Talk:Gays Against Groomers - Wikipedia
5 people in discussion
Article ImagesThis article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
- Q: They are not far right/propaganda/anti-LGBTQ/anti-trans/etc.! They are only against etc. etc.!
- A: That is not what reliable sources say. A 2023 RFC found a consensus for the terms "Anti-LGBT" and "Far-right". See also this listing of descriptors used by the sources.
- Q: Those sources are clearly biased! This violates WP:NPOV!
- A: That is not what NPOV means.
- Q: How can they be “anti-LGBTQ” if they’re gay?!
- A: ignoring whether or not they’re being honest about their sexual orientation, it’s entirely possible for someone to advocate against their own (demographic’s) interests. See Self-hating Jew, Internalized racism, Internalized sexism, House negro.
This section is permanently on this talk page and does not get archived. It is for mobile-device users for whom the the normal talk page header and FAQ are not shown.
No legitimate complaint here Dronebogus (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply |
---|
It's fairly clear from the discussion on this talk page that it would appropriate to place the NPOV tag ({{ }}) at the top of the article. 152.130.15.98 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
|
we've just had an entire RFC about this. I don't think we'll need to rivisit the issue anytime soon. Discussion closed.--Licks-rocks (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This statement from the ADL could potentially open up a rather nasty can of worms and it might not be a good idea to draw undue attention to it: "while GAG claims that they cannot be anti-gay or anti-lesbian as they themselves identify as gay or lesbian, ADL's definition of anti-LGBTQ+ extremism includes any person who pushes false claims and conspiracy theories about all or parts of the LGBTQ+ community, regardless of how they personally identify" Wikipedia needs to focus on what reliable sources state about what they are as a fact, not extrapolations on the labels they use to describe themselves. Reliable sources have thus far described GAG as a far right, anti-LGBTQ hate group, as perpetuators of the utterly baseless groomer-libel and as stochastic terrorists. They have also exposed their frontrunners as having close ties with the trump campaign, the GOP and major right wing media trusts and think-tanks. Whether members of GAG identify as gay or not shouldn't even be brought up. It would be putting undue weight on GAG's own PR, and therefore legitimizing it. Also, as someone who has spent excessive time studying the far right and how they think, I feel it necessary to point out that this statement can be read as playing into the far right's rethoric that LGBTQ is a political movement/ideology (see also "gay agenda, "gender ideology", "transgenderism"). I would not be surprised if they are already framing it as the ADL "saying the silent parts out loud". 46.97.170.235 (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
|