Edit filter log

'{{skip to bottom}} {{talk header}} {{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}} {{WikiProject banner shell|1= {{WikiProject Politics|class=Start|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} {{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Canada|class=start|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Gender studies|class=Start|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=start}} {{WikiProject Skepticism |class=Start|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Alternative Views |class=Start|importance=Low}} }} {{section sizes}} {{page views double}} {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | age=2160 | archiveprefix=Talk:LGBT grooming conspiracy theory/Archive | numberstart=1 | maxarchsize=75000 | header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | minkeepthreads=5 | minarchthreads=2 | format= %%i }} __TOC__ ==“Gays Against Groomers”== There’s at least one group which promotes the groomer panic but whose members claim to be gay themselves. That should be worth noting as well, especially since this group was [https://www.mediamatters.org/gays-against-groomers/anti-lgbtq-extremists-banned-paypal-are-turning-donorbox-finance-their kicked off PayPal] and responded by accusing the platform of something called “woke homophobia”. [[Special:Contributions/2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:AFF0|2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:AFF0]] ([[User talk:2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:AFF0|talk]]) 21:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC) :No. Concern-trolls are not a new phenomenon on the far-right, and wikipedia should not give undue clout to them. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.38|46.97.170.38]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.38|talk]]) 11:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC) == Is it really a conspiracy theory? == Looking through it, appears that the concern of some people, after all. Is starting to be the rule to bring Drag Queens to read the stories for Children. And there was various cases of trans people assaulting women in school bathrooms. I think that it's better to call it accusation, rather than conspiracy theory. Could we discuss it a bit? [[Special:Contributions/170.0.160.141|170.0.160.141]] ([[User talk:170.0.160.141|talk]]) 08:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC) :See the talk page above, this will explain why we say it is. Also can you bring some sources to the claim people are being assaulted?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC) ::trans women have sexually assaulted other women (which proves nothing about trans women of course because so do cis women) but I’ve never seen anything about school bathrooms. Either way purely anecdotal. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 11:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC) :It is always important to remember that [[WP:NOTRIGHT|Wikipedia is wrong]], by its own admission. This is because Wikipedia's mission is not to present the truth, but what primary, secondary and tertiary sources report. To properly use Wikipedia, it is important to recognize that it is a reflection of what Reliable Sources (defined as sources voted to be reliable by Wikipedia's editors [[WP:RSN|here]] and [[WP:RSPSS|here]]) are stating, nothing else. I hope that helped. If you wish to include any information in this article, please make sure to provide sources that were voted to be reliable. - [[User:LilySophie|LilySophie]] ([[User talk:LilySophie|talk]]) 12:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC) ::That's because WP is a tertiary source, which means that it sums up what existing secondary and primary sources have to say on topics. [[User:X-Editor|X-Editor]] ([[User talk:X-Editor|talk]]) 01:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC) It's hard to justify why people voicing their concerns over child grooming is a "conspiracy theory". The fact that Vox (possibly others) claims that the term is referencing (or attempting to reference) all LGBTQ people hardly warrents it being a conspiracy theory. It is a claim by Vox, which should be investigated and clarified (meaning: debunked). More work should be done on this page to separate opinion from fact. Doing so would no longer result in it being considered a conspiracy theory. This type of article (as it stands) hurts public opinion and trust in Wikipedia. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 01:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC) :This article isn't based on Vox, and no reliable sources have {{Tq|debunked}} the assertion that "LGBT grooming" is an unsubstantiated political narrative. If you believe alternative facts have been documented by reliable sources, you are welcome to present them here. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 13:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC) :It's not "concerns over child grooming", it's concerns characterizing anti-discriminatory education/cultural exhibits as "grooming". Even the most basic anti-discrimination pro-tolerance flyers make the rounds among the people who advocate for this. Your own framing is brazenly dishonest. [[User:Adamsmo|Adamsmo]] ([[User talk:Adamsmo|talk]]) 04:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC) :What does "warrent" mean? [[User:Peleio Aquiles|Peleio Aquiles]] ([[User talk:Peleio Aquiles|talk]]) 17:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC) == This article doesn't seem very encyclopaedic and will probably need a lot of cleanup == {{hat|No point in continuing this as the OP has been blocked for unrelated reasons}} Right in the lede: ''Since the early 2020s, conservatives and members of the far-right, mostly in the United States, have falsely accused LGBT people, as well as their allies and progressives in general, of using LGBT-positive education and campaigns for LGBT rights as a method of child grooming. These accusations and conspiracy theories are widely considered baseless, homophobic and transphobic, and experts believe that they contribute to a moral panic.'' Not a single citation is offered for this paragraph. And further more, virtually every supporting citation is neither academic (and in some instances, downright incredulous like [https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-intellectual-dark-web-spawned-anti-lgbtq-groomer-panic this] Daily Beast citation) nor actually supports the in-line text: For example, the line ''"The conspiracy has also been used by the far-right in the UK, including Tommy Robinson."'' has a citation from some random org calling itself the "Canadian Anti-Hate Network", but even then their link only says that Tommy Robinson "elicited interest" towards a clip of [[Matt Walsh]] on the [[Dr. Phil Show]]. which is a far-stretch from the claim that Tommy Robinson has used any rhetoric one way or another. This article needs a lot off cleanup. Tabloid sources, unacademic, opinionated journalism, random organisations speaking authoritatively on issues without any real credibility--This article has to omany of these. [[User:PeaceThruPramana26|PeaceThruPramana26]] ([[User talk:PeaceThruPramana26|talk]]) 02:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC) :1. Lead paragraphs generally don't require citations, as the lead is a summary of the body of the article, which is where the appropriate references will appear. :2. Sources are not required to be "academic", just reliable, which the majority of sources here appear to be. Your opinion of their credibility is irrelevant. :3. You will note that the Tommy Robinson bit has ''two'' citations, with the one you didn't mention providing more detail. --[[User:Pokelova|Pokelova]] ([[User talk:Pokelova|talk]]) 06:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC) As if to perfectly highlight the issues with low-quality surrounding this article, Both articles that reference Tommy Robinson don't even mention anything regarding a groomer conspiracy, or say the word 'groomer' at all. For example, your alternative link says: ''"In December 2021 alone he posted 14 transphobic posts and additional anti-LGBT+ posts, frequently using the slur “tranny”. In one post he wrote: “It’s not natural, biological men can’t have babies, they are not supposed to have babies.”"'' That has literally nothing to the subject matter at hand, and the latter is his personal opinion which has nothing to do with any cited 'groomer' conspiracy. He didn't make any claims about anyone trying to groom anyone else, just gave his opinion on an aspect of transgender natalism, which, frankly, is not noteworthy. I reiterate, the article is very low quality, seems like it was shoddily put together to capitalise on a mainstream neologism in the news right now, and very little of the source material used as citations actually support the inline reference text; The Tommy Robinson example was but one. Addendum: Ledes *still* must be reliable, and the provided sources are not reliable, considering they don't actually support what the text here says; Also, they *still* must abide by [[Wiki:BLP]], which this article has numerous violations of (once again, the Tommy Robinson example a good one, made even worse by the fact he lives in the UK which has very strict liability for libel) [[User:PeaceThruPramana26|PeaceThruPramana26]] ([[User talk:PeaceThruPramana26|talk]]) 07:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC) :Why would you just say something factually untrue when people can look it up? The part you quote is from the first mention of Robinson in the article. The article goes on to say about Robinson: "he argued that gender-neutral children’s books and LGBT+ education in school causes mental health issues, calling it child abuse and comparing it directly to sexual grooming". I will be restoring the content and the first link, the second one can go. --[[User:Pokelova|Pokelova]] ([[User talk:Pokelova|talk]]) 08:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC) ::The second link is from [[Hope Not Hate]], which is a lobbying/advocacy group that funds political candidates in the UK and thus cannot be seen as a neutral, impartial source worthy of an encyclopedia; It would be like referencing the [[National Rifle Association]] on gun statistics or for profiles on their political enemies against gun control. You must either find a better impartial source that can support this claim, or it must be removed given the strong guidelines on [[WP:BLP]] which I suggest that everyone give themselves a refresher on from time to time since there is a very strong standard for claims made against living, private persons (of which Tommy Robinson still [https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporting-defamation.htm legally counts] as one in the UK). [[User:PeaceThruPramana26|PeaceThruPramana26]] ([[User talk:PeaceThruPramana26|talk]]) 08:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC) :::"neutral, impartial source worthy of an encyclopedia;" We neither need neutral sources, nor should we ever use such sources. It goes against Wikipedia policies. Per the policy on [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources|biased or opinionated sources]]: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 08:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC) Actually, as per [[WP:BLP]] (Which I again reiterate my request that you read this): <blockquote>Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: '''Neutral point of view (NPOV)''' Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") '''must be written conservatively''' and '''with regard for the subject's privacy'''. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, '''not a tabloid:''' it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or '''to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives'''; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. '''This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP''', whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that 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.''' </blockquote> Wikipedia did that last bolded highlight, not me. As per long-enshrined wiki policy, it's removed for not meeting the standards of [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:PeaceThruPramana26|PeaceThruPramana26]] ([[User talk:PeaceThruPramana26|talk]]) 09:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC) {{hab}} == Use of the Vox Article in the Overview section == The Overview section, quoting the Vox article, states, ""imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers." While Vox is a reliable source, per WP:RS, "Vox is considered generally reliable. Some editors say that Vox does not always delineate reporting and opinion content or that it is a partisan source in the field of politics." I'd argue that this article is an opinion piece, and uses much stronger language than the other sources. I'd like to change this section to something closer to the lede, mentioning that it is deployed against advocates of LGBT positive education for children. Does anyone share my concern with the Vox article or am I seeing an issue where there isn't one? [[User:Poppa shark|Poppa shark]] ([[User talk:Poppa shark|talk]]) 05:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC) :I think you're seeing an issue where there isn't one. The Vox article is extremely well researched and cites a lot of reliable sources including academic studies. I also don't see any stronger language than other sources–what wording were you concerned about specifically? Also, the Vox article has three paragraphs covering how the conspiracy theory is deployed against advocates of LGBT positive education for children. ––[[User:FormalDude|<span style="color: #0151D2; font-family: Microsoft Sans Serif; letter-spacing: -.3px;">'''Formal'''{{color|black|'''Dude'''}}</span>]] [[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#0151D2;font-family: Microsoft Sans Serif;font-size:90%;">'''(talk)'''</span>]] 05:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC) ::I'm concerned that the statement from the from the Overview section too broadly describes who is being attacked. From the other sources I'm looking at, they seem to better clarify that the targets of this effort are those that are introducing LGBT friendly education. For example, the Politifact article says, "LGBTQ community — or even just those who discuss LGBTQ topics — are deliberately preying on children by discussing sexual orientation and gender identity." ::The inews states, "Republican politicians and pundits, currently trying to pass dozens of anti-LGBT laws across the country, are firing the “groomer” retort at critics of it." ::The Washington Post states, "The “groomers” framing played a prominent role in the passage of Florida’s law prohibiting discussion of sexual identity among young children in schools." ::Slate and others specifically cite the Pushaw tweet that accuses opponents of "Don't Say Gay" of being groomers. All of these examples are targeted towards a smaller part of the community. ::Whereas the Vox article makes more broad statements like this: "Increasingly, though — and perhaps most worryingly — conservatives also seem to be using “grooming” to mean left-wing indoctrination generally." "The term — which describes the actions an adult takes to make a child vulnerable to sexual abuse — is taking on a conspiracy-theory tone as conservatives use it to imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers." Those lines seem to go beyond what any of the other sources are saying. Additionally, given the tone of that piece and the note on Vox from WP:RS, makes me feel that it shouldn't be relied on as a sole source for a statement. ::I'm looking at it more closely, and I think it would be a non issue if the "liberals more generally" were removed from that section. But again, I came to the talk page to see if anyone shared my concerns before making any changes [[User:Poppa shark|Poppa shark]] ([[User talk:Poppa shark|talk]]) 06:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC) :::It is an accurate assessment of what conservatives are pushing. It's definitely a non-issue. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.38|46.97.170.38]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.38|talk]]) 11:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC) == Some avenues for exploration == {{collapse top|reason=Question answered. Coverage of [[transgender youth]] (etc.) belongs on the relevant article, unless explicitly related to this topic by a reliable source. –[[User:RoxySaunders|RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️]] ([[User talk:RoxySaunders|💬]] • [[Special:Contributions/RoxySaunders|📝]]) 18:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)}} I think that there are aspects of this trend that are not covered by this article. Most notably, there is a legitimate debate over the bioethics of "affirmation" of gender identity in those under the age of 18. Puberty is awkward and children/teens are impressionable. Natural puberty doesn't involve an intervention with drugs that can alter bone density and fertility, so "do no harm" is relevant. This is different than slandering lgbt people as child groomers, of course. I think those in opposition see "pride forward" as akin to a religion. Some religions insist that the bottle of merlot in their hands contains real blood of someone who died 2,000 years ago, just as some people today insist that the person with y chromosomes in every one of their cells (save for half of their sperm) is a real female. The more level-headed people in opposition to teachers pushing lgbt themes in their classroom just don't want their children exposed to perspectives that could lead them to potentially harmful medical regimens, just as some don't want to see religion pushed in their public schools. "Indoctrination" is different than "grooming", but the more legitimate debate isn't present in this article. Shouldn't it be? The US is currently poised to pass a bipartisan same sex marriage bill, but this article in conjunction with many republicans' agreement with Libs of Tiktok's activism, is just going to confuse readers, and lead them to think the GOP wants to return to 1950s-level vanilla-ism. I think that this article accurately describes the ugly underbelly of the activism by Libs of Tiktok and others, but ignores the legitimate and mainstream issues with "pride forward" raised by activists like LoTT. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B01E:57BA:140E:9830:F737:4961|2600:1012:B01E:57BA:140E:9830:F737:4961]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B01E:57BA:140E:9830:F737:4961|talk]]) 19:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC) :This is a subject for another article, this is about the attempt to smear LTBT people as groomers. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 19:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC) ::I beg to differ. What the IP presented is not the subject for another article, it is in fact [[WP:SEALION]]. These are talking points pushed by the alt right as a form of gateway drug to the greater conspiracy theory (similar to what muddying the waters around the actual death toll is to holocaust deniers). [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.38|46.97.170.38]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.38|talk]]) 11:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC) :::What I meant was that these are matters relating to [[Child protection]] for example, so he should take his point there. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC) ::::OP is [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia. Anyone familiar with the rethoric of this particular conspiracy theory will recognize these "points". [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.38|46.97.170.38]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.38|talk]]) 12:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC) :How about no? Wikipedia is not here to entertain fringe conspiracy theories. If you want this topic discussed, take it to Conservapedia. I'm sure they will be very interested in hearing about it. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.38|46.97.170.38]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.38|talk]]) 11:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC) OP here, I understood the point of the first reply to my post and respected it by not fomenting an argument in response, as I can understand how an article should narrowly focus on the topic of the article, as Slatersteven said. Oftentimes an article will link to related areas or discuss them within the article, and that was the focus of my question. There is nothing "alt right" about the bioethics of endocrine disruption during development; the NYT (a reliable source) covered it recently, and quite critically. But, there is no mention of this conspiracy theory in the article, so Slatersteven's point stands. As for the other replier's uncollegial remarks, here is how Wikipedia defines sealioning: "pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity"...unlike the other IP, there was nothing relentless or uncivil about my post here, and since the IP has effectively called me a white nationalist, it makes it hard for me to discuss ways to improve this page with them. Regards, [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B04F:DA9A:6955:70BA:4C59:97CC|2600:1012:B04F:DA9A:6955:70BA:4C59:97CC]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B04F:DA9A:6955:70BA:4C59:97CC|talk]]) 16:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC) {{collapse bottom}} == Antisemitic Cannard? == Are there any reliable sources covering the blatantly antisemitic undertones (are they even undertones at this point?) of this conspiracy theory? If so, they should be included. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.38|46.97.170.38]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.38|talk]]) 11:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC) :I Have seen nothing linking this in any way to anti-semitism. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC) ::I find that off, bevause it was brought up in a previous discussion which has since been archived. When someone questioned whether this is a '''conspiracy''' theory, rather than an accusation, it has been pointed out that not only does the alt right frame this "grooming" as a conspiracy, but are also pretty open about who they believe is behind it. The antisemitism pushed with the conspiracy theory is actually pretty overt. [[Special:Contributions/46.97.170.38|46.97.170.38]] ([[User talk:46.97.170.38|talk]]) 11:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC) :::It is? then you can find RS saying it. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC) ::::I think the better question is whether this conspiracy theory has more antisemitic undertones than others do... Basically every single conspiracy theory we deal with today has some antisemitic undertones because that's the cesspool that modern conspiracy evolved from. WP:RS do seem to note it but they don't pick it out as unique or terribly important. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Almost every modern conspiracy theory has a potential or obvious antisemitic angle to it. Probably the best way to gauge if a conspiracy is fundamentally antisemitic is to assess whether Jews are invoked or not. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B02B:9A99:285A:D2DA:3F28:7A75|2600:1012:B02B:9A99:285A:D2DA:3F28:7A75]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:B02B:9A99:285A:D2DA:3F28:7A75|talk]]) 22:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC) == PP == Do we need talk page protection? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC) :You won't get it asking here. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">[[User:FlightTime|<span style="color:#800000">'''FlightTime'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:FlightTime|<span style="color:#1C0978">'''open channel'''</span>]])</small></span> 17:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC) ::I know, I was gaging support for asking. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC) :::I've put in [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Talk%3ALGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory|a request at RFP]]. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 17:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC) ::::And it's now protected! Hopefully it'll die down in the next couple of days, and we'll go back to the baseline "not a conspiracy" level once Twitter's attention shifts somewhere else. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 17:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC) :::::If it keeps up let me know and I'll protect again. I probably won't go more than a week or so at a time, since it's a talk page, but I'll try and keep up on requests. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 17:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::Much appreciated. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 17:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::Looking at the recent tweets of the account who tweeted about this page last night, it seems they've already moved on to raging at a couple of other unrelated topics (with no mentions of Wikipedia). [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 17:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC) :With regards to cleanup, do we want to just HAT all of the comments and maybe also flag them for immediate archiving? Or shall we just remove them? [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 18:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC) ::I would have simply removed them but they've been replied to, so I'm hatting. Feel free to flag for immediate archiving too. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 18:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC) :::Tagged them with Cluebot's ArchiveNow template, hopefully that'll send em into the archives next time the bot runs. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 18:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC) ::::Sweet. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 18:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC) == Conspiracy theory in the name == There was a previous discussion [[Talk:LGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory/Archive_1#Improving_article_title]] that discussed the alledged conspiracy theory in the name and a list of sources were provided. A quick look at the list seemed to roughly half of them dont refer to any conspiracy theory relating to grooming, and almost none of them use the term "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory". Can someone please post a list of actual RS that use the term of this article? Thanks [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 02:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC) :This is a descriptive title, so we don't need sources to say "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory". As far as I know, the RS have not settled on a name for this phenomenon. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 02:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC) ::If it is descriptive we need sources to describe it as such. We dont just use conspiracy theory on every article that our OR thinks it describes as such and a couple of sources support our pet theory. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 03:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC) :::You read the prior discussion, and you think it's fair to characterize the decision-making process so far as what "our OR thinks it describes as such and a couple of sources support our pet theory"? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 03:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC) ::::You said above it was descriptive. I see only one source in the prior discussion that uses this term. Is there a consensus of sources that use this term? [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 05:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC) :::::There is no requirement that a descriptive title appear in the plurality of RS, so long as the verifiable content of the RS as a whole supports the characterization. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 06:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC) :There was an RM on this just over 2 months ago. ––[[User:FormalDude|{{color|#004ac0|Formal}}{{color|black|Dude}}]] [[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#004ac0;font-size:90%;">(talk)</span>]] 05:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC) ::Yes, I see that above. Looks like no-consensus to me. I see closed by an editor who [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Isabelle%20Belato/0 frequently edits] has 5 different pages with LGBT in the name/subject, the user's third most common edit is LGBT book awards [[Lambda Literary Award for Children's and Young Adult Literature]], and the wikipedia user ID handle contains a [[Rainbow flag (LGBT)]]. Sound like a uninvolved editor close to you? [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 05:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC) :::Are you claiming that an editor who frequently edits LGBT topics is somehow biased against the lunatic right-wing conspiracy theorists who claim that LGBT people are grooming children, and that only straight editors can edit topics about LGBT people without bias? [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 05:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC) :::No consensus? It was closed as "{{tq|'''retain ''status quo'''''}}". And they've never edited this article nor talk page besides making that closure, so they seem fully uninvolved. ––[[User:FormalDude|{{color|#004ac0|Formal}}{{color|black|Dude}}]] [[User talk:FormalDude|<span style="color:#004ac0;font-size:90%;">(talk)</span>]] 06:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC) :::You're the one who sounds like like you're not uninvolved, tbqh. [[User:Peleio Aquiles|Peleio Aquiles]] ([[User talk:Peleio Aquiles|talk]]) 17:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :The problem was what else should we call it. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC) ::Conspiracy theory is now a label when another disparaging label cannot be found nor agreed upon? [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 09:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC) :::No it was the label agreed upon because we could not find what that did not imply this might be real. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC) ::::Two double negatives in one sentence, I have no idea what you are saying. What are you trying to not say? [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 10:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC) :::::Its simple enough, this is a false claim, and we needed to say that in the title, so as not to imply there was any validity to these claims. This was agreed upon as the best way to say that this is a false narrative. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::But [[Conspiracy theory]] says "A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful or sinister groups, often political in motivation, especially when other explanations are more probable." Why are we deviating from the wikipedia definition of something to expand it to include all allegedly false claims? Are we now doing this same approach at many articles? (using a non-mainstream interpretation of a word in the title to discredit it). [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 11:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::We are not, as this is a claim that a sinister group (the LGBT community) (and powerful due to social pressure and political allies) are conspiring to groom kids. Also it is political in nature, as it is used in campaigns to win seats to stop the grooming. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::This article does not refer to LGBT community in the title as you assert. It is more of a wictionary type entry that describes a particular behavior. You are conflating the matter to pretend that this article states that everyone in the LGBT community is doing it. Maybe there are some nutso sources out there that might argue this, but that would fall under [[WP:OSE]]. A fringe interpretation of the term could also be discussed in the article as a section (your fringe theory that this term is being applied to the community). Do you have any evidence that this term is meant to apply to the entire article? [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 03:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::: You appear confused and disoriented. What does the essay [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions]] have to do with the topic at hand? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 03:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::Your comments in which you insult another editor by calling them "disoriented" is not [[WP:CIVIL]]. This article is not subject for AfD and nothing relating to a deletion essay is relevant. We are discussing if this is a conspiracy theory. I have read here there is a total of 1 source that calls it a conspiracy theory, vox (on RSP noted as dubious in political articles.) I have also read that there wasnt another good disparaging term to use, so conspiracy theory was selected. If I am incorrect, feel free to refute provide evidence. Lay off on the insults while you are at it. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 07:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::Can you help us understand why you linked to [[WP:OSE]]? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 07:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::: sure: the argument being put forth for the label that another demeaning term that is better cannot be found is [[List_of_fallacies#Fallacy_of_relative_privation]] Thanks [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 08:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 08:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::[[WP:OSE]] links to a subsection of [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions]]. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::Chaya Raichik/Libs of TikTok has recently described the LGBT community as an evil cult that brainwashes and grooms youth. Someone might say she's a "nutso source", to use your wording, and I'd probably agree, but she's certainly some of the most influential people pushing the grooming conspiracy theory and not a fringe source. And it's not Wikipedia's job to polish the turd of this discourse by painting its proponents as more moderate than they are. [[User:Peleio Aquiles|Peleio Aquiles]] ([[User talk:Peleio Aquiles|talk]]) 17:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::The article and sources suggest the following: (a) the term groomer is being used (b) it is being used to refer to people teaching LGBTQ ideology in schools (refer first paragraph) (c) it is used as a way of saying "that's ideology grooming" (refer Lindsay), or "political predators" (refer Rufo's tweet), however (d) it is suggested that the term is also being used to suggest that some teachers (LGBTQ or not) are using LGBTQ ideology to in fact groom children sexually (refer overview), and (e) there is no evidence that LGBTQ people commit child abuse at a greater rate than non-LGBTQ (overview). Therefore, there is a conspiracy theory that exists that suggests LGBTQ teachers are child groomers. As you can see, the points and links provided in the article are trying to pull together such inconsistent and varying points, that the exact narrative being alluded to as being a conspiracy theory is very unclear to the reader. Perhaps this explains the confusion, even on the Talk page. It would be more helpful to remove 'conspiracy theory' from the title, as already suggested. I'd suggest we rephrase this as a 'meme' or similar, then add sections to describe controversy surrounding the usage of the term. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 07:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::I'm having a hard time understanding what you think is confusing here. There doesn't seem to me to be any ambiguity as to whether this is a conspiracy theory. Also: what is "LGBTQ ideology"? [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 07:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::"LGBTQ ideology" is what the term "groomer" is referring to (largely) in the public space. This article refers to it as "LGBT-positive education". However, since the entire claim of the article is regarding the usage of the word, I'm referring to the usage itself. James Lindsay is invoked in this wiki page, who is well known for using the term "groomer" to refer to what he calls "ideological grooming", "queer marxist ideology" etc. Other usage is along the same lines, of "ideology grooming" as opposed to "child sexual grooming". It makes no sense to refer to a usage of a word, whilst ignoring how the word is used, particularly by the people mentioned in the article. Here's an article that better explains the usage by James Lindsay: https://dailycaller.com/2022/07/22/twitter-groomer-media-matters-james-lindsay/ [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 08:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::I'm afraid that I do not understand you. {{tq|"LGBTQ ideology" is what the term "groomer" is referring to (largely) in the public space}}? I thought that "groomer" referred to sexual predators. Specifically, those who "groom" children for sexual abuse. The idea that teaching people about the existence of LGBT individuals in a value-neutral way is somehow a form of "grooming" is ''of course'' a conspiracy theory, as a vast array of reliable sources attest. Here is a small sample that state this explicitly: ::::::::::::* "The Long, Sordid History of the Gay Conspiracy Theory" ''New York Magazine'' [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/the-long-sordid-history-of-the-gay-conspiracy-theory.html] ::::::::::::* "Why So Many Conservatives Are Talking About ‘Grooming’ All Of A Sudden" ''FiveThirtyEight [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-many-conservatives-are-talking-about-grooming-all-of-a-sudden/] ::::::::::::* "The right’s moral panic over “grooming” invokes age-old homophobia" ''Vox'' [https://www.vox.com/culture/23025505/leftist-groomers-homophobia-satanic-panic-explained] ::::::::::::* "Republicans’ Anti-LGBTQ Conspiracy Theories Are Fueling Far-Right Threats to Pride Celebrations" ''The New Republic'' [https://newrepublic.com/article/166673/republicans-militias-pride-lgbtq] ::::::::::::* "How Stochastic Terrorism Uses Disgust to Incite Violence" ''Scientific American'' [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-stochastic-terrorism-uses-disgust-to-incite-violence/] ::::::::::::It wouldn't be hard to find more. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 08:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::Do any of these refer to "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory" other than vox? [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 08:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::I'm not making a common-name argument. These are substantive arguments. You might try reading them. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 08:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::There are some mentions of QAnon conspiracy theories, the idea that homophobia is a conspiracy theory, but no mention I can find on any specific conspiracy theory regarding the usage of the term "groomers" to refer to LGBTQ education. The closest I could find: ::::::::::::::https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/the-long-sordid-history-of-the-gay-conspiracy-theory.html ::::::::::::::https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-many-conservatives-are-talking-about-grooming-all-of-a-sudden/ ::::::::::::::These are out of 46 articles, and there are clearly articles available from reliable sources discussing the issue of LGBTQ education in schools. It's hard to argue that "groomer" is a conspiracy theory from the articles provided. From the articles, the sources provided, and the people linked, "Groomer" is being used as a way of making a claim of either ideological and sexual grooming regarding LGBTQ education. The claim is clearly controversial according to many sources. There is already a link recognizing mainstream concern that "teachers and parents that support discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity in school are groomers" under Public Opinion. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 09:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::"The idea that teaching people about the existence of LGBT individuals in a value-neutral way" is a value claim: You are claiming that it's value-neutral. However, the public figures who are invoked by the article are voicing concerns on claims that they're not value-neutral. Either we accurately present their claims, or we are wasting our time entirely. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 08:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::What do "the public figures who are invoked by the article" consider value-neutral LGBT education? And why should astroturf social media accounts watered by dark money be the authorities of what counts as value-neutral LGBT education? [[User:Peleio Aquiles|Peleio Aquiles]] ([[User talk:Peleio Aquiles|talk]]) 17:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::::"What do "the public figures who are invoked by the article" consider value-neutral LGBT education?" - quite possibly, nothing. But I'm not sure how that changes whether or not their usage is directed at LGBTQ education. Like I said, I'm only trying to "accurately present their claims". [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 04:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::If these people's position is that no LGBT education should exist, they're biased, and their claims about bias ''in the people they oppose'' shouldn't be taken at face value. [[User:Peleio Aquiles|Peleio Aquiles]] ([[User talk:Peleio Aquiles|talk]]) 20:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::Also, you are using the strawman phrase "the existence of LGBT individuals". The existence of LGBTQ people is not a matter of controversy at all, neither in the public space, but specifically in this article. Also, it is of no relation to the claims of grooming. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 08:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::The confusion is because there are two separate claims circulating: 1) LGBTQ people are grooming children, and 2) an excess of sex-positivity, often under the cover of LBGTQ-inclusivity, is weakening safeguarding structures, which is assisting predators (of any sexuality) to groom children. ::::::::::::::1 is a baseless slur, often made by right-wing punditry, as detailed in the article, but 2 is a separate claim, and unfortunately left-wing punditry uses the baselessness of 1 to dismiss concerns regarding 2, which I imagine they consider to be fair game given that some right-wingers use 2 to deviously imply 1. ::::::::::::::What you might consider is starting a new article [[Critiques of sex-positivity]], to include some of what you’re talking about, and to more clearly separate 2 (which doesn’t belong in this article) from 1 (which does). [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 08:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::::I'm dubious that this is independently notable. But hey, anyone is welcome to try to find reliable sources and build an article. With regard to this discussion what I'm seeing is one brand-new account pushing [[WP:PROFRINGE]] claims who will not succeed. Cheers y'all. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 08:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::::It might be used as a baseless slur (if indeed it is), but it is also used by BBC as a term in itself. If the term has two meanings, then the article either covers both or is a disambiguation article. Relating to this "an excess of sex-positivity, often under the cover of LBGTQ-inclusivity, is weakening safeguarding structures, which is assisting predators (of any sexuality) to groom children" I am not sure if the sources state that, I think it might be more similar to simply [[Child grooming]]. Generally speaking grooming refers to engagement with a minor (I think) and the LGBT part refers to engaging with a minor for some LGBT aim. I too am not experienced in this subject to create a new article, I just know a duck when i see [[WP:QUACK]]. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 09:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::As far as I am aware there is only one meaning to groomer (in the context of children "someone who builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.". Thus accusing anyone of being a groomer can only mean you are accusing them of grooming children for sex. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::There are other "grooming" pages on Wikipedia, however, "cult grooming" is not one, which I imagine would be the correct name for what is being called ideological grooming. :::::::::::::::::::These are not my definitions, but looking at the link I provided above: :::::::::::::::::::“Lindsay told the DCNF he uses the term to refer to both sexually predatory grooming and ideological grooming into what he called 'queer Marxist ideology.' :::::::::::::::::::I call people who engage in either of these grooming behaviors ‘groomers’ because it’s wrong to do and because that’s what they’re doing: grooming,” [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 09:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::By this definition, straight people modeling heteronormative behavior would also be a form of grooming. I'm having a hard time seeing this as a serious concern. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 09:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::Grooming seems to have a few definitions, see [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/grooming]. It seems the point you and {{u|Slatersteven}} (immediately above) are asserting is that it applies only to #4 (if using this dictionary.com entry). Or if we use [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grooming wictionary] (which I suppose we would prioritize?) then you are both presuming it means #5. However grooming (and groomer as the derivative) has a broader meaning and would not necessary be negative or predatory as both of you are arguing. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 09:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::And how many of those can refer to gay people going into schools to do something wrong, that needs to be stopped and that is a threat to children? I will avoid the obvious snark and just ask, provide one source (any source, does not even have to be RS) that says that these worries about anything other than sexual grooming. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::I can't find a dictionary definition for "cult grooming", however, it is a term that is quite common in societies usage. It would also seemingly correlate to existing references in the wiki page that upon investigating are in fact referring to ideologies. ::::::::::::::::::::The page suggests the term "groomer" was popularized by James Lindsay. Lindsay uses the phrase "ideological grooming", as already mentioned. Whilst the claim was made by Lindsay himself, the publication it appears on (DailyCaller.com) is rated 100/100 on NewsGuard. ::::::::::::::::::::Also, the page also suggests the term was popularized by "Christopher Rufo, who tweeted about 'winning the language war'", the tweet that the in question clearly is not referring to sexual grooming. It reads: ::::::::::::::::::::"Winning the language war: use the term "political predators" for describing teachers who indoctrinate their students and treat the public school system as a recruiting ground for their private ideologies." ::::::::::::::::::::So, to answer your question, grooming a child for a cult or ideology (whether we agree that's what they're doing or not), would be considered something that is wrong in schools. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 09:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::The links: :::::::::::::::::::::https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1432787777133760515 :::::::::::::::::::::https://dailycaller.com/2022/07/22/twitter-groomer-media-matters-james-lindsay/ [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 09:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::::::"Lindsay told the DCNF he uses the term to refer to both sexually predatory grooming and ideological grooming into what he called “queer Marxist ideology.”", this is the problem, they do not tell you in what context they are using it when they using it, also this source does in fact support the idea this is about an attempt to push an ideology, that it is political, and a conspiracy. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::Yes, that's right. The source does support the idea that it is regarding the pushing of an ideology. However, the ideology in this case is LGBTQ education. So, given LGBTQ education is real, and it's a mainstream concern being reported in mainstream media, whilst referring to it as "grooming" might be controversial, it's difficult to argue that referring to it as "grooming" is a conspiracy theory. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 11:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::::::::::::::Is it?, as there is no evidence there is an attempt to push a queer Marxist ideology.”, there is a claim. Thus there is a claim of a conspiracy where there is no evidence, hence, conspiracy theory. The slur (groomer) is being used to imply children are in danger, the claim it is some "ideology" is a conspiracy theory. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::::{{tq|However grooming (and groomer as the derivative) has a broader meaning and would not necessary be negative or predatory as both of you are arguing.}} And... ''that's'' the point when this discussion officially went off the rails. There is no point arguing further. Folks who disagree with the status quo can start an RfC and see how far that gets them. We are being trolled here. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 17:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::Actually, it is not {{tq|used by BBC as a term in itself}}. It is used by the BBC as an accusation placed by one particular vicar, and discredited by other commentators. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 06:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::::::::Not sure what are you trying to imply. Are you saying there's been a rise in sex educator-perpetrated abuse, and that this is tied to greater "LBGTQ-inclusivity"? Do you have any data to back up this frankly scandalous claim? 17:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC) [[User:Peleio Aquiles|Peleio Aquiles]] ([[User talk:Peleio Aquiles|talk]]) 17:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::::::Considering that Chaya Raichik, the person behind the Libs of TikTok account, has called for teachers who are out as gay to be fired from their jobs, it's obvious that the people behind this campaign ''do'' wish to see acknowledgement of gay people's existence removed from the public sphere. [[User:Peleio Aquiles|Peleio Aquiles]] ([[User talk:Peleio Aquiles|talk]]) 17:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::The problem, outlined in this journal: :::"Although the term ‘conspiracy theory’ lacks any fixed definition, it does serve a fixed function. Its function, like that of the word ‘heresy’ in medieval Europe, is to stigmatise people with beliefs which conflict with officially sanctioned or orthodox beliefs of the time and place in question." :::https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2021.1917364 :::Whilst the term "groomer" is being used to stigmatize teachers of LGBTQ education, we risk making the same error here. Currently, the term "conspiracy theory" is being used as a way of stigmatizing people with a certain belief: in this instance, people who believe that LBGTQ education is pushing a harmful ideology (sources already cited). It is not wikipedia's role to decide if LGBTQ education is harmful or not. It is a mainstream concern (already cited), so therefore we should remain neutral to both sides and remove "conspiracy theory" from the title. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 23:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC) ::::"Whilst the term "groomer" is being used to stigmatize teachers of LGBTQ education" - this is of course a claim. It's not our role to suggest either way, per se. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 23:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :::::What reliable sources dispute what you refer to as a {{tq|claim}}? "Claims" that are undisputed within the HQRS are otherwise known (and treated) as "facts". [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 06:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC) ::::As much as we don't want this to become a right-wing echo chamber, we also don't want this to become a left-wing echo chamber. Since the question of LBGTQ education is in the mainstream debate, neutrality is key here. It's not our role to declare this a conspiracy theory. The Vox source is the only source that loosely supports the claim, although their representation of the conspiracy is different to ours. I think we should stay out of the debate. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 23:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC) :Well, if I was going to change it, it would be to “groomer (slur)” simply because it’s the closest to a [[WP:COMMON NAME]]. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 09:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC) At this stage I will remind you that [[wp:blp]] also applies to talk pages. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Since at least one editor has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory&diff=1134087364&oldid=1134085037 misrepresenting what the sources say], I'll append quotes to the short list of sources I provided above. Note that not all of these are currently referenced in the article, so anyone who's interested should feel free to expand our coverage. * "The Long, Sordid History of the Gay Conspiracy Theory" ''New York Magazine'' [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/the-long-sordid-history-of-the-gay-conspiracy-theory.html] {{talkquote|Gays were accused of subverting schools, communities, even whole nations, and it’s within the context of this long and ignoble history that the present hysteria over malevolent “groomers” working surreptitiously to corrupt the country’s youth must be understood. To comprehend America’s latest moral panic, it is necessary to recognize homophobia as not only a form of prejudice like any other but as a conspiracy theory.}} * "Why So Many Conservatives Are Talking About ‘Grooming’ All Of A Sudden" ''FiveThirtyEight'' [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-many-conservatives-are-talking-about-grooming-all-of-a-sudden/] {{talkquote|“Grooming” is a term that neatly draws together both modern conspiracy theories and old homophobic stereotypes, while comfortably shielding itself under the guise of protecting children. Who, after all, can argue against the safety of kids? But by adopting this language to bolster their latest political pursuits, the right is both giving a nod to fringe conspiracy theorists and using an age-old tactic to dismantle LGBTQ rights.}} * "The right’s moral panic over “grooming” invokes age-old homophobia" ''Vox'' [https://www.vox.com/culture/23025505/leftist-groomers-homophobia-satanic-panic-explained] {{talkquote|Following the recent passage of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law and a wave of other homophobic and transphobic legislation throughout the country, current right-wing rhetoric has focused on accusations of “grooming.” The term — which describes the actions an adult takes to make a child vulnerable to sexual abuse — is taking on a conspiracy-theory tone as conservatives use it to imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers.}} * "Republicans’ Anti-LGBTQ Conspiracy Theories Are Fueling Far-Right Threats to Pride Celebrations" ''The New Republic'' [https://newrepublic.com/article/166673/republicans-militias-pride-lgbtq] {{talkquote|Both have espoused conspiracy theory–laced views on abortion and LGBTQ rights—with McGeachin claiming that “radical leftists and satanists” who oppose abortion bans “unapologetically characterize killing babies as a ‘religious abortion ritual’” and Rogers repeatedly linking support for LGBTQ youth to “grooming.”}} * "How Stochastic Terrorism Uses Disgust to Incite Violence" ''Scientific American'' [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-stochastic-terrorism-uses-disgust-to-incite-violence/]: {{talkquote|With the support of former President Donald Trump, the pedophile conspiracy theory has contributed to a widening spiral of threats and violence, including the deadly January 6 Capitol insurrection. A revival of the “groomer” smear against the LGBTQ community (a reference to a pedophile) has ramped up the aggression.}} Once again, material of this kind is easy to find from reliable sources. Folks claiming that reliable sources don't describe this as a conspiracy theory have not bothered to check (assuming good faith, that is). Please note that this comment is meant for uninvolved editors who happen by. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 00:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC) :Thanks for copying the wording into the thread. I had gone through the articles and made the notes myself, but thanks for copying it into the discussion for clarity. :I have already acknowledged that a number of sources refer to conspiracy theories. I had not misrepresented that. The question was related to whether a reliable assertation can be found as to a concrete/official conspiracy theory relating to what we are talking about in the article. The Vox article does call it a specific conspiracy theory, however, it's representation is of "all LGBTQ" people, whereas our article refers to LGBTQ education, so the representation was a little different. :The sources you sited referred to: :- homophobia is a conspiracy theory :- "Groomer" is used by conspiracy theorists :- References to conspiracy-theory tone :- "conspiracy theory–laced views" "linking support for LGBTQ youth to “grooming.”" :- "the pedophile conspiracy theory"... presumably "about Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates and others", with a relationship to a “groomer” smear :If the remaining community disagree with my reading, then I'm happy to concede to that. :I'm going to leave interpretations here, and leave it to the community to read and follow the original posters question and intention. :{{ping|jtbobwaysf}}, I hope your question gets clarified. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 01:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC) ::{{re|Http204}} You did summarize my position well, in that we have vox saying LGBT is a conspiracy theory. He we have another vox source saying {{talkquote|“Groomer” accusations against liberals and the LGBTQ community are recycled Satanic Panic.}} [https://www.vox.com/culture/23025505/leftist-groomers-homophobia-satanic-panic-explained here]. Already on [[WP:RSPVOX]] says "Vox does not always delineate reporting and opinion content or that it is a partisan source in the field of politic." We aren't going to add the '''Satanic Panic''' claim to the article are we? How does that absurd position make us feel about the other claim the same publication made? The rest of the sources provided in the list above seem to seek to advocate that this article is akin to bad xyz, is a smear, etc. All of that can be addressed in the article in due course, my position is related to the name of the article and I still havent read much here to change my position on that (other that clear statements that some dont like the LGBT groomer or GLBT grooming name. But we do also have RS such as BBC (I added above) using the term without any negative slant on it. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 07:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC) ::: To what BBC source do you refer? I can't seem to find the link. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC) ::::Sorry, I should have posted that to make it easier, oversight on my part, maybe I posted in a section above, or just forgot. [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-48555929 Here] it is. {{tq|LGBT grooming claims vicar 'knows nothing', says peer}}, and {{tq|A vicar has described LGBT inclusive education in schools as "a form of [[child grooming]]" that "opens the door for sexual predators"}}. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 09:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC) :::::Thanks. I don't think that source says what you think it says. The BBC does not use "grooming" {{tq|without any negative slant on it}} - the article is quite clear about the "negative slant" - and also never uses the term in its own voice. Rather, the headline refers to the "LGBT grooming ''claims'' vicar" (emphasis added) and attributes the claim to the vicar in the article text (quoting him). I see no basis in the BBC article for the assertion that "LGBT grooming" is anything other than a conspiracy theory/slur/moral panic/anti-LGBT trope. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::I see no basis in the BBC article for the assertion that "LGBT grooming" is anything other than a conspiracy theory/slur/moral panic/anti-LGBT trope." - Can you point out where in the article it presents the vicar's claim as a conspiracy theory, slur or trope? I can't see any myself, and unless you are able to, I would think that in itself would be the basis. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 10:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::The article presents the vicar's statements as "claims" and devotes most of the text to criticism ''of those claims''. There is no basis in the article to treat the claims as factual (as you apparently do). [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting my stance. Assuming this is unintentional, I'll clarify. I am arguing for a neutral wording, not a wording that presents the claims as factual. ::::::::We both agree that there is no basis in the article to treat the claims as factual. However, what I was asking about is "where in the article it presents the vicar's claim as a conspiracy theory, slur or trope". ::::::::We also both agree that the article has presented the vicar's claims as 'claims', and there is considerable criticism of those claims. ::::::::It is a article that is worded neutrally in my opinion, and presenting a claim and its criticism. I don't believe either of us have presented any statement within the article that suggests it's wording is not neutral (ie: the claim is either factual, or a slur/trope). I still believe the article presents the claim as being a genuine concern of the vicar. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 01:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::You seem to believe that if one article - while presenting a [[WP:BALANCE]] of commentary critical of a {{tq|claim}} - does not pronounce the claim "false" in its own editorial voice, that therefore we must treat the claim as of an indeterminate truth-value in spite of the many other HQRS that establish the claim to be false. However, I am unaware of any basis in WP policy for your apparent belief. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 06:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::This branch of the comment thread is regarding the BBC article. My belief is that the wording is neutral, for reasons already discussed. This is along the lines of your statement "does not pronounce the claim "false" in its own editorial voice". ::::::::::My overall stance, which relates to the entire LGBT article, I'm not suggesting we treat it as true, false, or indeterminate. My belief is that it should be "nonjudgmental language", (refer NPOV). ::::::::::I think the BBC article has been discussed, and I'm interested in establishing a title. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 07:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC) :As an alternative, should we consider [[moral panic]] as a descriptive term title, pending a settled [[WP:COMMONNAME]]? [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 14:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC) ::I don't see why changing from one descriptive and supported title to another, somewhat less common in general speech, would be necessary. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 19:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC) So what is the alternative "LGBT grooming theory"? Everyone who objects has said why, it's now time to offer an alternative. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC) :I mentioned “groomer (slur)” above. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 18:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC) ::Yes, but I want to know what the more vociferous want. As without alternatives, we can't change the title to anything. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC) :::This is a waste of time. There is clearly a consensus in favor of the current title. As mentioned in one of the initial comments above [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory&diff=1133515030&oldid=1133512968], a requested move was closed just over two months ago. The rationale for challenging it was to imply that the closer was biased due to their LGBT identity [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALGBT_grooming_conspiracy_theory&diff=1133520526&oldid=1133515030]. Not going to work. Move on. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 19:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC) ::I don't think it's perfect, but an improvement, in my opinion. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 05:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC) :Given "conspiracy theory" has an actual meaning, and "LGBTQ grooming theory" reads more as a descriptive title (which it's meant to be). I would agree with this change. [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 06:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC) ::No, that isn't NPOV, any more than "LGBT grooming hyothesis" would be NPOV. That's pseudo-neutrality. ::The only alternatives would be formulations like "LGBT grooming trope", "Anti-LGBT grooming rhetoric", or the aformentioned "slur". (I personally prefer "Groomer (homophobic or transphobic slur)", myself. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 22:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC) :::I really think the word {{tq|canard}} is what y’all are looking for, and it has relevant parallels in antisemitism. [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 06:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC) :::So that I can understand your thinking, can you please explain your reasoning behind suggesting that the title should not be NPOV? [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 10:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC) ::::The title should be NPOV - NPOV here requires accuracy, not false neutrality. We do not have an aticle, for example, on the "Adrenochrome ritual killing hypothesis", we have one on the [[QAnon conspiracy theory]] [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC) :::::Just to clarify my question, can you please point out within NPOV, where you believe this title should not be neutral (you've used the phrase "false neutrality"). How are you coming to this conclusion, and please site the section of NPOV that you believe constitutes this title not being presented in a neutral wording? [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 01:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::You are misconstruing my position; I am saying that "LGBT grooming theory" is not neutral, as it lacks the precision that is required of article titles (as well as the "grooming theory" formulation which essentially [[WP:OR]]. This is not a "grooming theory" that may be true or may be false; it is a grooming conspiracy theory/rhetorical trope that is established (unanimously by the HQRS) to be false. The only neutral and accurate course is to indicate the conspiracy theory in the title, the same logic that gives us an article for the [[Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory]] rather than for "Cultural Marxism". [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::I don't believe we need to get into a debate over whether or not Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory here. We are discussing "Groomer" and this is the page we are on. :::::::We are both understanding your position. You are suggesting that "NPOV here requires accuracy, not false neutrality". Please support this claim, by pointing exactly to NPOV. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 04:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::: Please see [[WP:YESPOV]]: {{Tq|Avoid stating facts as opinions}}, and [[WP:PRECISION]], which is linked from NPOV and also has the status of governing policy. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 06:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC) :::::::::I don't see anything in either of those articles to suggest that "NPOV here requires accuracy, not false neutrality". Therefore, I don't see anything in those articles that suggest "LGBTQ grooming theory" is an inappropriate title. It is not stating an uncontested and uncontroversial fact as an opinion. Plus it is defining the scope of the article, in my opinion. Thanks for explaining your thinking. My preference would be for non-sympathetic, non-disparaging wording in the title, such as "LGBTQ grooming theory". [[User:Http204|Http204]] ([[User talk:Http204|talk]]) 07:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC) ::::::::::Your proposed {{tq|non-sympathetic, non-disparaging wording}} appears to present a thoroughly discredited trope as though it might or might not happen to be true - in other words, lending credence to this instance of anti-LGBT rhetoric that is not in line with the HQRS. Your proposal thus runs contrary to [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] and even [[WP:V]]. You could try, nevertheless, to propose a [[WP:RM]] that runs counter to these policies, but I would be very surprised if it received much support. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 08:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Here is a BBC article about water [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-64329684]], you will not how it does not say water is wet, this, however, does not mean it can be used to say water is not wet. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC) == "conservatives" == Please can we clarify that this term is being used specifically to describe a United States usage of the term which has practically fuck all to do with [[Conservatism]]? We're not all Americans you know... [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#fcaf17;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 13:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC) :We do say "mainly in America". [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC) ::{{tq|The term groomer is derived from the practice of child grooming, but conservatives are using it to "imply that the LGBTQ community, their allies, and liberals more generally are pedophiles or pedophile-enablers," as described by Vox.}} - and yes I see what conservatives links to. Not good enough. What's wrong with "right wing groups in the US" or something? [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#fcaf17;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 13:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC) ::::From [[Conservatism]] article: {{tq|The United States usage of the term "conservative" is unique to that country}} - indeed... [[User:Tewdar|<span style='font-family:"sans-serif";color:#fcaf17;background-color:#000000;'><b>&nbsp;Tewdar&nbsp;</b></span>]] 13:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC) == Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023 == {{edit semi-protected|LGBT grooming conspiracy theory|answered=yes}} The line "Research has shown that LGBT people do not molest children at higher rates than non-LGBT people.[2][3][4][5]" should be removed along with the corresponding citations. The latest research of all of the citations provided is from the citation 5 having collected data in 1993 (published 1994), but the events of this article reference an event/phenomenon that occurred in the 2020s. Further, citation 2 is just a secondhand reference to citations 3, 4, and 5. Yet citations 3 and 4 are themselves both referencing citation 5 in regard to this statement. So all other citations other than 5 are redundant here. However without any alternative citations at least within the relevant time-frame of this event or additional research demonstrating the universality, in regards to both time and location, of the results of this research from a single regional children's hospital in Colorado in 1994, then this can't be asserted as factual for the purposes of this article. The following link provides additional publicly available information regarding the setting of the study referenced as citation 5. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/94/1/41/59154/Are-Children-at-Risk-for-Sexual-Abuse-by?redirectedFrom=fulltext [[Special:Contributions/73.35.22.88|73.35.22.88]] ([[User talk:73.35.22.88|talk]]) 18:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC) :So? if this is the best or most recent data we use it, if it's not produce the data that contradicts it. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC) :{{notdone}} The content is adequately referenced and no plausible reason to remove it has been offered. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC) == Researchers find connection between groomer slur on Twitter with real world violence == [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/01/18/hate-speech-antisemitism-antigay-twitter/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWJpZCI6IjI5MzY2OTUiLCJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNjc0NDA2Njc5LCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNjc1NjE2Mjc5LCJpYXQiOjE2NzQ0MDY2NzksImp0aSI6ImVlNjRiOGIwLTc5N2YtNDM4ZS04N2Y5LWI5OTFkZjY5NjYxMCIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS90ZWNobm9sb2d5LzIwMjMvMDEvMTgvaGF0ZS1zcGVlY2gtYW50aXNlbWl0aXNtLWFudGlnYXktdHdpdHRlci8ifQ.BXsBbCOTm7DDjqjGPlXRIn211fwcZWBcpSkfOlzUFmA&utm_source=reddit.com] ~~~~'