Talk:Drag panic

Proposition to Nominate For Deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to WP:PROVEIT as of 6/24/2024: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Unless verifiable proof can be presented that exposure to drag has no harmful effect on children, this article cannot call this assertion "hysteria" or "moral panic," and so must be deleted. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes it can as RS say it is. Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Which reliable sources objectively prove that there is no negative effect on children from exposure to drag? Please enlighten me. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

They do not have to say they prove it, just they just have to say it. Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.newsweek.com/drag-never-appropriate-kids-opinion-1807055

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2876760/why-drag-queen-performances-are-not-appropriate-for-children/

https://www.christianpost.com/news/most-parents-say-drag-queen-events-are-inappropriate-for-kids.html

Here's three sources that say the opposite. Should I go make a Wikipedia article called "Drag Queen Grooming of Children?" By your logic, yes, I should. You need proof for a claim like this, though. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:rs and wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have read these, and according to this, not only is the burden of proof "with the editor who adds or restores material," but also that "significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." So, the significant minority opinion that exposure to drag is bad for children should be covered in this article, which would require a complete rephrasing of this article to, perhaps, "criticism of drag," which should itself not be an article. Thus more reason why the article should be deleted

Any more objections? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

They are opp-edds, and read wp:blp. But you are free to create any article you like or free to wp:afd this one. I am now out of this. Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Christian post is not a RS Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 14:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Please do not feed the troll. Signed, somebody who has made the same mistake too many times. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not trolling. If you have legitimate objections to what I am saying, make them. If you don't, see WP:NOPA JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

TNe follow our policies, and wp:afdit as you have been told. Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Logical Proof For Deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If there is no objective proof that exposing children to drag is benign, then the following is true:

1) Wikipedia cannot state that exposing children to drag is benign

2) Thus, Wikipedia cannot state that opposition to opposing children to drag is grounded in "hysteria," "moral panic," or "extremism."

3) Thus, this article is imbued with an unacceptable degree of political bias.

4) Thus, this article should be deleted.

I am not trolling, do not believe that drag is grooming, and have, myself, multiple close family members who are LGBTQ+. That being said, I believe this degree of political bias to be unacceptable, and so I am dead serious in wanting to initiate a discussion regarding deletion. If you consider this unacceptable, see WP:STEAM. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Stop it! If you want to nominate this article for deletion then you can roll the dice by starting an AfD. That is the process by which the article could, in theory, if there was a case for it, which there isn't, be deleted. You can't just repeatedly post nonsense here and expect that to accomplish anything other than annoying people. This is not a valid page for deletion nominations. Nothing posted here will lead to anything getting deleted. You already tried WP:PROD and that failed, AfD is the only avenue remaining.

Here is the process to follow if you really want to waste everybody's time and nominate the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please read it carefully and decide whether the article really does meet the criteria for deletion (It doesn't!) before proceeding. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

1) WP:STEAM is an essay not a policy or guideline. Even if it wasn't, as others have told you, you are free to take the article to WP:Articles for Deletion. Nobody will agree since the article has over 100 RS and is clearly notable, and nobody here has agreed with you, but you can do it - just don't expect it to go anywhere

2) WP:PROD says it may only be placed on a page a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD. - you can't just put it back up if others disagree, especially citing a nonexistent consensus[1]

3) Your logical proof is ridiculous (and would earn you a failing grade in any logical reasoning class): the panic is people are saying the sure statement "drag is harmful" without evidence. Until you provide reliable sources saying "there is evidence this is harmful" that counteract the numerous RS saying "there is no evidence this is harmful, it's a moral panic" , this line of reasoning is silly.

1. Wikipedia cannot state that exposing children to drag is benign - RS state this, you have yet to provide RS stating otherwise
2. Thus, Wikipedia cannot state that opposition to opposing children to drag is grounded in "hysteria," "moral panic," or "extremism." - Wikipedia is based off reliable sources, which state exactly that
3. This article follows WP:NPOV, which means we follow the RS, not that we make our own WP:FALSEBALANCE
4. Thus, there continues to be no grounds to delete this article.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Simply because there is no conclusive, empirical evidence for a claim does not mean that all those making that claim are "hysterical," and the sources cited do not meet the standards of objectivity to claim as such.

Meanwhile, I can cite about a billion sources, some of them listed by WP:RSPSS as reliable, saying the contrary:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2876760/why-drag-queen-performances-are-not-appropriate-for-children/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Pmax_USA_Magazine_21-June-Intent-Audience-Signals&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI597st473hgMV8jcIBR0tkQMxEAMYASAAEgLBJfD_BwE

https://www.americanexperiment.org/parents-need-to-stop-taking-their-kids-to-drag-shows/

https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/drag-queen-story-hour-admits-to-grooming-your-kids/

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/drag-queen-story-hours-radical-origins-subversive-sexualization-kids

https://unherd.com/2022/08/drag-shows-arent-for-children/

https://www.returntoorder.org/2019/03/how-drag-queen-shows-destroy-childrens-innocence/

https://troymedia.com/lifestyle/children-should-not-be-exposed-to-drag-queen-story-hours/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-sinister-rise-of-drag-shows-for-children/

https://mafamily.org/2024/04/18/drag-queen-exposes-underwear-to-children-at-school-sponsored-event-in-sutton/

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2022/06/26/why-do-children-need-drag-queen-story-hour/

I want to make it clear that I personally don't agree with much of these sources. Regardless, the bottom line is that I doesn't matter how many sources say, completely without evidence, that "X is true," and how many say, also completely without evidence "X isn't true."

This is an entire political debate based on nothing other than personal intuition from either side, and so Wikipedia should not pick a side, no matter how much it aligns with your or my personal intuition. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of those are so obviously unreliable it's funny.

• Center of the American Experiment is a biased think tank.
• WP:FOXNEWS is not reliable
• Daily citizen is by Focus on the Family, a fundamentalist organization
• Unherd is considered to, at best, publish only opinion pieces that are often undue, and at worst be straight up unreliable[2]
• Return to order is a website that calls for the re-enmeshing of church and state, it's another fundamentalist org
• The Massachusetts family institute is an anti-LGBT advocacy group that also thinks gay marriage takes thinks too far and is dangerous to kids

Addressing the ones that are slightly more reliable:

• The washington examiner is a publisher of opinion rather than fact that it incredibly biased (see WP:RSP
• The troymedia piece is an opinion piece
• WP:SPECTATOR published only opinion pieces
• Feministcurrent is a website that doesn't offer any fact-checking of what people submit there

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

You say this, yet the articles you hold to be reliable on this issue cite about as many sources on this matter as these do, and also make assertions without any actual evidence. Who is to say, conclusively, that there is no negative psychological effect on children? There are no studies, and so nobody can say that this is conclusively hysteria or extremism. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

When we say "reliable" we are talking about WP:Reliable Sources. Sure, there are other definitions of the word "reliable" and you are very welcome to use those anywhere other than Wikipedia. Now, please stop. Whether your intention is to troll or not, this is disruptive behaviour and it isn't getting anybody anywhere. DanielRigal (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/04/27/drag-queen-childrens-book-objections-douglas-county/

https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2022/01/09/drag-queen-story-hour/

https://alphanews.org/drag-queen-story-hour-harmful-to-kids/

https://murraycampbell.net/2023/05/01/melbourne-academics-admit-the-obvious-about-drag-performances-for-children/ JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Take it to AFD or drop it. This is disruptive, not helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not support deletion for the litany of reasons outlined by others. There is no need to prove a negative (that drag isn't harmful); there *is* a need to prove the opposite (that it is harmful).

This is basic stuff. As per Wikipedia guidelines, contentious viewpoints about groups of people require a higher burden of proof than simply saying those viewpoints are contentious does. But either way, there is consensus among RS that this is a moral panic.

If it's that specific wording you disagree with (that it's a moral panic), I'd be happy to hear your suggestion for improvements, backed up by RS, here in the comments. Please remember, though, that news outlets have lower weight than, say, meta-analyses and academic papers from reputable organisations. Op-eds are lower still. Lewisguile (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Please use this talk page for discussion about specific improvements to the article. There is a process to follow for deletion, and it is very unlikely that this article would meet the criteria. Hist9600 (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.