This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is there no mention to the 2010 Berkeley study, "Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis)", published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences with nearly 700 citations, which is the source of this conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.207.125.157 ( talk) 08:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I’ve deleted a bunch of stuff for concision; also stuff related to RFK jr and also image of Alex Jones.
I ask you please discuss and gain consensus before reverting. I have removed references to RFK jr., bc he is a living person WP:BLP and by virtue of being involved in politics post 1990s, also “a contentious topic,” WP:CTOP both of which cause substantially stricter application of Wikipedia rules and guidelines to “attach.” Also arguably a medical topic and thus WP:MEDRS would apply. Much of this is not sourced to even WP:RS.
Additionally, I have not surveyed the sources on this topic, so I don’t really know, but it strikes me that it’s quite plausible that much of the text may not observe WP:NPOV and proper sourcing, as outlined above.
The whole article needs to be reviewed with this in mind. Also needs to be edited for syntax, grammar, cohesion, concision.
I strongly feel this article should be removed and throughly re-edited per above before you submit it for consideration for article publishing here. Thanks for your consideration.
I can tell you have thought about this issue and you solidly believe you are doing a good act, what must be done to “put the truth out there.” I relate to that a lot. Cheers. JustinReilly ( talk) 08:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
this entire article could be compressed into two brief paragraphs, one describing the conspiracy theory and its origins, maybe with a couple of brief quotes, and one providing debunks linked to RS. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@ NmWTfs85lXusaybq I placed the following Multiple Issues Tag at the top of the article that you’ve reverted a couple of times- “bad formatting” was all you said. My previous edit note was: “The formatting is not good. I’m sorry. But I can not figure out how to fix it. If u can fix it then would really appreciate it if you could. If not, I really don’t think it’s so bad that it needs to be undone- formatting is only visible when note is opened so not an eyesore on the article. Thank you!”
The wikitext of the tag is below. I really tried to fix the formatting but I am not good with technical stuff like this and was completely frustrated and had to give up. Can you pls either fix the formatting or let me put it back. You put a disruptive editing warning on my page and someone else brought an arbitration enforcement request even though there was no prior arbitration. The tag needs to be there because this article is a complete trainwreck stream of conciousness rant that needs to be completely redone. Thanks.
Note: I don’t know why the below text is invisible. Click The edit icon to see it.
![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
Needs to conform to WP:BLP if people are named as one is currently, and also follow WP:CTOP if someone involved in politics is mentioned, as one is now Also most probably needs to use WP:MEDRS Should also be edited for readability, concision, WP:NPOV and fidelity to the body of WP:RS on the topic I feel strongly the article should be taken down worked on and only then submitted; Thank you! |
JustinReilly ( talk) 01:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Seeing this article made me remember that there was some news coverage back in 2015 about Tim Farron after a tweet from his account (he was hacked, apparently) seemed to endorse this conspiracy theory specifically in relation to frogs, as part of broader reporting of his views on LGBT+ issues - see e.g. this from the Independent [2]. Two years later, in response to questioning about Farron's views during an election campaign, one of his party's candidates went on to outright endorse the theory and also received news coverage over it ( [3]) Would either of these be worth mentioning here alongside the Jones and Kennedy incidents, or are they too minor / trivial (as Farron himself didn't endorse the theory, and the candidate who actually did is otherwise non-notable and didn't get even remotely near being elected)? TrueAnonyman ( talk) 08:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I took a chainsaw to this article, but retained most of the references. The previous version was better than it was a month or so ago, but in my opinion it still had the following flaws: 1) The level of coverage of this WP:FRINGE topic was out of line with WP:DUE on both sides; I think it only needed to summarize the conspiracy theory and point the reader to reliable refutations; and 2) The article gave this ridiculous theory an air of legitimacy by diving deep into all the reasons it is wrong. As I said above, WP should not be a part of the alt-right hysteria cycle. Somewhere, a troll on 8chan was laughing himself to pieces that something he thought up in thirty seconds was immortalized for all time on Wikipedia, complete with a copy of his stupid meme for all to see (memes in my opinion have no place on WP at all, except for a few niche cases). Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for internet bullies. Admins, I hope this greatly shortened version of the article is acceptable. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 20:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I am not wondering about the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' in the title. A
conspiracy theory is defined on Wikipedia as an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable
.
While Alex Jones' claim (~they're putting chemicals in the water to turn the frogs gay~) is certainly a conspiracy theory... would it not be an incorrect title given people like RFK are not necessarily claiming that endocrine disruptors were intentionally used by anyone to turn people LGBT? It seems RFK's claim is more about pollution in general. That is more of a fringe hypothesis, similar to how the 'vaccines and autism' claim is not a conspiracy theory, but a fringe hypothesis. Zenomonoz ( talk) 10:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Or.. delete? I am now wondering if this article is a candidate for deletion given the WP:DUE guidelines and the comment from @ WeirdNAnnoyed: are a few articles from news outlets on Alex Jones and RFK's comments really enough notability for an entire Wikipedia article? We already have wikipedia articles on hormones and orientation, and a separate article on causes of gender incongruence. There is also not much coverage in secondary academic sources of this hypothesis, so it seems undue. Zenomonoz ( talk) 10:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The article contains the statement: "Subsequent research failed to reproduce these results" and references a 2008 study.
The prior references a 2010 study.
Hence the qualifier "subsequent" is inaccurate.
Maybe a reference to it being unclear, or unsettled is more appropriate? 174.92.42.37 ( talk) 01:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Going to affirm your concern. Study in 2010 is more modern, and recent study. Therefore its evidence and methods were not available in 2008 when the claim "it's not reproducible". Just change it. 88.193.155.198 ( talk) 07:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Please note IP's keep on with undiscussed deletions and PP may be asked for. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines a conspiracy theory as "an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable."
In this article it says Alex Jones says the US government is waging war against the population, intentionally "making people gay".
It then continues saying RFK Jr revived this idea. Did RFK Jr ever claim the US government is making people gay on purpose? If not, he should not be mentioned here, because the *conspiracy* would be the US government doing this *on purpose*. If people were becoming gay unintentionally due to atrazine, that is not a conspiracy, but maybe pseudoscience. 95.70.175.172 ( talk) 01:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is there no mention to the 2010 Berkeley study, "Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis)", published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences with nearly 700 citations, which is the source of this conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.207.125.157 ( talk) 08:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I’ve deleted a bunch of stuff for concision; also stuff related to RFK jr and also image of Alex Jones.
I ask you please discuss and gain consensus before reverting. I have removed references to RFK jr., bc he is a living person WP:BLP and by virtue of being involved in politics post 1990s, also “a contentious topic,” WP:CTOP both of which cause substantially stricter application of Wikipedia rules and guidelines to “attach.” Also arguably a medical topic and thus WP:MEDRS would apply. Much of this is not sourced to even WP:RS.
Additionally, I have not surveyed the sources on this topic, so I don’t really know, but it strikes me that it’s quite plausible that much of the text may not observe WP:NPOV and proper sourcing, as outlined above.
The whole article needs to be reviewed with this in mind. Also needs to be edited for syntax, grammar, cohesion, concision.
I strongly feel this article should be removed and throughly re-edited per above before you submit it for consideration for article publishing here. Thanks for your consideration.
I can tell you have thought about this issue and you solidly believe you are doing a good act, what must be done to “put the truth out there.” I relate to that a lot. Cheers. JustinReilly ( talk) 08:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
this entire article could be compressed into two brief paragraphs, one describing the conspiracy theory and its origins, maybe with a couple of brief quotes, and one providing debunks linked to RS. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@ NmWTfs85lXusaybq I placed the following Multiple Issues Tag at the top of the article that you’ve reverted a couple of times- “bad formatting” was all you said. My previous edit note was: “The formatting is not good. I’m sorry. But I can not figure out how to fix it. If u can fix it then would really appreciate it if you could. If not, I really don’t think it’s so bad that it needs to be undone- formatting is only visible when note is opened so not an eyesore on the article. Thank you!”
The wikitext of the tag is below. I really tried to fix the formatting but I am not good with technical stuff like this and was completely frustrated and had to give up. Can you pls either fix the formatting or let me put it back. You put a disruptive editing warning on my page and someone else brought an arbitration enforcement request even though there was no prior arbitration. The tag needs to be there because this article is a complete trainwreck stream of conciousness rant that needs to be completely redone. Thanks.
Note: I don’t know why the below text is invisible. Click The edit icon to see it.
![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help
improve it or discuss these issues on the
talk page. (
Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
Needs to conform to WP:BLP if people are named as one is currently, and also follow WP:CTOP if someone involved in politics is mentioned, as one is now Also most probably needs to use WP:MEDRS Should also be edited for readability, concision, WP:NPOV and fidelity to the body of WP:RS on the topic I feel strongly the article should be taken down worked on and only then submitted; Thank you! |
JustinReilly ( talk) 01:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Seeing this article made me remember that there was some news coverage back in 2015 about Tim Farron after a tweet from his account (he was hacked, apparently) seemed to endorse this conspiracy theory specifically in relation to frogs, as part of broader reporting of his views on LGBT+ issues - see e.g. this from the Independent [2]. Two years later, in response to questioning about Farron's views during an election campaign, one of his party's candidates went on to outright endorse the theory and also received news coverage over it ( [3]) Would either of these be worth mentioning here alongside the Jones and Kennedy incidents, or are they too minor / trivial (as Farron himself didn't endorse the theory, and the candidate who actually did is otherwise non-notable and didn't get even remotely near being elected)? TrueAnonyman ( talk) 08:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I took a chainsaw to this article, but retained most of the references. The previous version was better than it was a month or so ago, but in my opinion it still had the following flaws: 1) The level of coverage of this WP:FRINGE topic was out of line with WP:DUE on both sides; I think it only needed to summarize the conspiracy theory and point the reader to reliable refutations; and 2) The article gave this ridiculous theory an air of legitimacy by diving deep into all the reasons it is wrong. As I said above, WP should not be a part of the alt-right hysteria cycle. Somewhere, a troll on 8chan was laughing himself to pieces that something he thought up in thirty seconds was immortalized for all time on Wikipedia, complete with a copy of his stupid meme for all to see (memes in my opinion have no place on WP at all, except for a few niche cases). Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for internet bullies. Admins, I hope this greatly shortened version of the article is acceptable. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 20:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I am not wondering about the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' in the title. A
conspiracy theory is defined on Wikipedia as an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable
.
While Alex Jones' claim (~they're putting chemicals in the water to turn the frogs gay~) is certainly a conspiracy theory... would it not be an incorrect title given people like RFK are not necessarily claiming that endocrine disruptors were intentionally used by anyone to turn people LGBT? It seems RFK's claim is more about pollution in general. That is more of a fringe hypothesis, similar to how the 'vaccines and autism' claim is not a conspiracy theory, but a fringe hypothesis. Zenomonoz ( talk) 10:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Or.. delete? I am now wondering if this article is a candidate for deletion given the WP:DUE guidelines and the comment from @ WeirdNAnnoyed: are a few articles from news outlets on Alex Jones and RFK's comments really enough notability for an entire Wikipedia article? We already have wikipedia articles on hormones and orientation, and a separate article on causes of gender incongruence. There is also not much coverage in secondary academic sources of this hypothesis, so it seems undue. Zenomonoz ( talk) 10:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
The article contains the statement: "Subsequent research failed to reproduce these results" and references a 2008 study.
The prior references a 2010 study.
Hence the qualifier "subsequent" is inaccurate.
Maybe a reference to it being unclear, or unsettled is more appropriate? 174.92.42.37 ( talk) 01:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Going to affirm your concern. Study in 2010 is more modern, and recent study. Therefore its evidence and methods were not available in 2008 when the claim "it's not reproducible". Just change it. 88.193.155.198 ( talk) 07:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Please note IP's keep on with undiscussed deletions and PP may be asked for. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines a conspiracy theory as "an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable."
In this article it says Alex Jones says the US government is waging war against the population, intentionally "making people gay".
It then continues saying RFK Jr revived this idea. Did RFK Jr ever claim the US government is making people gay on purpose? If not, he should not be mentioned here, because the *conspiracy* would be the US government doing this *on purpose*. If people were becoming gay unintentionally due to atrazine, that is not a conspiracy, but maybe pseudoscience. 95.70.175.172 ( talk) 01:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)