The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbrst201 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Abrilzar24.
I don't think we can do anything with this... Neither the Baptist Press or RSVP America which published the underlying report are reliable sources in that context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that I agree with the Southern Baptists, and I don't, really - my point is that this is not a settled topic, the essence of this article is heavily politically biased, and it should be either deleted or merged into a larger article about LGBT. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. The Wikipedia article is about LGBT allegedly grooming people into becoming LGBT. Which there is no persuasive evidence for. That Baptist Press article is just a misinterpretation of male-male molestations (many of which are carried out by males who do not have attractions to males nor children). Zenomonoz (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your defence is is asserting that males sexually assaulting males are not necessarily. . . attracted to males. Do you see how ridiculous this is? Do you see the mental gymnastics you are making to defend such a worldview as unbiased? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps I happen to be quite familiar with the scientific literature. A large fraction of people who molest children do not have any attraction to children, or arousal patterns for children (this can be tested in a lab with penile plethysmography). Some men molest children because they have issues with psychopathology, drug use, alcoholism, lack of access to an adult partner etc. Molestation of boys is more common in cultures where males are segregated away from females, for example. And anyway, homosexual pedophiles show strong arousal to prepubescent boys not adult men, while homosexual teleiophiles show arousal to adult men and not prepubescent boys. Nobody calls a heterosexual pedophile a 'straight man', it's also illogical to do the same for homosexual peodphiles and gay men. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If thats your point then you need to bring reliable sources to the table. See WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article content and the bulk of the references at the bottom for the article, they use the term LGBTQ, so I think this qualifies as an uncontroversial bold move by the mover (@Lewisguile) that is in line with our policies. They cited consub in the move, butasI said, looking at the article content and refs, this also seems to be supported by them. Raladic (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, which is why the mover cited WP:CONSUB with the parent article. Not every single page move has to be subject to an individual RM, if it appears to be supported in line with our policies, then editors can WP:BOLDly move articles. As I mentioned above already, this appears to be one such case sinc almost all the refs used in this article use the term LGBTQ. Raladic (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IS it? as this seems to be a conspiracy about solely TG people, not the queer community (in general). It is related yes (hence why we can make it part of the same project and have see also pages. But is it the same thing? Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a pretty clear path forward for those that think this move is unsupported by policy. Consult WP:CONSUB's exception: "where a specific subtopic has its own common name, which is therefore likely to be the more natural or recognizable title". If a review of sources about this subject shows that "LGBT grooming conspiracy theory" is the WP:COMMONNAME, we should move it back. I don't think that's the case, but anyone is free to look into it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lets make this clear, I am not necessarily against the move, but I would have liked to see the arguments (see my comment above about this being about TG (not gay) people). Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reply to you directly, @Slatersteven, Raladic hit the nail on the head. There was an RM for LGBT—>LGBTQ, and based on WP:CONSUB, I WP: BOLDly moved this one. I apologise if this has created any confusion.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbrst201 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Abrilzar24.
The redirect LGBTP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 5 § LGBTP until a consensus is reached. lizthegrey (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)