Talk:Gays Against Groomers: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 255: ::::::::::::::::::::::I think the reliable sources need to be compared and weighed against one another, and anti-LGBTQ is a fair assessment given the current sources. I've already gone into the other topics previously. Not the way to work towards a consensus with the other editors here. [[User:Hist9600|Hist9600]] ([[User talk:Hist9600|talk]]) 01:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::So far you have one source which doesn't call them anti-LGBT. This is about the [[WP:NPOV|balance of the RS]]. Obviously it will be very hard to find {{tq|neutral or supportive}} RS that call them anti-LGBT, because ''anti-LGBT'' is, certainly among RS, almost universally critical. We must reflect that, not impose a [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. ■ ∃ [[User:Maddy from Celeste|<b style="color:#C64600">Madeline</b>]] ⇔ ∃ [[User talk:Maddy from Celeste|<b style="color:#613583">Part of me</b>]] ''';''' 10:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC) {{od|22}} On the repeated point that only biased sources are calling this group anti-LGBTQ, when [https://time.com/6260421/tennessee-limiting-drag-shows-status-of-anti-drag-bills-u-s/ Time] magazine state plainly in their own editorial voice that this group is one of several anti-LGBTQ organisations that an Arizona state senator conferred with when working on that state's anti-drag bill, I'm sorry but that argument just doesn't hold any strength to me. Unless someone wants to make the case that Time is a biased source in this regard? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 02:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC) == Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2023 == | |||