Denaar (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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


 * You can accuse me of assuming bad faith if you want but my point isn't that you're bad faith. My point is that you are reopening a discussion that has been closed more than four times now, each time with a consensus to keep the current version. Additionally, as someone else pointed out to you, those discussions already involved a great deal more sources than just the ones cited on the page. Something you're only now trying to catch up on reading. The reason I reacted so flippantly is because this issue has been going on for a while now. See also this ANI thread. for a bit more context. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But I'm not re-opening a discussion. I'm starting a new discussion to improve the citations on the page.
 * You say "great deal more sources than just the ones cited on the page"...
 * If those citations are good sources, they should be on the page. That isn't a controversial statement.  It's how we improve the page.
 * Our opinions, ultimately, do not matter. The article has to be built on adequate, third party sources.  And where there are unsourced, controversial comments, we need to source them. WP:RS.
 * Denaar (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023 article in the Star Tribune
In case it is helpful, there was an article published this month in the Minnesota Star Tribune that also characterizes GAG as a far-right group. The formatted reference is included here in case it is useful to anyone to add as a reference for the main article on this particular point.

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

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

Lede
I fully support protecting children's innocence. The current LGBTQ+ movement seems to want to sexualize children. In earlier times this would most likely been considered grooming by pedophiles. GAG is against sexualization of children.

Most importantly the lede for this article is inaccurate. Here's what the GAG web page intro says: "A nonprofit organization of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children under the guise of LGBTQIA+" WP should have the academic standards to provide accurate information. The current lede is inaccurate and most likely biased. Good academic writing says you are to be clear, concise and objective. What research was done when writing this most likely inaccurate lede. Link: https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/

I would highly encourage contacting and interviewing the GAG founders and their leadership (they are living beings) to find out who, what, when or where the group was founded. I'd also interview experts who deal with this subject. A good place to start would be law enforcement followed by child psychologists who have studied and understand the methods used to take advantage of children. There's lots of work to do before this article is fair, unbiased and accurate. Good luck! MDaisy (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * North Korea also describes itself as a Democratic People's Republic, but the reality, found in reliable sourcing, shows the reality, that it is a totalitarian dictatorship. GAG's self-perception is irrelevant to this article. Zaathras (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The statement they are anti-gay is biased to the point of almost laughable. They are gay and they support LGBQ+ lifestyle. To write they are anti-gay is inaccurate. Also, without interviewing experts you can not claim their actions are inappropriate. Interview professionals and they will tell you the actions taken in recent Pride events would most likely inappropriate arrest able behavior. Also, teaching children your biological sex can be wrong is scientifically invalid. The majority of the time babies are born biological male or female. There are exceptions (Turner's syndrome for example) and those exceptions are rare medical occurrences. BTW I am straight but I do support protecting our innocent children. As a society protecting our children should be our highest goal. GAG is trying to do that. 150.195.48.205 (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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


 * I would strongly advice you read the talk page above and it's archives (1, 2), as this has been discussed again and again. The long and short of it is we only report what is covered in Reliable sources and using the language you would find in those sources (WP:NPOV). We don't care what the group describes themselves, outside of where the sources care. The sources that have been found either describe them as far-right and ant-lgbt or don't contradict that characterisation. If you have some reliable sources (see WP:RSP for the sort of sources we mean), that contradict the current article or describes them in the way you talk about them above then please present them. Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  06:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What you fail to understand is that Aristotle logic is not the main guiding principle on Wikipedia.
 * The law of excluded middle does not necessarily apply.
 * An organization can both be anti-LGBT and not be anti-LGBT, if there are two reliable sources making both of these statements. 187.252.192.58 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @187.252.192.58 Does it not say how they describe themselves? DN (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Protest in Watertown, WI
Gays Against Groomers and Neo-Nazis protesting a Pride in the Park event in Watertown, WI:


 * https://www.newsweek.com/armed-nazi-group-protests-pride-event-featuring-drag-show-1816186
 * https://www.advocate.com/news/gays-against-groomers-neo-nazis
 * https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/07/gays-against-groomers-protested-on-the-same-side-as-neo-nazis/
 * https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/07/31/pride-protest-gays-against-groomers-neo-nazis/

This was a notable protest event, so it may belong in the protests section. Hist9600 (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

When was this article hijacked by anti-LGBT homophobia?
I'm curious why in the article there are far-right homophobic articles cited that accuse the groups of gay & trans people against grooming of being "anti-LGBT". They're obviously not because THEY ARE LGBT. If I get hate for defending & being pro-LGBT then so be it. Pretty sure there's enough pro-LGBT people among Wikipedia staff to prevent me from being abused by any alleged anti-LGBT crowd. HenriettaGrand (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Being gay doesn't give one a Get-Out-of-Bigotry-Free-Card. Zaathras (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We write our articles based on what Reliable Sources say. There are a number of organisations which pursue anti-LGBT objectives despite seeming to be LGBT themselves. This seems paradoxical and counter-intuitive but that doesn't mean that it is not true. It is fair enough that this raises people's eyebrows and makes them ask "What the hell is going on here?" but that is a question for those organisations, not so much for Wikipedia. Our job is just to say what the organisation is, based on Reliable Sources, and only to say why it is that way if the Reliable Sources have provided that information. Personally, I can think of at least two plausible reasons for this to happen but it would be inappropriate for me to speculate here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)