Talk:Gays Against Groomers/Archive 2

965:

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 Knowledge (XXG), 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. Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) saying something does not make it more true, in fact, Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG). 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 Knowledge (XXG) whether it agrees with me or not. --

608:. 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. 1651:: "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." 5431:

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.

4400:“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. 31: 727:, 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. 3872: 2064: 5719:

here?" but that is a question for those organisations, not so much for Knowledge (XXG). 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. --

4358: 5430:

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

4968:

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,

4399:

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. Knowledge (XXG) 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

4134:

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

3384:

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

2918:

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

1507:

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

719:

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")

644:

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

5718:

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

5670:

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

5449:

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.

5211:

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

3517:

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

3456:

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 Knowledge (XXG) policies edit the page, since removing reliable sources with spurious claims of non-reliability will be undone by any number

3423:

Well, I was told: "The article is not poorly sourced, nor does it run afoul of any Knowledge (XXG) 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

2795:

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

2138:

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.

1209:

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? Knowledge (XXG) doesn't accept "trust me bro" as a source. If an

964:

If I may be a voice of reason here without all the Wikilinks to policies, guidelines and essays. Facts on Knowledge (XXG) are very different than facts outside Knowledge (XXG). Truth on Knowledge (XXG) is not necessarily more or less truth outside Knowledge (XXG). When presented with a subject where

659:

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

554:

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

3441:

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

3147:

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

2986:

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

2737:

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.

4812:

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

4501:

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

2840:

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

2155:

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

1588:

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.

1480:

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.

603:

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

4556:

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

5398:

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

5193:

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.

4545:

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

1632:

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

668:

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,

3558:

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

4552:

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

4883:

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

4746:

693:

3) Why are you implying that I'm arguing " 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

4797:

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:

3775:

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.

2696:, "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. 1476:

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

116:

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.

3099:

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

5390:

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:

3678:, 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 1372:

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.

286:

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.

5086:

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

795:

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.

588:

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.

2716:

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

5212:

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

990:

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.

5280:

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

2610:

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

636:

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

1033:

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.

4762:

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

949:

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.

4560:

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.

3371:

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

5126:

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 Knowledge (XXG) standards

301:

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.

573:

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

1425:

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 Knowledge (XXG) requires information to be sourced?

4706:

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

2549:

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

2406:- 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. 5381:

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.

3981:

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.

745:

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.

4777:

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

3223:

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.

4130:, 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 3237:"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." 5414:

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.

2401:

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

3709:

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.

4021:, 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. 2170:

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?

2861:

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

3536:

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?

3234:, "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." 1980:

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.

1601:), ... 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. 1784:

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

3121:

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

4601:"On Knowledge (XXG), 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." 3790:

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.

506:

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.

715:". 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 1024:

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.

4896:

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

4436:

The article you have linked reads “ A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified.”

2631:

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

3368:

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.

2570:

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.

5025:

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."

4633:. 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 3375:

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.

2817:

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

2975:

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.

640:

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

1281:

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.

3638:

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.

2124:

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?

645:

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.

1938:

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,

1296:

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

5213: 4438: 2590:

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.

874:

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 Knowledge (XXG)'s voice.

3588:

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?

2726:

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.

1538:

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.

5276:

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.

4473:

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 is unavailable outside of the USA.

2903:

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

1221:. 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. 1249:

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

2955:

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.

2922:

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.

629:

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

5001:

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.

4751:

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.

669:

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."

5450:

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.

5399:

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!

5239:

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.

1718:

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

3835:

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

2445:

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.)

4800:

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

5485:, 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 1726:. 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 2574:

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".

1130:

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

182:. 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. 2502:

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.

4557:"far right anti LGBT" seems quite a stretch - either source it better so a casual reader sees the source, or change it. Knowledge (XXG) should strive to be neutral. 4676:

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.

3634:

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

811: 582: 4983:

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.

2110:

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.

1585:

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

626:

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.

356:

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.

2672:

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.

1149:

acknowledges no consensus exists regarding their reliability, and a source that is similarly sensationalist, are "high-quality sources" for the purposes of BLP?

5157:

If you read my comments, I've listed multiple places where it doesn't meet Wikpedia standards, along with providing a reference to Knowledge (XXG)'s standards.

5035:

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

3562:

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.

200:

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?

3995:

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.

473: 2483:

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

633:

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.

4774:

The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an American, unaffiliated Primitive Baptist church in Topeka, Kansas, that was founded in 1955 by pastor Fred Phelps.

2947:

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.

324:

should be strictly backed up by solidly impartial mainstream publications that are professionally written and use objective, non-sensationalist language.

578: 5493:

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.

3028:

Summary: Article is an 'expose' of the Founder, talking about their work history and previous social media accounts, however, it's written like gossip.

3800: 1066:

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.

421: 3754:. (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 3008:

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.

1598: 434: 2929:: There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. 5166:

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.

1644:"Contentious material about living persons.. that is unsourced or poorly sourced.. must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." 1590: 4324: 460: 4433:

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.

2266:

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.

1952:? (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? 605: 3240:

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

1589:

ABC7 (27) Source is a tweet. Unicorn Riot (28) - the most complete report - reports they are form Guardians of the Divinity. Another report (

3752: 1744:

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.

4070:

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.

342:, i.e. your personal opinion, has no bearing. Perceived impartiality does not play a part in determining whether or not a source is reliable. 3503:

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.

1781:

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?

3331:

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"

3280:

13. "Jaimee Michell, who is cisgender, tells two cisgender men on Fox News that Twitter banning "trans against groomers" is "transphobic"".

5519: 5432: 4010: 3810: 71: 59: 3606:

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.

455:

GAG uses "anti-gay slurs", mentions "online conspiracy theories" about drag story reading being a "weapon in the hard right culture wars"

5554:"Gays Against Groomers describes itself as a coalition of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children.” 5019:"GAG has been accused of fueling stochastic terrorism, the public condemnation of a group that leads to violent acts against the group." 3260:

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

5002: 4054: 3048:

Summary: About California painting flags on school buildings, and social media responses to it. 1 sentence about Gays Against Groomers.

5388:"A nonprofit organization of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children under the guise of LGBTQIA+" 5313: 5160:

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.

233:

I agree with Sideswipe9th. This has been discussed before, and consensus is that they are far-right and anti-LGBT. What matters is how

5236:

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.

4442: 5620: 3772:

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?

3276:

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.

2887:

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

5470: 5466: 3904: 2845:

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

2315:

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?

3555:. 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. 2741:

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

1685: 1508:

I say, it's virtually pointless to lawyer all of these points on an individual basis, so that challenge remains for other editors.

447: 2822:

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

1633:

Phoenix right now." That is OR, so we wouldn't include it on Knowledge (XXG), but follow up news reports also correct the story.

4579:

Hmmm... I wonder if there's three closed discussions right above this that handle the same question... Eh, it's probably nothing

5518:

An organization can both be anti-LGBT and not be anti-LGBT, if there are two reliable sources making both of these statements.

2990:

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

585:(obviously biased, but in the other direction) that label GAG as a "small LGBT group" and an "LGBT organization", respectively. 138:

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

2636:

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

1934:, the collapsed boxes simply display expanded (with no "show"/"hide" button but all the content visible), whereas when I view 1788:

Sure, it's reported by third parties, but all those third parties are reporting... a tweet. That isn't a high quality source.

917:

that even if a source is considered "reliable", it may have bias that precludes it from being echoed in an encyclopedic tone.

5610: 4944:

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

2594:

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

4044: 3796: 3424:

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.

2448:

Summary: Article about social media accounts with a short description of each, does not qualify as in depth coverage. Per

2247:

have changed since the previous discussions then you should present that argument, otherwise the descriptors will remain.

1318:

not be more appropriate since this dispute involves the heightened sourcing requirements for claims about living persons?

178:

policy means that we follow what the balance of sources say about a given topic, which means that non-neutral descriptors

3032:

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

2656:

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

5625: 3960: 1398: 1134:." (emphasis added), and "The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism." 408: 252: 221: 1723: 4231:

template was added, you can see that it already had a citation to a reliable source. Also the applicability of BLP to

3297:

Summary: No original content or commentary. Article is a post of a Fox News clip with transcript of part of the clip.

5556:

This was the most neutral sounding source I could find, most are much more descriptive in regard to their extremism.

4892:

The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.

3335:

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

3052:

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

2676:

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

690:

2) Are you objecting to me evaluating the sources individually rather than treating them as a collective? If so, why?

3522:. 3 sentences in an article about a different topic don't meet "significant and in depth" coverage of the subject. 2554:

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

1779: 1682: 47: 38: 17: 3878: 3176:

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

2452:

ADL can be a reliable source, but this is specifically a blog post based on a "partnership between ADL and GLAAD".

2070: 1599:

https://indypendent.org/2023/02/in-battle-of-dueling-protests-drag-story-hour-supporters-drown-out-the-opposition/

3439:"I could remove the poor sources, but I worry it would lead to an edit war and the article wouldn't be improved". 3308:

Describes itself a s "LGBTQ+ News and Movies". Focuses on Culture and Entertainment. Does have editorial staff

2615:

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

5100: 4110:

Is it the article author's assumption that being against child sex-change procedures is inherently "far right"?

3231: 3130:

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

3012:

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

2791: 1591:

https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-drag-queen-story-hour-protesters-arrested-for-trespassing-at-councilmembers-home

1441: 1138: 761: 5676: 3792: 3773: 2763:

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

1829: 1214:, and if high-quality sources find them to be true, they can be cited. Otherwise, it stays off Knowledge (XXG). 1158: 1111: 5523: 5436: 3749: 3126:, Contentious material about living persons... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. 3077:

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

2959:

8. Goforth, Claire (August 25, 2022). "Why does Twitter keep suspending, reinstating Gays Against Groomers?".

2185:

We're really not going to be coming to a different conclusion this time guys. Let's put the topic to rest. --

1819: 5473:), as this has been discussed again and again. The long and short of it is we only report what is covered in 4830:, they are most decidedly NOT, as shown by reliable sources covering this hate group. What they engage in is 3956: 2779:

Summary: Total of 3 sentences. Mentioned in passing; focus of article is on the bill like the above article.

2700:

38. Cameron, Dell (November 11, 2022). "Elon Is Re-Verifying Neo-Nazis and Selling Blue Checks to QAnoners".

5671:

pro-LGBT people among Knowledge (XXG) staff to prevent me from being abused by any alleged anti-LGBT crowd.

5006: 4904: 4768: 3156:

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

1886:

Am I the only one for whom "" is inactive text that doesn't link to anything? Is it a mobile browser issue?

1392: 395: 248: 217: 5348: 5285:

The characterization of the group is very much along the lines of the current description in this article.

3908: 1727: 5691: 5355: 4464: 4424: 4376: 4346: 4332: 4306: 4292: 4273: 4250: 4188: 4154: 4075: 4000: 3946: 3923: 3852: 3643: 3196:

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

2799:

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

2506:

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

2335: 2320: 2295: 2176: 2161: 2144: 2032: 1905: 1863: 1735: 1672: 1623: 1529: 1467: 1339: 1305: 1272: 1240: 938: 897: 892:. Also it tells you all you need to know, "that is not what reliable sources say.", we go by what RS say. 865: 783: 205: 187: 161: 147: 122: 5672: 5532: 5512:

What you fail to understand is that Aristotle logic is not the main guiding principle on Knowledge (XXG).

5230:

But I'm not re-opening a discussion. I'm starting a new discussion to improve the citations on the page.

4549:

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

4127: 4009:

Whether or not this organisation is far-right has been discussed endlessly over the last few months. See

2932:

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

2907:: One America News Network should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. 914: 534: 321: 5724: 5561: 5540: 5221: 4831: 4734:

The very first source says that they use the term "Anti-LGBTQ+" to mean "parts of the LGBTQ+" community.

4586: 3903:

On the first page it says "GAG helped organise a anti-lgbt rally". It should say "AN* anti-lgbt rally".

3882: 3818: 3734: 3625: 3593: 3542: 3447: 2190: 2074: 1719: 1107: 1057: 1043: 955: 819: 736: 678: 617: 564: 516: 311: 271: 97: 5344: 4316: 4232: 2926: 2316: 2157: 1142: 5580: 3105:

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

2713:

Descriptors? "one of the most prominent accounts attacking the parents of transgender children online"

1358:

Again, not relevant. We are not saying anything uncontroversial here, just simple factual statements.

1186:'s investigative journalism literally cites numerous screenshots to support their findings. All facts. 5660: 4598:

None of the above discussion changes the fact that the in-line citations do not support the sentence.

4183:

My mistake that was aimed at the OP. As has been every comment about the misapplication of that tag.

2016: 1971: 1919: 3551:

Organizations and Businesses have a higher notability standard to prove the organization is Notable

3149: 5386:

Most importantly the lede for this article is inaccurate. Here's what the GAG web page intro says:

4514: 4488: 4474: 4401: 4111: 2129: 2100: 1825: 1210:

editor personally finds a claim about a living person from a low-quality source to be true, that's

1183: 1004: 978: 320:

For starters, definitely not advocacy magazines. I think claims of a group's political position in

5621:

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/07/gays-against-groomers-protested-on-the-same-side-as-neo-nazis/

3675: 2449: 1334:

No, as one of the sources has not even been discussed, and it is only your opinion its not an RS.

910: 814:

and it has been almost deprecated for those topics multiple times. I suggest you drop the topic --

530: 179: 5705: 5636: 5500: 5420: 5290: 5148: 5114: 5057: 4988: 4974: 4935: 4843: 4722: 4652: 4518: 4492: 4478: 4405: 4115: 4086: 3717: 3693: 3494: 3485:

Yes, look in the article. When you see a small-font number inside a bracket, click it. That is a

3414: 3311:

but reading the Wiki page on it, it's described as inspired by Teen Vogue but focused on LGBTQ.

2987:

twice, in 2017 and 2022. There are more reliable sources, I'd skip using this one all together.

2397:

Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

2254: 2115: 1891: 1877: 1848: 1749: 1692: 1543: 1498: 1449: 1416: 1363: 1200: 769: 347: 5615: 5482: 3683: 3585: 2723: 2240: 2214: 724: 661: 89: 1191:

Your editing history since March 2 has focused exclusively on this article, you really need to

5728: 5709: 5695: 5687: 5680: 5640: 5565: 5544: 5527: 5507: 5459: 5440: 5424: 5408: 5359: 5351: 5294: 5254: 5225: 5205: 5177: 5152: 5138: 5121: 5077: 5061: 5046: 5010: 4992: 4978: 4957: 4945: 4939: 4925: 4847: 4822: 4789: 4729: 4701: 4659: 4620: 4590: 4572: 4522: 4508: 4496: 4482: 4468: 4460: 4446: 4428: 4420: 4409: 4380: 4372: 4350: 4342: 4336: 4328: 4320: 4310: 4302: 4296: 4288: 4277: 4269: 4254: 4246: 4208: 4192: 4184: 4178: 4158: 4150: 4144: 4119: 4105: 4079: 4071: 4004: 3996: 3989: 3964: 3950: 3942: 3936: 3933: 3927: 3919: 3912: 3856: 3848: 3822: 3804: 3785: 3767: 3746: 3738: 3724: 3700: 3647: 3639: 3629: 3615: 3597: 3571: 3546: 3531: 3512: 3508: 3498: 3480: 3476: 3466: 3451: 3433: 3418: 3396: 2353: 2339: 2331: 2324: 2299: 2291: 2275: 2271: 2261: 2236: 2208: 2204: 2194: 2180: 2172: 2165: 2148: 2140: 2133: 2119: 2104: 2036: 2028: 2020: 1990: 1975: 1961: 1923: 1909: 1901: 1895: 1881: 1867: 1859: 1852: 1833: 1802: 1753: 1739: 1731: 1696: 1676: 1668: 1662: 1627: 1619: 1612: 1547: 1533: 1525: 1515: 1502: 1488: 1471: 1463: 1453: 1435: 1431: 1420: 1406: 1382: 1378: 1367: 1343: 1335: 1327: 1323: 1309: 1301: 1291: 1287: 1276: 1268: 1262: 1258: 1244: 1236: 1230: 1226: 1204: 1154: 1075: 1071: 1061: 1047: 1011: 985: 959: 942: 934: 933:

And we have considered them, and found them to be acceptable. That is what the FAQ is saying.

926: 922: 901: 893: 883: 879: 869: 861: 823: 805: 801: 787: 779: 773: 755: 751: 740: 706: 702: 682: 654: 650: 621: 598: 594: 568: 549: 545: 520: 351: 333: 329: 315: 296: 292: 281: 257: 226: 209: 201: 191: 183: 165: 157: 151: 143: 126: 118: 101: 5478: 5092: 4877: 4755: 4740: 4131: 3679: 3663: 3620:

You seem to have just made quite a few changes without consensus, were those from your list?

3552: 3519: 3314:

33. This Gay Conservative Twitter Account Is the Latest Trying to Use Drag to Stir Outrage".

2904: 2693: 2403: 2378: 2226: 1681:

Reliable sources do associate Erica Sanchez and Anna Morgan with Gays Against Groomers, e.g.

1315: 1235:

Media matter is "marginally reliable " as far as I know LGBTQ Nation has not been discussed.

238: 175: 5720: 5557: 5536: 5455: 5404: 5250: 5217: 5201: 5173: 5134: 5073: 5042: 4953: 4921: 4818: 4785: 4697: 4634: 4616: 4582: 4568: 4204: 4174: 4140: 3814: 3781: 3730: 3621: 3611: 3589: 3567: 3538: 3527: 3443: 3429: 3392: 3093:

Summary: About Florida Rally. Mentions the group, but a huge list of groups were involved:

2604:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Jaimee Michell/Social Media Account

2349: 2186: 1798: 1658: 1608: 1493:

There are enough editors on this page wiling to follow what the sources say on the subject.

1459: 1103: 1053: 1038: 951: 815: 731: 673: 612: 559: 511: 306: 265: 93: 5606:

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

5490: 5143:

The article is not poorly sourced, nor does it run afoul of any Knowledge (XXG) standards.

5104: 5096: 5088: 5083: 4416: 3836: 3671: 3635: 3603: 3123: 2866:

32. "Anti-trans hate group Gays Against Groomers has been banned from PayPal & Venmo".

2625:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Mentions opinion of Robert Wallace

2231: 1843:

Is it normal for an entire talk page to be deleted? This seems like a troubling precedent.

1648: 1641: 1521: 1297: 1250: 1218: 1192: 1146: 1127: 792: 716: 665: 526: 384: 242: 5656: 5611:

https://www.newsweek.com/armed-nazi-group-protests-pride-event-featuring-drag-show-1816186

3986: 3763: 3462: 2796:

of items posted on social media. One original interview but not about GAG in particular.

2456:

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

2012: 1986: 1967: 1957: 1915: 687:

1) That 'matter of fact' is a technicality—it makes me sound as if I'm acting maliciously.

5715: 5474: 5240: 5107:

of wilfully and knowingly disobeying the rules, in the way you appear to me to be doing.

4708: 4604: 4452: 4149:

It did have, so your objection had been dealt with before you made it, and now has more.

3844: 3256:

Summary: Isn't in-depth about the group, is screenshots from multiple Instagram accounts.

2388:

Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.

2374: 2244: 2222: 2218: 1637: 1211: 630: 234: 171: 5052:

Seems like the same non-concerns raised by user Oktayey a few months ago, and rejected.

2883:

Summary: Quotes other news sources like the advocate along with screen shots of Twitter.

4015:

Talk:Gays Against Groomers/Archive 2#Not an anti-LGBTQ+ group, not a "far right" group.

2125: 2096: 1176: 992: 966: 4930:

How are you able to read that section? It's hidden from me. "" is just inactive text.

4456: 3840: 3489:

to a reliable source, and at the moment there are 41 examples for you. Happy reading.

889: 5701: 5632: 5626:

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/07/31/pride-protest-gays-against-groomers-neo-nazis/

5494: 5416: 5286: 5163:

The answer is update the article so the sources are in-line at the appropriate spots.

5144: 5108: 5053: 4984: 4970: 4931: 4839: 4716: 4646: 4239: 4225: 4064: 4028: 3809:

There's also a couple more sources listed in discussions in the archive, for example

3711: 3687: 3490: 3410: 2248: 2111: 1887: 1873: 1844: 1745: 1703: 1688: 1539: 1494: 1445: 1412: 1359: 1196: 1121: 765: 343: 275: 2528:

17. ""Our Community Has Grit": An Antifascist Report from a Hot Weekend in SoCal". '

5272: 4642: 4245:

was actually the right template to use, as this wasn't an unsourced content issue.

3504: 3472: 2790:

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

2384:

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

2267: 2200: 1944: 1715: 1509: 1482: 1427: 1374: 1319: 1283: 1254: 1222: 1150: 1067: 1028: 918: 875: 797: 747: 698: 646: 590: 541: 325: 288: 5270:

In case it is helpful, there was an article published this month in the Minnesota

4969:

because, for some reason, I'm unable to read and determine exactly what occurred.

3839:

issue. What it is not is a reason to remove stuff, either the organization passes

3662:

I'm curious about your third point. I don't think there's any need requirement in

1872:

Yeah but it lacks any of the actual discussion content (from prior to this week).

1391:

is a low-quality source, which you so far have failed to convince anyone of. ■ ∃

156:

The group is not a far-right organization. Please cease spreading misinformation.

4638: 4371:. Citations were already in the article and named for re-use, so easy to re-use. 4284: 4091:

The source beside "far-right" directly describes GAG as being on the far-right -

4014: 3409:

is an interesting way to begin a post that dumps 49k of argumentation in one go.

5451: 5400: 5246: 5197: 5169: 5130: 5103:, etc). I suggest you read the above sections and come up with an argument that 5069: 5038: 4949: 4917: 4835: 4814: 4781: 4693: 4612: 4564: 4200: 4170: 4136: 3777: 3607: 3563: 3523: 3425: 3404: 3388: 2367: 2345: 2344:

They have a different logo on the website then the one that is on the article.

1794: 1654: 1604: 1481:

But it looks like there are enough editors on this page willing to deny this. --

1164:

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

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5022:

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

4215:

We aren't discussing an unsourced statement in the lead here. If you check the

4011:

Talk:Gays Against Groomers/Archive 1#Sources claiming far-right & anti-LGBT

2370:

going on. On first glance, the article looks well sourced, with 41 articles!

262:

Agreed on "far right" and "anti-LGBT". Also agreed on removing the NPOV tag. —

5314:"Leigh Finke led expansion of Minnesota's transgender rights, endured attacks" 3983: 3759: 3471:

Could you give a couple examples of the reliable sources you're referring to?

3458: 3206:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Accounts

3192:

Summary: Article about Twitter, includes one line and a screenshot of a tweet.

3186:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Accounts

3166:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Accounts

2442:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account.

1982: 1953: 697:

No offense, but I don't find the rest of the accusations worthy of responses.

3325:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account

3115:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account

3022:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account

3002:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account

2969:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account

2944:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account

2834:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media Account

711:

You do not need to intentionally "act maliciously" to get bad outcomes. See "

529:. In particular, ADL, The Intercept, and SPLC are all explicitly noted to be 5631:

This was a notable protest event, so it may belong in the protests section.

4807: 4504: 4101: 3486: 2027:

THis seems like a technical issue, we cannot solves it, maybe village pump.

712: 2759:

Summary: The article only mentions Gays against Groomers in two sentences.

1900:

It's likely a mobile browser issue. The link is working fine on desktop.

5233:

You say "great deal more sources than just the ones cited on the page"...

4908: 3212:

Summary: Short article talking about services that have banned the group.

1102:

we didn't close the discussion below so it could be re-continued here. --

810:

Last I checked WP:RSP, fox news is listed as a highly suspect source for

604:

itself pushed by far right conspiracy theorists, even among sources like

555:

have a point, please say it immediately instead of "Before we continue".

5465:

I would strongly advice you read the talk page above and it's archives (

1932: 142:

on why it is NPOV complaint to describe this organisation as far-right.

5392: 4395:

This article comes across as biased and could potentially be libellous.

3559:

accurate and I can't find a secondary source with the same information.

2373:

But to prove this group is notable as an organization, we need to pass

4874:

Does Knowledge (XXG) guidelines require inline citations? ABSOLUTELY:

4126:

My preference is to remove it from the first sentence, take it out of

3309: 2652:

Summary: Not a single mention of Gays Against Groomers in the article.

2646:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Not Mentioned

2479:

Summary: Group only discussed in one sentence, insignificant coverage.

906:

I am now begging—please just try to understand what we're telling you.

4319:

but sure. If we're going for three citations total, how about we add

4199:

Thank you - I was just trying to give the history of the compromise.

3602:

I used Knowledge (XXG) policy, looking at previous discussions under

3270:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media

3250:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media

2753:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Organization

2710:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Social Media

2496:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Organization

2473:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Organization

1124:

You said in your edit description that "none of is poorly-sourced".

581:(here's a mirror on the Seattle Times site to avoid the paywall) and 2199:

None of those things prove they oppose the existence of gay people.

1929: 4609:

It's a really simple ask - add citations that support the sentence.

3345:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Individual

3141:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Individual

2950:

Summary: Article that is actually about the group, biased language.

2897:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Individual

2837:

Descriptors? "newest addition to the online anti-LGBTQ+ biosphere"

2666:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Ryan Woods

1791:

I would prefer removing the whole section, per the reasoning above.

5016:

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

3273:

Descriptors: N/A, doesn't describe the group directly as anything

2581:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (Assume so?) Secondary? Y

4737:

I'm not arguing the article shouldn't mention these things. Per:

2811:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Unclear

2707:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Most Likely Secondary? Y

1179:

is widely and accurately described as a conspiracy theory. Fact.

1778:

The reliable sources should be included as in-line quotations.

139: 5655:

not sure what this is about but it’s obviously not productive

4888:

The opening of this page doesn't follow the guidelines at all:

3866: 3087:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group

3062:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group

2877:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group

2855:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group

2773:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group

2686:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group

2584:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group

2564:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group

2541:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group

2516:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: Group

2058: 429:"Michell and other far-right groups", "anti-trans hate group" 25: 5616:

https://www.advocate.com/news/gays-against-groomers-neo-nazis

3745:

It's trivially easy to find SIGCOV of this group in RS, e.g.

660:

faith. Consider bringing up any further concerns you have at

3291:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account: N/A

2689:

Descriptors? anti-transgender activists, including the group

1667:

Ahh I see, well if RS do not say it was GAG neither can we.

533:, and thus unsuitable for supporting the relevant claims in 5700:

Being gay doesn't give one a Get-Out-of-Bigotry-Free-Card.

2994: 2936: 2826: 2803: 2745: 2533: 2487: 2460: 2433: 2052:

Request: Change far right anti-LGBT to far right anti-Trans

1172:

2) Jaimee Michell worked for the Trump 2020 campaign. Fact.

4268:] (not perfect but enough to say it has far right links). 1145:, and LGBTQ Nation. Are you suggesting that sources which 909:

Bias is not irrelevant. Knowledge (XXG) makes it clear in

3863:

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2023

5477:

and using the language you would find in those sources (

3267:

Significant? Y Independent? y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y

3247:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? N

3084:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y

3042:

About Organization, Individual, or Social Media Account:

2663:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y

2601:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y

2561:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y

2513:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? (?) Secondary? Y

2043:

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2023

5646:

When was this article hijacked by anti-LGBT homophobia?

4367: 4217: 4168: 4036: 3670:, unless you have sources that talk about that aspect ( 1710: 778:

It is not that it is biased, its that it is not an RS.

577:

Last time I checked, this article ignores sources like

134: 5515:

The law of excluded middle does not necessarily apply.

4813:

are not. They are for protecting children. Thank you,

3342:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N

3322:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N

3288:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N

3203:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N

3183:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N

3163:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N

3138:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N

3112:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y

3059:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y

3039:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y

3019:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y

2999:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y

2966:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y

2941:

Significant? Y Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y

2894:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N

2874:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N

2852:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y

2831:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N

2808:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? N

2770:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? B Secondary? Y

2750:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? B Secondary? Y

2683:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? B Secondary? Y

2643:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary? Y

2622:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary? Y

2538:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? N Secondary? Y

2493:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary? Y

2439:

Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? Y Secondary? Y

1594: 4804:

the community to finally put an end to this insanity,

4451:

Just advising you to be careful. We only repeat what

2221:, but because it is a very common description in the 4639:#Not an anti-LGBTQ+ group, not a "far right" group. 4631:

anti-LGBTQ organizations like Gays Against Groomers

4018: 2095:Change far right anti-LGBT to far right anti-Trans 468:"Right-Wing", "far-right activists", "anti-LGBTQ+" 4806:and that's exactly what we're going to do. Link: 3668:description of how the group describes themselves 3518:the page help with the Notability requirements of 3328:Descriptors: Great Value version of Libs of Tiktok 2841:rally. We have other sources covering this event. 2311:I have a more up to date logo I would like to add. 1722:in Charlottesville was discussed in detail by the 80:Not an anti-LGBTQ+ group, not a "far right" group. 5483:We don't care what the group describes themselves 5066:Knowledge (XXG) guidelines apply to all articles. 3005:Descriptors? "far-right influencers like (list)" 2428:1. "Online Amplifiers of Anti-LGBTQ+ Extremism". 2391:Be completely independent of the article subject. 4645:when you offer no source based reason to do so. 3941:Not too sure it "an" does not look quite right. 3705:Additionally, I would support adding anti-trans 2756:Descriptors? "far-right anti-LGBTQ organization" 525:You seem to have missed some crucial details on 481:"extremist group", "anti-transgender activists" 5278: 1267:You may think that, but others clearly do not. 110:Not sure who keeps adding that this group is a 5535:Does it not say how they describe themselves? 4794:Thank you Denaar for pointing out the obvious. 4754:We're also required to be neutral, again, per 4595:It's a shame you immediately assume bad-faith. 2394:Meet the standard for being a reliable source. 4097:anti-LGBTQ organization Gays Against Groomers 4093:members of the Log Cabin Republicans and the 4060:seem to fit the thrust of your issue better. 3847:say, or it does not, and an AFD is launched. 3348:Descriptors: anti-transgender activist group 2362:Need to Show Notability with Reliable Sources 1593:), another reporting Guardians Of Divinity, ( 760:This is getting to be beyond a joke Oktayey, 8: 2243:. If anybody thinks that the description in 1597:), another reporting Guardians Of Divinity,( 1169:1) GAG is a conservative organization. Fact. 174:describe the organisation as far-right. The 4287:from when we discussed this back in April. 3918:I have done it, but I think "A" is better. 3227:Also - Many articles don't have an author. 5650: 5366:The following discussion has been closed. 5340: 4283:There's even more sources in the table in 3955:Marking done, "an" is definitely correct. 3351:Summary: Michell's appearance on Fox News. 2409: 2047: 1097: 84: 4808:https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/about 4641:) then feel free. We are unlikely to use 3729:There does seem to be RS in that regard. 3442:changes you desire, it's also up to you. 540:Before we continue, do we agree on this? 537:—their claims must be attributed in-text. 4838:. Their self-description is irrelevant. 4099:. Unless you mean another source given. 3403:I feel like this article has a bit of a 3172:Summary: One partial sentence about GAG. 2880:Descriptors? Vehemently anti-trans group 2466:Significant? N Independent? Y Reliable? 2366:I feel like this article has a bit of a 1411:According to common sense, that is who. 1387:This is all predicated on the idea that 377: 5571: 5304: 1137:The content I removed was supported by 5552:I would not oppose adding to the lead 4827: 4637:'s source table in the above section ( 4630: 4626: 4439:2A02:C7C:375C:7B00:A558:5EA6:1D50:15A0 4233:groups is both complex and non-obvious 4092: 3667: 3438: 3402: 3253:Descriptors: push far-right narratives 2229:. Any argument about what we think is 1193:find another topic area to expand into 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4884:mentioned, including within the lead. 4747:mentioned, including within the lead. 3090:Descriptors? calls itself a nonprofit 1914:One more reason mobile view is crap. 1618:What material are you talking about? 7: 5714:We write our articles based on what 5393:https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/ 4627:Michell and other far-right groups 3209:Descriptors: "anti-trans hate group" 3144:Descriptors: "anti-trans hate group" 1966:Just press "edit" or "view source". 4546:sources that confirm it available. 4455:say. Everything we say here can be 4235:. Hence why I queried above why if 4163:I am aware it was sourced, because 3385:citations to the existing article. 2235:in their heart of hearts by you or 2217:we use the description not because 1217:Also, I don't think you understand 5581:"Who are 'Gays Against Groomers?'" 3045:Descriptors? No direct discription 2972:Descriptors? No direct description 2567:Descriptors? No direct description 2499:Descriptors? National Organization 403:"anti-LGBTQ+ extremist coalition" 24: 3068:Summary: About Miami Dade Board. 2858:Descriptors? frontline hate group 1858:HAs it been, I can still see it. 241:), not your own interpretations ( 4828:They are for protecting children 4502:for me by GDPR regulations etc. 4356: 3870: 2900:Descriptors: anti-LGBTQ activist 2062: 29: 5312:Olson, Rochelle (2 July 2023). 4019:#Better in-line Sourcing Needed 888:Bias is irrelevant, we deal in 5579:Grayson, Samuel (2022-11-30). 4541:Better in-line Sourcing Needed 4513:Thanks for a speedy response. 2524:GAG mentioned in one sentence. 1940:or to pages that use multiple 1928:Curiously, when I view either 1092: 1: 4903:Compare the lead of this to: 3134:34. Advocate. "Cooper 2022": 2776:Descriptors? anti-LGBTQ group 2628:Descriptors? anti-LGBTQ group 2544:Descriptors? far-Right groups 2219:we ourselves have "proved it" 2213:As has been explained to you 812:anything politics and science 664:. Furthermore, please review 5032:"Twitter user Wajahat Ali". 4914:This is not up to standards. 4285:this discussion in archive 2 4165:I am the one who sourced it. 3843:, in which case we say what 3584:I'll admit, I still rely on 3025:Descriptors? "hate account" 2678:Southern Poverty Law Center. 720:would be fine to stay as-is. 132:Firstly, please self-revert 5216:for a bit more context. -- 4487:Apologies. on Anti-LGBTQ+ 4301:Lets put two good ones in. 3897:to reactivate your request. 3885:has been answered. Set the 3169:Descriptors: no description 3073:Only 3 sentences about GAG. 2485:Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 2225:, and we only write things 2089:to reactivate your request. 2077:has been answered. Set the 1440:What you are erecting is a 5750: 5729:19:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 5710:18:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 5696:17:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 5681:17:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC) 5105:isn't just accusing others 4625:The Advocate sources says 4167:Which you can check here: 4055:additional citation needed 3282:Media Matters for America. 3262:Media Matters for America. 3242:Media Matters for America. 2814:Descriptors? "anti-LGBTQ+" 1724:Columbia Journalism Review 1472:21:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 1454:21:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 1436:00:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC) 1132:reliable, published source 1112:20:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 1076:20:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 1062:19:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 1048:17:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 1012:16:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 986:16:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 960:16:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 943:16:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 927:15:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 902:14:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 884:14:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 870:10:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC) 824:15:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 806:20:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 788:10:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 774:00:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC) 756:22:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 741:16:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 707:02:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC) 683:04:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 655:19:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC) 622:18:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC) 599:16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC) 569:06:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC) 550:03:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC) 521:01:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC) 352:21:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC) 334:20:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC) 316:04:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC) 297:03:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC) 282:21:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 258:20:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 227:20:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 210:20:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 192:20:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 166:20:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 152:20:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 127:20:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 102:20:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC) 18:Talk:Gays Against Groomers 5641:22:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC) 5566:21:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC) 5545:20:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC) 5528:20:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) 5508:06:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 5460:06:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 5441:03:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 5425:02:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 5409:01:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 5360:03:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC) 5295:19:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC) 5263:July 2023 article in the 5255:11:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 5226:10:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 5206:13:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 5178:01:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 5153:00:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 5139:00:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 5122:22:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 5078:21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 5062:21:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 5047:19:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 5011:20:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC) 4993:21:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 4979:21:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 4958:01:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 4940:21:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 4926:21:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 4848:01:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 4823:01:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC) 4790:00:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 4767:Compare the lead here to 4730:22:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 4702:19:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 4660:18:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 4621:17:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 4591:17:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 4573:17:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 4523:21:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4509:21:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4497:21:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4483:21:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4469:21:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4447:21:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4429:20:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4410:20:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4381:16:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4351:16:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4337:16:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4311:16:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4297:16:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4278:16:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4255:17:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4209:17:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4193:17:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4179:17:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4159:16:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4145:16:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4120:16:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4106:16:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4080:16:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 4005:16:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 3990:16:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC) 3965:19:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC) 3951:16:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC) 3937:16:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC) 3928:15:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC) 3913:15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC) 3857:10:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3823:16:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3805:03:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3786:02:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3768:22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 3739:16:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3725:06:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 3701:06:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 3648:02:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3630:02:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3616:02:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3598:02:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3572:00:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC) 3547:16:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3532:15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3513:14:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3499:01:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3481:00:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3467:23:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 3452:23:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 3434:02:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 3419:02:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 3397:02:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) 3218:Media Matters for America 2607:Descriptors? "runs group" 2476:Descriptors? "anti-LGBTQ" 2354:02:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 2340:14:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 2325:14:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC) 2276:21:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC) 2262:06:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC) 2227:based on what sources say 2209:21:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC) 2195:12:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC) 2181:11:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC) 2166:11:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC) 2149:12:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC) 2134:11:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC) 2037:11:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC) 2021:14:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 1991:01:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC) 1976:23:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 1962:23:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 1924:18:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC) 1910:21:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1896:21:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1882:20:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1868:14:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 1853:14:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC) 1834:23:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1803:22:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1754:23:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1740:21:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1697:21:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1677:12:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1663:12:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1628:11:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1613:11:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC) 1421:23:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC) 1407:16:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1383:15:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1368:15:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1344:16:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1328:16:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1310:15:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1292:15:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1277:15:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1263:15:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1245:12:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1231:03:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1205:00:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC) 1159:22:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC) 180:are acceptable per policy 5602:Protest in Watertown, WI 5369:Please do not modify it. 2300:12:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 2239:is beside the point and 2120:12:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 2105:04:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 4905:Westboro Baptist Church 4769:Westboro Baptist Church 4643:Conservative Anti-Trans 2430:Anti-Defamation League. 1548:12:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC) 1534:10:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC) 1516:10:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC) 1503:21:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1489:11:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC) 1093:BLP - 'History' section 5283: 4034:is the right template 2596:The Bay Area Reporter. 4832:Think of the children 4341:Those two should do. 4024:I'm also not sure if 3883:Gays Against Groomers 2532:. September 7, 2022. 2075:Gays Against Groomers 1720:Unite the Right rally 1253:warns against using. 42:of past discussions. 4709:analyse what source 4218:wikitext in the diff 4045:better source needed 3284:September 26, 2022. 3189:Descriptors: "group" 2870:September 21, 2022. 2587:Descriptors? a group 2377:and specifically... 694:biased—sources okay. 3793:Firefangledfeathers 2215:over and over again 1595:https://archive.is/ 1444:. We're done here. 1184:Alejandra Caraballo 237:characterize them ( 140:previous discussion 4553:far-right either. 3957:Hyphenation Expert 3118:Descriptors? None 2669:Descriptors? Group 2617:Phoenix New Times. 2519:Descriptors? Group 2432:January 24, 2023. 1052:I Fully agree. -- 478:Generally reliable 465:Generally reliable 452:Generally reliable 413:Generally reliable 400:Generally reliable 249:Maddy from Celeste 218:Maddy from Celeste 5736: 5735: 5447: 5446: 5082:Nobody is saying 4135:at the minimum. 4090: 3901: 3900: 3357: 3356: 2649:Descriptors? None 2576:Business Insider. 2556:Creative Loafing. 2307: 2306: 2093: 2092: 1577: 1576: 1089: 1088: 485: 484: 435:Phoenix New Times 279: 278:}} me in replies) 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5741: 5716:Reliable Sources 5651: 5595: 5594: 5592: 5591: 5576: 5505: 5497: 5475:Reliable sources 5371: 5341: 5329: 5328: 5326: 5324: 5309: 5119: 5111: 4727: 4719: 4657: 4649: 4644: 4370: 4364: 4360: 4359: 4244: 4238: 4230: 4224: 4220: 4084: 4069: 4063: 4059: 4053: 4049: 4043: 4039: 4033: 4027: 3892: 3888: 3874: 3873: 3867: 3722: 3714: 3698: 3690: 3294:Descriptors: N/A 3065:Descriptors? N/A 2410: 2259: 2251: 2084: 2080: 2066: 2065: 2059: 2048: 1949: 1943: 1824: 1818: 1713: 1707: 1520:Then take it to 1098: 1046: 1041: 1032: 1009: 1002: 997: 983: 976: 971: 739: 734: 681: 676: 620: 615: 567: 562: 519: 514: 378: 314: 309: 280: 269: 268: 235:reliable sources 172:reliable sources 137: 85: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5749: 5748: 5744: 5743: 5742: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5664: 5648: 5604: 5599: 5598: 5589: 5587: 5578: 5577: 5573: 5533:@187.252.192.58 5501: 5495: 5367: 5339: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5322: 5320: 5311: 5310: 5306: 5268: 5115: 5109: 5101:WP:FALSEBALANCE 4723: 4717: 4653: 4647: 4580: 4543: 4397: 4366: 4357: 4355: 4242: 4236: 4228: 4222: 4216: 4067: 4061: 4057: 4051: 4047: 4041: 4035: 4031: 4025: 3979: 3890: 3886: 3871: 3865: 3758:are reliable.) 3718: 3712: 3694: 3688: 3363: 3358: 3318:July 1, 2022. 3304: 3232:WP:MEDIAMATTERS 3219: 2982: 2914: 2786: 2765:Arizona Mirror. 2743:Arizona Mirror. 2733: 2530:It's Going Down 2424: 2415: 2364: 2313: 2308: 2255: 2249: 2082: 2078: 2063: 2053: 2045: 1947: 1941: 1841: 1839:Is this normal? 1836: 1822: 1820:BLP noticeboard 1816: 1709: 1701: 1583: 1578: 1442:WP:FALSEBALANCE 1114: 1095: 1090: 1037: 1035: 1026: 1005: 998: 993: 979: 972: 967: 762:WP:DROPTHESTICK 730: 728: 672: 670: 611: 609: 558: 556: 510: 508: 305: 303: 264: 263: 133: 104: 82: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5747: 5745: 5734: 5733: 5732: 5731: 5712: 5698: 5673:HenriettaGrand 5666: 5665: 5654: 5649: 5647: 5644: 5629: 5628: 5623: 5618: 5613: 5603: 5600: 5597: 5596: 5585:Illinois Eagle 5570: 5569: 5550: 5549: 5548: 5547: 5520:187.252.192.58 5516: 5513: 5510: 5445: 5444: 5433:150.195.48.205 5428: 5427: 5397: 5385: 5380: 5377: 5373: 5372: 5363: 5362: 5338: 5335: 5331: 5330: 5303: 5302: 5298: 5267: 5261: 5260: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5244: 5237: 5234: 5231: 5191: 5190: 5189: 5188: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5180: 5167: 5164: 5161: 5158: 5128: 5067: 5014: 5013: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4966: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4947: 4928: 4915: 4912: 4901: 4894: 4889: 4886: 4880: 4875: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4810: 4795: 4779: 4775: 4772: 4765: 4759: 4752: 4749: 4743: 4738: 4735: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4629:and Time says 4610: 4607: 4602: 4599: 4596: 4578: 4542: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4434: 4396: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4082: 4022: 4007: 3978: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3899: 3898: 3875: 3864: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3703: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3632: 3600: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3560: 3556: 3515: 3377: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3361: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3349: 3346: 3343: 3333: 3332: 3329: 3326: 3323: 3302: 3299: 3298: 3295: 3292: 3289: 3278: 3277: 3274: 3271: 3268: 3258: 3257: 3254: 3251: 3248: 3217: 3214: 3213: 3210: 3207: 3204: 3194: 3193: 3190: 3187: 3184: 3174: 3173: 3170: 3167: 3164: 3154: 3153: 3145: 3142: 3139: 3128: 3127: 3119: 3116: 3113: 3103: 3102: 3095: 3094: 3091: 3088: 3085: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3069: 3066: 3063: 3060: 3050: 3049: 3046: 3043: 3040: 3030: 3029: 3026: 3023: 3020: 3010: 3009: 3006: 3003: 3000: 2980: 2977: 2976: 2973: 2970: 2967: 2957: 2956: 2952: 2951: 2948: 2945: 2942: 2912: 2909: 2908: 2901: 2898: 2895: 2885: 2884: 2881: 2878: 2875: 2864: 2863: 2859: 2856: 2853: 2843: 2842: 2838: 2835: 2832: 2820: 2819: 2815: 2812: 2809: 2784: 2781: 2780: 2777: 2774: 2771: 2761: 2760: 2757: 2754: 2751: 2732:Arizona Mirror 2731: 2728: 2727: 2719: 2718: 2714: 2711: 2708: 2698: 2697: 2690: 2687: 2684: 2674: 2673: 2670: 2667: 2664: 2654: 2653: 2650: 2647: 2644: 2634: 2633: 2629: 2626: 2623: 2613: 2612: 2608: 2605: 2602: 2592: 2591: 2588: 2585: 2582: 2572: 2571: 2568: 2565: 2562: 2552: 2551: 2546: 2545: 2542: 2539: 2526: 2525: 2521: 2520: 2517: 2514: 2504: 2503: 2500: 2497: 2494: 2481: 2480: 2477: 2474: 2471: 2454: 2453: 2446: 2443: 2440: 2435:"adl 2023". 2422: 2417: 2416: 2414:Source Summary 2413: 2408: 2399: 2398: 2395: 2392: 2389: 2363: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2312: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2197: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2091: 2090: 2067: 2055: 2054: 2051: 2046: 2044: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2024: 2023: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1840: 1837: 1826:Morbidthoughts 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1792: 1789: 1786: 1782: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1652: 1645: 1634: 1582: 1579: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1536: 1478: 1474: 1456: 1409: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1215: 1188: 1187: 1180: 1177:Stop the Steal 1173: 1170: 1166: 1165: 1116: 1115: 1101: 1096: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1064: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 947: 946: 945: 907: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 776: 723:When I linked 721: 695: 691: 688: 642: 638: 634: 627: 586: 575: 538: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 486: 483: 482: 479: 476: 470: 469: 466: 463: 457: 456: 453: 450: 444: 443: 440: 437: 431: 430: 427: 424: 418: 417: 414: 411: 405: 404: 401: 398: 392: 391: 388: 382: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 354: 284: 231: 230: 229: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194: 106: 105: 88: 83: 81: 78: 75: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5746: 5730: 5726: 5722: 5717: 5713: 5711: 5707: 5703: 5699: 5697: 5693: 5689: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5682: 5678: 5674: 5668: 5667: 5662: 5658: 5653: 5652: 5645: 5643: 5642: 5638: 5634: 5627: 5624: 5622: 5619: 5617: 5614: 5612: 5609: 5608: 5607: 5601: 5586: 5582: 5575: 5572: 5568: 5567: 5563: 5559: 5555: 5546: 5542: 5538: 5534: 5531: 5530: 5529: 5525: 5521: 5517: 5514: 5511: 5509: 5506: 5504: 5498: 5492: 5489:sources (see 5488: 5484: 5480: 5476: 5472: 5468: 5464: 5463: 5462: 5461: 5457: 5453: 5443: 5442: 5438: 5434: 5426: 5422: 5418: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5410: 5406: 5402: 5395: 5394: 5389: 5383: 5378: 5375: 5374: 5370: 5365: 5364: 5361: 5357: 5353: 5350: 5349:WP:NOTSOAPBOX 5346: 5343: 5342: 5336: 5319: 5315: 5308: 5305: 5301: 5297: 5296: 5292: 5288: 5282: 5277: 5275: 5274: 5266: 5262: 5256: 5252: 5248: 5245: 5242: 5238: 5235: 5232: 5229: 5228: 5227: 5223: 5219: 5215: 5210: 5209: 5208: 5207: 5203: 5199: 5195: 5179: 5175: 5171: 5168: 5165: 5162: 5159: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5150: 5146: 5142: 5141: 5140: 5136: 5132: 5129: 5125: 5124: 5123: 5120: 5118: 5112: 5106: 5102: 5098: 5094: 5090: 5085: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5075: 5071: 5068: 5065: 5064: 5063: 5059: 5055: 5051: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5044: 5040: 5036: 5033: 5030: 5027: 5023: 5020: 5017: 5012: 5008: 5004: 5003:67.135.159.35 5000: 4994: 4990: 4986: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4976: 4972: 4967: 4959: 4955: 4951: 4948: 4946: 4943: 4942: 4941: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4927: 4923: 4919: 4916: 4913: 4910: 4906: 4902: 4900: 4895: 4893: 4890: 4887: 4885: 4881: 4879: 4876: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4849: 4845: 4841: 4837: 4833: 4829: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4820: 4816: 4811: 4809: 4805: 4803: 4796: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4787: 4783: 4780: 4776: 4773: 4770: 4766: 4764: 4760: 4757: 4753: 4750: 4748: 4744: 4742: 4739: 4736: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4728: 4726: 4720: 4714: 4712: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4661: 4658: 4656: 4650: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4628: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4618: 4614: 4611: 4608: 4606: 4603: 4600: 4597: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4588: 4584: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4570: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4547: 4540: 4524: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4507: 4506: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4454: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4444: 4440: 4435: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4426: 4422: 4418: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4394: 4382: 4378: 4374: 4369: 4363: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4348: 4344: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4334: 4330: 4326: 4325:The Intercept 4322: 4318: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4294: 4290: 4286: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4267: 4265: 4263: 4262:More sources 4256: 4252: 4248: 4241: 4234: 4227: 4219: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4176: 4172: 4169: 4166: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4104: 4103: 4098: 4096: 4088: 4087:edit conflict 4083: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4066: 4056: 4046: 4038: 4030: 4023: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3988: 3985: 3976: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3935: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3896: 3893:parameter to 3884: 3880: 3876: 3869: 3868: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3833: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3774: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3750: 3747: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3723: 3721: 3715: 3708: 3704: 3702: 3699: 3697: 3691: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3554: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3516: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3440: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3406: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3381: 3374: 3370: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3350: 3347: 3344: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3330: 3327: 3324: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3317: 3312: 3310: 3306: 3305: 3296: 3293: 3290: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3283: 3275: 3272: 3269: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3255: 3252: 3249: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3238: 3235: 3233: 3228: 3225: 3221: 3220: 3211: 3208: 3205: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198:The Advocate. 3191: 3188: 3185: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178:The Advocate. 3171: 3168: 3165: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158:The Advocate. 3152:into account. 3151: 3146: 3143: 3140: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3133: 3132:The Advocate. 3125: 3120: 3117: 3114: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107:The Advocate. 3101: 3097: 3096: 3092: 3089: 3086: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079:The Advocate. 3072: 3071: 3067: 3064: 3061: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054:The Advocate. 3047: 3044: 3041: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034:The Advocate. 3027: 3024: 3021: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014:The Advocate. 3007: 3004: 3001: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2993: 2992:The Advocate. 2988: 2984: 2983: 2974: 2971: 2968: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2954: 2953: 2949: 2946: 2943: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2935: 2930: 2928: 2923: 2920: 2919:I viewed it. 2916: 2915: 2906: 2902: 2899: 2896: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889:LGBTQ Nation. 2882: 2879: 2876: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2869: 2868:LGBTQ Nation. 2860: 2857: 2854: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847:LGBTQ Nation. 2839: 2836: 2833: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2825: 2824:LGBTQ Nation. 2816: 2813: 2810: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2802: 2801:LGBTQ Nation. 2797: 2793: 2792: 2788: 2787: 2778: 2775: 2772: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2744: 2739: 2735: 2734: 2725: 2721: 2720: 2715: 2712: 2709: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2695: 2692:Summary: See 2691: 2688: 2685: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2671: 2668: 2665: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658:Deseret News. 2651: 2648: 2645: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2632:Groomers,..." 2630: 2627: 2624: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2609: 2606: 2603: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2589: 2586: 2583: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2569: 2566: 2563: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2548: 2547: 2543: 2540: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2531: 2523: 2522: 2518: 2515: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2501: 2498: 2495: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2488: 2486: 2478: 2475: 2472: 2469: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2461: 2459: 2451: 2447: 2444: 2441: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2434: 2431: 2426: 2425: 2419: 2418: 2412: 2411: 2407: 2405: 2396: 2393: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2382: 2380: 2376: 2371: 2369: 2361: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2310: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2260: 2258: 2252: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2233: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2156:have a case. 2154: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2088: 2085:parameter to 2076: 2072: 2068: 2061: 2060: 2057: 2056: 2050: 2049: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2025: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2009: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1946: 1937: 1933: 1930: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1838: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1821: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1793: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1780: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1728:WP:RSBREAKING 1725: 1721: 1717: 1712: 1705: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1683: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1653: 1650: 1646: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1586: 1580: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1514: 1513: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1487: 1486: 1479: 1475: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1408: 1405: 1402: 1401: 1396: 1395: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1213: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1178: 1174: 1171: 1168: 1167: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1143:the Daily Dot 1140: 1139:Media Matters 1135: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1123: 1118: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1100: 1099: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1045: 1042: 1040: 1030: 1023: 1013: 1010: 1008: 1003: 1001: 996: 989: 988: 987: 984: 982: 977: 975: 970: 963: 962: 961: 957: 953: 948: 944: 940: 936: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 905: 904: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 886: 885: 881: 877: 873: 872: 871: 867: 863: 859: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 808: 807: 803: 799: 794: 791: 790: 789: 785: 781: 777: 775: 771: 767: 763: 759: 758: 757: 753: 749: 744: 743: 742: 738: 735: 733: 726: 722: 718: 714: 710: 709: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 689: 686: 685: 684: 680: 677: 675: 667: 663: 658: 657: 656: 652: 648: 643: 639: 635: 632: 628: 625: 624: 623: 619: 616: 614: 607: 602: 601: 600: 596: 592: 587: 584: 580: 576: 572: 571: 570: 566: 563: 561: 553: 552: 551: 547: 543: 539: 536: 532: 528: 524: 523: 522: 518: 515: 513: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 480: 477: 475: 472: 471: 467: 464: 462: 461:The Intercept 459: 458: 454: 451: 449: 446: 445: 442:"anti-LGBTQ" 441: 439:Not mentioned 438: 436: 433: 432: 428: 426:Not mentioned 425: 423: 420: 419: 416:"anti-LGBTQ" 415: 412: 410: 407: 406: 402: 399: 397: 394: 393: 389: 386: 383: 380: 379: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 355: 353: 349: 345: 341: 337: 336: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 318: 317: 313: 310: 308: 300: 299: 298: 294: 290: 285: 283: 277: 273: 267: 261: 260: 259: 256: 254: 250: 244: 240: 236: 232: 228: 225: 223: 219: 214:Not from me. 213: 212: 211: 207: 203: 199: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 168: 167: 163: 159: 155: 154: 153: 149: 145: 141: 136: 131: 130: 129: 128: 124: 120: 115: 114: 108: 107: 103: 99: 95: 91: 87: 86: 79: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5688:Slatersteven 5669: 5630: 5605: 5588:. Retrieved 5584: 5574: 5553: 5551: 5502: 5486: 5448: 5429: 5396: 5387: 5384: 5379: 5376: 5368: 5352:Sideswipe9th 5321:. Retrieved 5318:Star Tribune 5317: 5307: 5299: 5284: 5279: 5273:Star Tribune 5271: 5269: 5265:Star Tribune 5264: 5196: 5192: 5116: 5037: 5034: 5031: 5028: 5024: 5021: 5018: 5015: 4898: 4891: 4882: 4801: 4799: 4761: 4745: 4724: 4713:meant to say 4710: 4654: 4563: 4559: 4555: 4551: 4548: 4544: 4503: 4461:Slatersteven 4421:Slatersteven 4398: 4373:Sideswipe9th 4361: 4343:Slatersteven 4329:Sideswipe9th 4321:The Advocate 4303:Slatersteven 4289:Sideswipe9th 4270:Slatersteven 4261: 4247:Sideswipe9th 4185:Slatersteven 4164: 4151:Slatersteven 4128:WP:Wikivoice 4100: 4094: 4072:Sideswipe9th 3997:Slatersteven 3980: 3943:Slatersteven 3934:Mooonswimmer 3920:Slatersteven 3902: 3894: 3879:edit request 3849:Slatersteven 3755: 3719: 3706: 3695: 3640:Sideswipe9th 3387: 3383: 3379: 3378: 3360: 3359: 3336: 3334: 3315: 3313: 3307: 3301: 3300: 3281: 3279: 3261: 3259: 3241: 3239: 3236: 3229: 3226: 3222: 3216: 3215: 3197: 3195: 3177: 3175: 3157: 3155: 3131: 3129: 3106: 3104: 3098: 3078: 3076: 3053: 3051: 3033: 3031: 3013: 3011: 2991: 2989: 2985: 2981:The Advocate 2979: 2978: 2960: 2958: 2933: 2931: 2924: 2921: 2917: 2911: 2910: 2888: 2886: 2867: 2865: 2862:non-notable. 2846: 2844: 2823: 2821: 2800: 2798: 2794: 2789: 2785:LGBTQ Nation 2783: 2782: 2764: 2762: 2742: 2740: 2736: 2730: 2729: 2701: 2699: 2677: 2675: 2657: 2655: 2637: 2635: 2616: 2614: 2595: 2593: 2575: 2573: 2555: 2553: 2529: 2527: 2507: 2505: 2489:"Salgado". 2484: 2482: 2470:Secondary? Y 2467: 2457: 2455: 2429: 2427: 2421: 2420: 2400: 2383: 2372: 2365: 2332:Slatersteven 2317:MARCIMPERIVM 2314: 2292:Slatersteven 2256: 2237:Slatersteven 2230: 2173:Slatersteven 2158:Globe Holder 2141:Slatersteven 2094: 2086: 2071:edit request 2029:Slatersteven 1939: 1935: 1902:Sideswipe9th 1860:Slatersteven 1842: 1732:Sideswipe9th 1716:Unicorn Riot 1669:Slatersteven 1620:Slatersteven 1603: 1587: 1584: 1526:Slatersteven 1511: 1484: 1464:Slatersteven 1403: 1399: 1393: 1389:LGBTQ Nation 1388: 1336:Slatersteven 1302:Slatersteven 1269:Slatersteven 1237:Slatersteven 1136: 1131: 1126: 1119: 1036: 1006: 999: 994: 980: 973: 968: 935:Slatersteven 915:WP:WIKIVOICE 894:Slatersteven 862:Slatersteven 780:Slatersteven 729: 671: 610: 606:the LA Times 583:Fox Business 579:the LA Times 574:contentious. 557: 535:WP:WIKIVOICE 509: 339: 322:WP:WIKIVOICE 304: 246: 215: 202:Sideswipe9th 184:Sideswipe9th 158:NeuroZachary 144:Sideswipe9th 119:NeuroZachary 112: 111: 109: 65: 43: 37: 5721:DanielRigal 5345:WP:NOTFORUM 5281:pedophiles. 5218:Licks-rocks 5214:ANI thread. 4836:moral panic 4635:HarryKernow 4583:Licks-rocks 4315:Seems like 3905:220.233.4.7 3815:Licks-rocks 3707:in addition 3457:of people. 3405:Gish Gallop 2927:WP:DAILYDOT 2368:Gish Gallop 2232:really true 2187:Licks-rocks 1458:Take it to 1104:Licks-rocks 1054:Licks-rocks 1039:HarryKernow 952:Licks-rocks 816:Licks-rocks 732:HarryKernow 674:HarryKernow 613:HarryKernow 560:HarryKernow 512:HarryKernow 307:HarryKernow 274:; please {{ 266:OwenBlacker 94:Licks-rocks 36:This is an 5657:Dronebogus 5590:2023-07-23 5300:References 4221:where the 4040:for this. 3887:|answered= 3682:and a bit 3362:Take Ways: 3150:WP:FOXNEWS 2961:Daily Dot. 2934:Daily dot. 2079:|answered= 2013:Dronebogus 1968:tgeorgescu 1916:Dronebogus 1400:Part of me 5686:Such as? 4368:this edit 4095:far-right 3977:Far-right 3676:WP:FRINGE 3380:Next Ask: 2913:Daily Dot 2508:ABC7News. 2450:WP:RSPADL 2290:See FAQ. 2241:off topic 2126:Traptor12 2097:EditorKid 2011:It isn’t 911:WP:BIASED 860:See FAQ. 713:black box 531:WP:BIASED 338:What you 270:(he/him; 135:this edit 113:far right 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 5702:Zaathras 5633:Hist9600 5496:Cakelot1 5487:reliable 5417:Zaathras 5287:Hist9600 5145:Zaathras 5110:Cakelot1 5054:Zaathras 5029:By who? 4985:Jmaranvi 4971:Jmaranvi 4932:Jmaranvi 4909:Fox News 4840:Zaathras 4718:Cakelot1 4648:Cakelot1 4515:Nonya394 4489:Nonya394 4475:Nonya394 4402:Nonya394 4317:overcite 4112:Bws92082 3801:contribs 3713:Cakelot1 3689:Cakelot1 3684:WP:MANDY 3586:WP:RSPSS 3491:Zaathras 3487:citation 3411:Zaathras 3407:going on 3316:Them.us. 2724:WP:RSPSS 2717:badges." 2702:Gizmodo. 2462:"time" 2330:Source? 2250:Cakelot1 2112:Zaathras 1888:Jmaranvi 1874:Jmaranvi 1845:Jmaranvi 1746:Zaathras 1708:on your 1704:Zaathras 1689:Zaathras 1636:PER Per 1540:Zaathras 1495:Zaathras 1477:sources. 1446:Zaathras 1413:Zaathras 1394:Madeline 1360:Zaathras 1197:Zaathras 1122:Zaathras 766:Pokelova 725:WP:NPOVN 662:WP:NPOVN 448:ABC News 422:Advocate 344:Zaathras 253:WAVEDASH 222:WAVEDASH 90:WP:STICK 5479:WP:NPOV 5323:23 July 5093:WP:NPOV 4878:WP:Lead 4834:-style 4756:WP:Lead 4741:WP:Lead 4132:WP:Lead 3680:WP:NPOV 3664:WP:NPOV 3553:WP:SIRS 3520:WP:SIRS 3505:Oktayey 3473:Oktayey 3337:Them.us 3303:Them.us 2905:WP:OANN 2694:WP:SPLC 2423:One Off 2404:WP:SIRS 2379:WP:SIRS 2268:Oktayey 2223:sources 2201:Oktayey 1428:Oktayey 1375:Oktayey 1320:Oktayey 1316:WP:BLPN 1284:Oktayey 1255:Oktayey 1223:Oktayey 1151:Oktayey 1068:Oktayey 1029:Oktayey 919:Oktayey 876:Rlendog 798:Oktayey 748:Oktayey 699:Oktayey 647:Oktayey 641:biased. 591:Oktayey 542:Oktayey 390:Claims 326:Oktayey 289:Oktayey 239:WP:NPOV 39:archive 5491:WP:RSP 5452:MDaisy 5401:MDaisy 5247:Denaar 5198:Denaar 5170:Denaar 5131:Denaar 5097:WP:DUE 5070:Denaar 5039:Denaar 4950:Denaar 4918:Denaar 4815:MDaisy 4802:within 4782:Denaar 4711:Really 4694:Denaar 4613:Denaar 4565:Denaar 4417:wp:nlt 4201:Denaar 4171:Denaar 4137:Denaar 4037:to use 3837:wp:afd 3778:Denaar 3672:WP:DUE 3666:for a 3636:WP:RSN 3608:Denaar 3604:WP:RSP 3564:Denaar 3524:Denaar 3426:Denaar 3389:Denaar 3124:WP:BLP 3100:Miami. 2611:depth. 2346:Denaar 1795:Denaar 1785:tweet. 1711:revert 1655:Denaar 1649:WP:BLP 1642:WP:BLP 1605:Denaar 1522:wp:rsn 1460:wp;rsn 1314:Would 1298:wp:rsn 1251:WP:BLP 1219:WP:SPA 1147:WP:RSP 1128:WP:BLP 1044:(talk) 793:WP:RSP 737:(talk) 717:WP:RSP 679:(talk) 666:WP:CPP 618:(talk) 565:(talk) 527:WP:RSP 517:(talk) 387:rating 385:WP:RSP 381:Source 312:(talk) 243:WP:NOR 5241:WP:RS 4605:WP:IC 4453:wp:rs 3984:BozMo 3932:Why? 3891:|ans= 3877:This 3845:wp:rs 3811:here. 3760:-sche 3459:-sche 3372:that. 2458:Time. 2375:WP:OR 2083:|ans= 2069:This 1983:-sche 1954:-sche 1647:From 1638:WP:RS 1581:WP:RS 1512:Sedan 1485:Sedan 1212:WP:OR 637:fine. 631:WP:OR 340:think 170:Many 16:< 5725:talk 5706:talk 5692:talk 5677:talk 5661:talk 5637:talk 5562:talk 5541:talk 5524:talk 5503:talk 5456:talk 5437:talk 5421:talk 5405:talk 5356:talk 5337:Lede 5325:2023 5291:talk 5251:talk 5222:talk 5202:talk 5174:talk 5149:talk 5135:talk 5127:yet. 5117:talk 5089:PAGs 5084:PAGs 5074:talk 5058:talk 5043:talk 5007:talk 4989:talk 4975:talk 4954:talk 4936:talk 4922:talk 4897:lead 4844:talk 4819:talk 4786:talk 4725:talk 4698:talk 4655:talk 4617:talk 4587:talk 4569:talk 4519:talk 4505:ser! 4493:talk 4479:talk 4465:talk 4457:wp:v 4443:talk 4425:talk 4415:See 4406:talk 4377:talk 4362:Done 4347:talk 4333:talk 4323:and 4307:talk 4293:talk 4274:talk 4251:talk 4240:fact 4226:fact 4205:talk 4189:talk 4175:talk 4155:talk 4141:talk 4116:talk 4102:ser! 4076:talk 4065:fact 4029:fact 4001:talk 3987:talk 3961:talk 3947:talk 3924:talk 3909:talk 3853:talk 3841:wp:n 3819:talk 3797:talk 3782:talk 3764:talk 3756:they 3735:talk 3720:talk 3696:talk 3644:talk 3626:talk 3612:talk 3594:talk 3568:talk 3543:talk 3528:talk 3509:talk 3495:talk 3477:talk 3463:talk 3448:talk 3430:talk 3415:talk 3393:talk 3230:Per 2925:Per 2818:one. 2722:Per 2638:CNN. 2550:GAG. 2350:talk 2336:talk 2321:talk 2296:talk 2272:talk 2257:talk 2205:talk 2191:talk 2177:talk 2162:talk 2145:talk 2130:talk 2116:talk 2101:talk 2033:talk 2017:talk 1987:talk 1972:talk 1958:talk 1936:this 1920:talk 1906:talk 1892:talk 1878:talk 1864:talk 1849:talk 1830:talk 1799:talk 1750:talk 1736:talk 1693:talk 1684:and 1673:talk 1659:talk 1640:and 1624:talk 1609:talk 1544:talk 1530:talk 1499:talk 1468:talk 1450:talk 1432:talk 1417:talk 1397:⇔ ∃ 1379:talk 1364:talk 1340:talk 1324:talk 1306:talk 1288:talk 1273:talk 1259:talk 1241:talk 1227:talk 1201:talk 1155:talk 1108:talk 1072:talk 1058:talk 1007:Wolf 1000:Rose 981:Wolf 974:Rose 956:talk 939:talk 923:talk 913:and 898:talk 890:wp:v 880:talk 866:talk 820:talk 802:talk 784:talk 770:talk 764:. -- 752:talk 703:talk 651:talk 595:talk 546:talk 474:SPLC 409:Time 348:talk 330:talk 293:talk 276:ping 272:Talk 206:talk 188:talk 176:NPOV 162:talk 148:talk 123:talk 98:talk 5499:☞️ 5481:). 5113:☞️ 4778:up. 4763:it. 4721:☞️ 4651:☞️ 4365:in 4050:or 3889:or 3881:to 3716:☞️ 3692:☞️ 3686:). 2253:☞️ 2245:RSs 2081:or 2073:to 1974:) 1945:cot 1931:or 1182:4) 1175:3) 396:ADL 247:-- 245:). 216:-- 92:.-- 5727:) 5708:) 5694:) 5679:) 5639:) 5583:. 5564:) 5558:DN 5543:) 5537:DN 5526:) 5469:, 5458:) 5439:) 5423:) 5407:) 5358:) 5347:, 5316:. 5293:) 5253:) 5224:) 5204:) 5176:) 5151:) 5137:) 5099:, 5095:, 5076:) 5060:) 5045:) 5009:) 4991:) 4977:) 4956:) 4938:) 4924:) 4907:, 4846:) 4821:) 4788:) 4715:. 4700:) 4619:) 4589:) 4581:-- 4571:) 4521:) 4495:) 4481:) 4467:) 4459:. 4445:) 4427:) 4419:. 4408:) 4379:) 4349:) 4335:) 4327:? 4309:) 4295:) 4276:) 4266:] 4264:] 4253:) 4243:}} 4237:{{ 4229:}} 4223:{{ 4207:) 4191:) 4177:) 4157:) 4143:) 4118:) 4078:) 4068:}} 4062:{{ 4058:}} 4052:{{ 4048:}} 4042:{{ 4032:}} 4026:{{ 4017:, 4013:, 4003:) 3963:) 3949:) 3926:) 3911:) 3895:no 3855:) 3821:) 3813:-- 3803:) 3799:/ 3784:) 3766:) 3751:, 3737:) 3731:DN 3674:, 3646:) 3628:) 3622:DN 3614:) 3596:) 3590:DN 3570:) 3545:) 3539:DN 3530:) 3511:) 3497:) 3479:) 3465:) 3450:) 3444:DN 3432:) 3417:) 3395:) 2381:. 2352:) 2338:) 2323:) 2298:) 2274:) 2207:) 2193:) 2179:) 2164:) 2147:) 2132:) 2118:) 2103:) 2087:no 2035:) 2019:) 1989:) 1960:) 1948:}} 1942:{{ 1922:) 1908:) 1894:) 1880:) 1866:) 1851:) 1832:) 1823:}} 1817:{{ 1801:) 1752:) 1738:) 1730:. 1714:, 1695:) 1687:. 1675:) 1661:) 1626:) 1611:) 1546:) 1532:) 1524:. 1510:86 1501:) 1483:86 1470:) 1462:. 1452:) 1434:) 1419:) 1381:) 1366:) 1342:) 1326:) 1308:) 1300:. 1290:) 1275:) 1261:) 1243:) 1229:) 1203:) 1195:. 1157:) 1141:, 1110:) 1074:) 1060:) 991:-- 958:) 950:-- 941:) 925:) 900:) 882:) 868:) 822:) 804:) 786:) 772:) 754:) 705:) 653:) 597:) 548:) 350:) 332:) 295:) 208:) 190:) 164:) 150:) 125:) 100:) 5723:( 5704:( 5690:( 5675:( 5663:) 5659:( 5635:( 5593:. 5560:( 5539:( 5522:( 5471:2 5467:1 5454:( 5435:( 5419:( 5403:( 5354:( 5327:. 5289:( 5249:( 5243:. 5220:( 5200:( 5172:( 5147:( 5133:( 5091:( 5072:( 5056:( 5041:( 5005:( 4987:( 4973:( 4952:( 4934:( 4920:( 4911:. 4899:. 4842:( 4817:( 4784:( 4771:: 4758:: 4696:( 4615:( 4585:( 4567:( 4517:( 4491:( 4477:( 4463:( 4441:( 4423:( 4404:( 4375:( 4345:( 4331:( 4305:( 4291:( 4272:( 4249:( 4203:( 4187:( 4173:( 4153:( 4139:( 4114:( 4089:) 4085:( 4074:( 3999:( 3959:( 3945:( 3922:( 3907:( 3851:( 3817:( 3795:( 3780:( 3762:( 3748:/ 3733:( 3642:( 3624:( 3610:( 3592:( 3566:( 3541:( 3526:( 3507:( 3493:( 3475:( 3461:( 3446:( 3428:( 3413:( 3391:( 2468:Y 2348:( 2334:( 2319:( 2294:( 2270:( 2203:( 2189:( 2175:( 2160:( 2143:( 2128:( 2114:( 2099:( 2031:( 2015:( 1985:( 1970:( 1956:( 1950:s 1918:( 1904:( 1890:( 1876:( 1862:( 1847:( 1828:( 1797:( 1748:( 1734:( 1706:: 1702:@ 1691:( 1671:( 1657:( 1622:( 1607:( 1542:( 1528:( 1497:( 1466:( 1448:( 1430:( 1415:( 1404:; 1377:( 1362:( 1338:( 1322:( 1304:( 1286:( 1271:( 1257:( 1239:( 1225:( 1199:( 1153:( 1120:@ 1106:( 1070:( 1056:( 1031:: 1027:@ 995:A 969:A 954:( 937:( 921:( 896:( 878:( 864:( 818:( 800:( 782:( 768:( 750:( 701:( 649:( 593:( 544:( 346:( 328:( 291:( 255:) 251:( 224:) 220:( 204:( 186:( 160:( 146:( 121:( 96:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index