Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Change Name of Article

The article should be called Allegations of a Homosexual Agenda. Other articles about contentious ideas are listed as allegations.--Dr.Worm 05:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, or maybe just "Homosexual agenda" in inverted commas - to show it's an article about the phrase. Ajcounter 19:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

EL bias

Every Extended Link comes from the conservative POV and cites highly criticized figures like James Dobson as being reliable. Can we get some NPOV in here for a change? Wiki is meant to be encyclopedic - not a soapbox for unsubstantiated and unquestioned views. --AWF

Do you have other links that you would like to add to the references section? You might notice the article is very controversial and a great deal of effort has gone into the current version. Part of the problem you are facing with regard to the links is that the only links considered to be serious are by those like Dobson. On the other hand, when used by homosexuals, it has been argued, that the term is used sarcastically or ironically. This leaves the "legitimate" quotes being the ones you object to. Do you have others? A great deal of research has gone into this!

By the way, I think that Fireplace's revert was correct. --Anon 64 00:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Satirical use of the term

(Some text taken to: Archive 11)

Fine, refer to satire, but don't cite hate speech to illustrate the point. DavidBailey 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The specific citations are both popular (number 1 on google and number 2 on google blogsearch for "homosexual agenda") and are representative of the satirical use of the term. Neither one comes close to "hate speech", but even if they did, it's not clear how that's relevant (cf. an article about the KKK citing hate speech as an example). Fireplace 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Popularity is not a good qualifier for a citation of encyclopedic quality. The purpose of the article is not to mock those who disagree with the LGBT movement. DavidBailey 11:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I sort of see both sides to this. I easily see that some use it to mock. I also agree that cites should be of high quality if possible, and when many exist, choose only the best. I have not researched the cites so I do not know what they say. But, perhaps, this sentence could ALSO move to a separate section about alternative uses of the term. I'm a little bit AC/DC on this issue... I could go either way. --Anon 64 13:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am completely okay with having one satiric refence, as long as it is not insulting. Otherwise, it's being used as an excuse to insult the "uneducated anti-gay bigots". DavidBailey 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a second satiric reference to insult the eductated' anti-gay bigots? I'd hate to miss anyone. :-) Al 00:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be raising two objections. First, that the claim is over-cited. To the extent that over-citation is problematic (it's better than undercitation), I don't think it applies here. The two examples show different uses of the term: one shows how those in the LGBT movement appropriate the term for their own serious use, the other shows how the term is used in satire.

The second, more serious, objection is that the cited sources contain offensive material. But remember that WP isn't censored. An article on political cartoons should certainly reference offensive satire, an article on the KKK should certainly reference hate-speech, etc. Fireplace 05:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly many examples of satire that are less insulting. What I am asking for, is that the tone of the article and citations be kept civil. Otherwise, it descends into a shouting match. This does not benefit the article or Wikipedia. DavidBailey 01:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, these are legitimate examples of satirical/appropriating usage, and prominent ones (top on google, second on blogsearch for "homosexual agenda"). It's not clear that status as offensive or not is relevant: once again, compare an article on political cartoons or the KKK giving citations to offensive external links. Better yet, look within this very article: Dobson and Osten are both cited, and the material at those pages is extremely insulting to the LGBT community. (Fireplace 19:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument does not convince me. If another article is written in an insulting fashion then it is not written according to Wikipedia policy. Please explain to me how the quotes in the main article right now are insulting, other than to suggest that there is a homosexual agenda which is the point of the article, and suggest alternatives if you think are quotes better suited. DavidBailey 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no WP policy saying that a true claim cannot be cited by a source containing potentially insulting material. Here are a few pages which do exactly that: Stormfront (website), Fred Phelps, Neo-Nazi, etc. (more aren't hard to find). The Dobson page (and quote) say that one of the goals of the gay movement is to overturn pedophilia laws, that gays are bringing about "the collapse of the rule of law", that "Western civilization itself appears to hang in the balance", etc.. These are potentially insulting claims. The Osten page claims that those in the gay rights movement are liars, that God is against them, that teaching tolerance in schools can "mess up" kids, etc. These are potentially insulting claims.

I would appreciate comments from other editors in this discussion. I don't think that my position is a controversial one, but I could be wrong. Fireplace 23:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not controversial at all. For the reasons you stated, the Dobson and Osten quotes very much belong in the article. It would be a violation of NPOV to remove them. Al 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry sorry, the dialectic has gotten long and potentially confusing. The issue whether we should include two citations for the satirical use of the term. DavidBailey argues that listing this and this as citations violates WP policy because they contain potentially offensive material. Fireplace 23:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For much the reason reason, these two should be restored. Wikipedia is full of links to potentially offensive material, and that's not a problem. The problem is when NPOV is violated by a selective removal of links. Al 00:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you are full of inconsistencies. You argue vehemently that pro-homosexual, even when used with anti-homosexual in the same sentence, is highly offensive and POV and should be removed, and then, when you agree with some quotes, they must be included because removing them would be NPOV, when less offensive quotes could easily be found. DavidBailey 11:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

David I would ask that you do not address comments to Al at this moment as he is heavily involved with the RfAr that you are aware of. The links are relevant as they show a popular useage of the term and the fact that some may find it offensive is irrelevant. Many topics link to material that some groups object to but if it is done in such a way as to illustrate the usage of the term - as it is here - then such links are important. Sophia 12:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New Section

(Some Text Taken to: Archive 11)

I'm also looking forward to Anon64's comments. In the meantime, here's a suggestion for the "Judicial reference" section. My understanding is that people (incl. me) don't like devoting a whole section to a single quote that also doesn't have a clear fit in the logical structure of the article; DavidBailey wants to keep it because of Scalia's prominence. Let's just move the quote to the "Use of the term" section and specifically address Scalia's prominence. I think this is an obvious solution that everyone will be happy with. I'll make the edit, feel free to revert if you have objections. Fireplace 14:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This edit was recently made. I think the original version made more sense given the reasoning behind the quote's inclusion. Unlike the Dobson and Osten quotes (which were included as paradigmatic characterizations of the agenda, the Scalia quote was included at DavidBailey's request because of Scalia's prominence -- to show that the term has been used at high levels of government. So, I think including the whole quote is excessive for this purpose (in fact, a footnote alone would be sufficient). And the article should say why this use is being mentioned (Scalia's prominence). Fireplace 23:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course. The Scalia quote is questionable enough as it stands. He uses the weasel phrase "so-called" to distance himself from any connotations of "gay agenda". Without some explanation for why we should care that he even mentioned the term, the quote doesn't fit. I'm for removing the quote or, barring that, restoring the explanatory lead-in. Al 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. Quoting a supreme court justice is highly relevant to the content of the article. You're removing quotes you don't agree with and putting back in quotes you do agree with. These decisions by Alienus and Fireplace show a strong POV-bias. DavidBailey 11:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You lost me... no one is removing quotes. I explained in detail above why I prefer the presentation highlighting Scalia's prominence. Fireplace 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

New Push

I really like the quality of the writing in this paragraph:

Conspiracy theories about a secret agenda of powerful gays have cropped up throughout the 20th century.[8] In the 1950s, homosexuals were characterised as a Lavender Menace that posed a sinister threat to the country, parallel to the Red Scare. A secret "homintern" (Homosexual International, a pun on comintern) was suspected of plotting subversion against society, the family, the state, or religion, and professional relationships and friendships between homosexuals have often been characterised as a coterie akin to freemasonry. Gore Vidal wrote in 1970 that "the Homintern theory...is a constant obsession of certain journalists and crops up from time-to-time not only in the popular press but in the pages of otherwise respectable literary journals." It is not uncommon for minority groups to be accused of involvement in secret plots; The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example, is used by anti-Semites to promote the idea of an international Jewish conspiracy.

But I think it does not really belong for several reasons. First, It just blasts into Conspiracy Theories without connecting that to Homosexual Agenda. Second, the prior paragraphs mentioned that the Agenda is not Secret but this paragraph is pretty much about secret or covert types of activities and Third it uses the example of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - a work of fiction created by enemies in an article and a section where the source of the "Agenda" is an actual published for profit book openly touted and exhorted by many in the GLBT community as a call to action of sorts. Thus the example is bad and the whole paragraph should be deleted. Again, if we are going to talk about opposition to Gay Rights in general I think that there is another page for that. This is simply about the term "Homosexual Agenda" --Anon 64 19:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anon64 that the new paragraph needs reworking, but I think there is room for something like it. Here's WP's definition of a conspiracy theory:

A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence.

Not all users of the term think the agenda is secret, but some prominent ones do (e.g., the president and VP of the Alliance Defense Fund, itself a major player). Unfortunately "conspiracy theory" has taken on some negative connotations in contemporary usage, but if we can present it neutrally, the view that there is a secretive, subversive homosexual agenda counts as a conspiracy theory. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll propose a new version soon. Fireplace 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I sort of agree with you that perhaps some think it is a secret conspiracy. (I think that there are suspicions on both sides like this). To me that is Ludicrous. Mind you, I am not saying that perhaps we should not put it in here, but the idea that it is secret is very silly. Of course, the article cannot say that. It must take this seriously. But I at least hope we have some cites to support this idea.--Anon 64 00:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This and anything else that makes those who oppose the gay activists look silly, is a popular tactic on many of these articles. However, they have no place in an encyclopedia, regardless of how strongly some feel. DavidBailey 02:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The term conspiracy is mostly used by those who try to stereotype the opposition and create an image of extremism. The article needs to include the repeated votes by the citizens over the issue of same-sex marriage, which clearly show a majority of the populace of the United States is not in favor of it. There is no conspiracy. Whatever "gay agenda" there is, is plainly operative, even on these pages - witness the consistent attempt to portray the dispute as a civil rights issue. On the other hand, history shows us that one step (progressive or regressive, according to your side) generally leads to another. Pollinator 14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph does not introduce the idea of conspiracy theories — the first sentence in the section does. "Some... argue that gay rights supporters have tried to keep the agenda a secret". Then a reference is given which claims that a secret plan exists, which gay activists will not admit to publicly but all supposedly agree on, whose sinister plot can be found in a book ("After the Ball"). The secret goals of gay activism include such things as the redefinition of marriage as "monogamy without fidelity." Then we hear from James Dobson, who claims gay activists have a secret agenda to legalise pedophilia. All these are conspiracy theories that appear in the article before the paragraph in question. The claims by Dobson and Craig Osten are not new — see the "homintern" article — and are a pretty close parallel to notions of an international Jewish conpiracy. The paragraph just gives some historical context to the claims. ntennis 02:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To Polinator and Bailey regarding NPOV

I hope to engage you in a peaceful and hopefully fruitful discussion.

(Substantial Text taken to: Archive 11)

Looking at the article now up... does this article have areas that are NPOV? To my eye yes. And in both directions. I slit my eyes and focus carefully with ANY statement that gives someone's OPINION of the topic. So, for example, the statement that "Many find this offensive" is to me a POV leader or a POV Push (particularly without a cause -- but perhaps we have discovered a cause). On the other hand, the whole paragraph under the Religious section is also POV. It is expressing an opinion that someone has that this behavior is wicked as a reason for the opposition to exist. To me, that paragraph is POV. So, both the statement about it being offensive and the paragraph about the religious stuff, give the article a POV slant -- in both directions. (This is a version of argument by proxy). --Anon 64 01:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Anon. I will mention though that I've been commenting on this and similar pages for a long time, but to little effect; it also tends to result in insults and abuse, so it gets tiresome and I don't come around here every day. I thank you that you are not abusive.

One thing that is needful to attain NPOV is to avoid stereotypes. You've just created one (above) though I doubt that you did it intentionally, as some other editors regularly do. This is the portrayal of the opposition as judgemental, hellfire and brimstone types. This would be characteristic only of the most extreme fundamentalists (like Fred Phelps). It is not characteristic of the majority of conservative Christians; even a lot of fundamentalists would not agree, and are in opposition to those like Fred Phelps.

There are actually these extreme judgemental fundamentalists on both sides of the issue; only the guys in the white hats trade with the ones in the black hats. Witness the pro-homosexuals who use judgemental epithets (even on these talk pages) like bigot and homophobe. To get the page into NPOV we have to get past the stereotypes and the epithets.

A more typical conservative Christian view, and a more fair characterization, would be to think in terms of an owner's manual. If you drive your car disregarding the manufacturer's intructions; i.e. you abuse the car in various ways and don't perform the maintainence on the schedule that manufacturer gives, your car will suffer from it. It's not politically correct to mention, but it's simple and plain truth that homosexuals have shorter life expectancy; in fact promiscuity of whatever flavor will shorten a person's lifespan. You can develop the rest of this line of thought as well as I can. -And that is just physical health.

Are you not aware that this is, itself, a stereotype? Not only has the research that connected shortened lifespan with being gay been discredited, but saying that being gay equals being promiscuous is as bad a stereotype as comparing all anti-gay folks to Fred Phelps. You've lost a bit of credibility there in trying to decry stereotyping. The owner's manual is not an apt analogy. --Chesaguy 23:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Because there is a strong pro-homosexual group of Wikipedia editors, who regularly communicate with each other (internal spam) the cluster of pages on the homosexual topics has deteriorated into propaganda pieces, that whitewash the dangers and risks, and paint the opposition in stereotypes/straw men that are easier to attack. Pollinator 04:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I do not see how I created a stereotype. ("...suppose that someone is religious and is sure that God will destroy America"... that's a stereotype if I ever saw one...a judgemental one. Pollinator 05:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)) Perhaps you feel that my comment about the religious perspective was based upon a stereotype. How do you know that I am not religious and share those convictions? I have not said either way! But the problem as I saw it is this: That passage does not really contribute to an understanding of the concept of "Homosexual Agenda" but it DOES create plenty of opportunity for edit wars. As far as Gays having shorter lives and so on, that is utterly irrelevant to the article. There may be another place for it in wikipedia. Perhaps there is a page about the health effects of homosexuality or something like that. But this page is just about the Homosexual agenda. And any discussion of motives will lead to an edit and POV war. I can accept that there might be some sort of cabal of pro-homosexual editors. Seems that there could also be a cabal of anti-homosexual editors as well, if that is a concern. You guys could throw rocks at each other all day. Or you could go for NPOV. --Anon 64 05:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason you are missing the point. Perhaps I am not being clear enough. First of all, it is a 'counter' stereotype to the image of the gay activist that was just above it. Yet you did not mind that stereotype and perhaps did not even see it as a steretype because of your personal bias. I see stereotypes BOTH directions. But more importantly, IT DOES NOT MATTER if it was or was not a sterotype in my example on this talk page (but not in the article). All that matters is that these are TWO REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLES OUT OF A POPULATION OF MILLIONS. For the talk page. As a means of discussion. Ok? They are EXAMPLES. And the point is not what sorts of people they are but instead, what sorts of opinions they might express. If they would express an opinion EITHER WAY, it would be POV. Do you have an opinion, one way or the other that you want to be express in an article? Thats POV. And it is not how wikipedia is supposed to work. --Anon 64 05:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been busy, sorry I took a while to respond. I am absolutely dedicated to creating an article that meets NPOV. The problem is, there are apparently a great many editors with a fairly gay (or gay/lesbian or LGBT) -centric view and these views are getting into the article. That's fine. It happens. However, the problem occurs when I and others try to moderate this tone. Not to insert an anti-gay tone, but just to make it neutral. I expect that I will be edited, but to continually be reverted it disturbing and counter-productive. In some cases, the article is going to have to at least discuss the two views so that the reader will understand where the conflict is. And in those cases it cannot be completely NPOV. The way it is balanced is by stating both perspectives without narrative bias. This seems to be the issue. When you start to insert things like "Conspiracy theories about a secret agenda of powerful gays have cropped up throughout the 20th century." This is not even an attempt to be NPOV. Even talking about conspiracy theories is relegating the whole argument to a conspiracy theory, which some may believe, but certainly it is not the position of most social conservatives who use the term to discuss the collective goals of the "LGBT social movement", or I would say gay activists. DavidBailey 21:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello David Bailey. I believe that you are dedicated to creating an article that meets NPOV, but I think you are not quite able to do it (no disrepsect intended). I think you may just be too wedded to your POV that you are unable to see how strongly it shines through in your editing choices. I think that religion section is an example. See my critique of it below. I also do not detect a "gay centric" view here. I understand though, that being reverted is annoying. I do not agree that the article HAS to discuss two views. I think that it can simply say "Here is what the Homosexual Agenda is or means". Thats all. It does not really have to discuss any views of the term.

Please note that in my rewrite I did not include ANY such discussion on either side including the statement that some find it offensive. (that is one of the reasons I felt it was neutral).

Anon 64, I was not referring to you as one of the editors with a gay-centric POV. Be aware that I could easily say that you also are blinded by your POV and cannot separate it from your editing (no disrespect intended). It is a slippery slope once we assume that we know better, and or that we have a "better grasp of the issues than does someone else, because then it becomes very easy to begin introducing a POV-bias without being aware we're doing it. DavidBailey 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How ironic. Whilst "homophobia" is not a "judgemental epithet" but rather an accurate term, "homosexual" is offensive to a great many. How about this: let's discuss the article here, not your irrelevant personal opinions. Exploding Boy 04:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual vs Gay

Homosexual is the scientific word for a person being sexually attracted to the same sex, not to mention it gets really tedious trying to include all the fringe sexual groups in the LGBT discussions. See the LGBT social movements (I think that's the title this week) article to see what I mean. Homophobia is a scientific term for those who are afraid of homosexuals, regardless of what the Wikipedia article says, and when it is applied to those who oppose the furtherance of homosexuality in society for reasons other than fear, it is inaccurate, and thus POV-biased. DavidBailey 21:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's where you're tragically wrong. "Homosexual" is an outdated and inherently non-neutral term. The preferred term, both in Wikipedia articles and in the larger world, is "gay." If you find it tedious that's your problem, not the problem of Wikipedia. Homophobia isn't a scientific term either, but I'm not going to rehash that discussion. Suffice it to say that you don't get to redefine that term to push your own point of view either, at least on Wikipedia. Exploding Boy 23:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the AP, NY Times, and Washington Post style guides recommend using "homosexual" only in clinical contexts, and to instead use "gay" (or the variants) in most contexts. That said, this section is getting very far off topic. Fireplace 00:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine using "gay" or "gay activist". I'm just not fine trying to accomodate all of the groups that want to be included on the band-wagon because the article becomes an alphabet soup of acronymns. DavidBailey 11:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My biased POV: Here is my idea of an NPOV version of the article

To shorten this page, I have moved this to a separate page:

Anon64 Rewrite Archive.

It is also on my User Page for a while. I do not mean to minimize the influence by doing so, but I have been prolific and need to reduce the size of this talk page. Please refer to that link to read it as we discuss. --Anon 64 06:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do I think this is NPOV (that is.. ignoring the last paragraph)? The article does not take sides. It just presents facts. It does not exaggerate or minimize any point. It does not declare or even "think" that one side is "right" or "wrong". However, the last paragraph does address contention and this could contain POV. I do not particularly love it but I think a nod in this direction is necessary.

More footnotes and references would be needed.

I MIGHT also include a section that describes the question about whether "Homosexual Agenda" really exists, but that is also a POV based question, leading to an argument by proxy. Certainly both sides of that argument would have to be presented and that’s sort of annoying. I think, though, that if that section is included, it should probably mention that while many gays support the key points, many do not. There are large numbers of gay people who do not want to be married or anything like that and do not particularly have a problem with dont ask dont tell in the Military.

I would sort of like to add a bit about how Homosexual Agenda is an alternative way of referring to the objectives of the Gay Rights Movement, without agreeing that the discussion is about rights. However, that suggests that a similar but mirror comment be placed on Gay Rights pages (or the project loses NPOV) and it also is a great opportunity for an Edit War!

--Anon 64 01:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite Comments

Anon 64, I think the new version is a bit top-heavy. It goes on and on about history and such, but doesn't really explain why the term is important or what its connotations are. Or maybe it does explain it somewhere, but that's buried in all the detail. The lead should be relatively short and clear, since a large number of readers will go no further. (by Al?)

I am not entirely clear on how it is top heavy. I think that the lists are a bit much but that is the essence of an "agenda" - a list of things. --Anon 64 04:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than revert you, may I recommend that you revert yourself? Al 04:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I will revert in 10 hours if no one else does it first. --Anon 64 04:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bit of an improvement; just does not go far enough. See my comments above. Pollinator 04:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be just right if it does not go far enough, because it should not go "far" from NPOV. I do not think that an article about Homosexual Agenda is the place to wage a war about whether homosexuality is a bad idea. It might be but that would be a discussion for another page. --Anon 64 05:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I "waging war?" How many edits have you seen me make? I am commenting on the whole cluster of pages, and what it will take to get NPOV on the cluster as a whole. Pollinator 05:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are waging war. I dont know. Not many edits though. However, you are suggesting something that I think would result in lots of stress. --Anon 64 05:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon 64, I fully support your rewrite. It is even-balanced and hits all the important points. Thanks for your hard work. DavidBailey 12:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And I would add, I appreciate your style, Anon 64, and your honest attempt to obtain balance. Pollinator 13:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Covenant's Reaction

I don't know where you got the idea that a "consistent list of legal and social goals" has been presented by 1971, but that pretty much invalidates everything that follows that little fiction. Why do you make changes that you know will be reverted rather than seek consensus first? CovenantD 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I got the idea by reading the same elements repeated over and over again in various source documents. I do not see how that invalidates everything that follows though. Because those elements along with the things that are less consistent and the strategies involved in bring them to pass are the elements of "the Homosexual Agenda" from what I can tell. Maybe not entirely. You seem very annoyed to call this a fiction. I researched it very very carefully and though I did not have time to provide a full grasp of the cites, I did provide them.

I do not know what happened to it, but I had an explanation of the reason that I made those changes and I had come on here to do a self revert. There were also other comments on that version. I do not know where they went, but I assure you my intentions were not bad or evil! --Anon 64 14:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fireplace's Rejection

Hi, Anon64. Wow, you put a lot of work into that, cool. I'm not opposed to a complete rewrite, but only if it is a clear and substantial improvement on the current version. Here are some issues with your version here: (1) you suggest a causal link between the "Homosexual Manifesto" essay and the origination of the term, but I don't know of any evidence for this; (2) there is no consistent list of legal and social goals by "LGBT activists". The prominent ones with all the funding (Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, ACLU, etc.) tend to sing a similar tune, but many in the movement aren't interested in marriage laws, some oppose hate crime laws, etc. There are "gay isolationists" roughly analogous to the isolationism of Malcolm X or Louis Farrakhan; (3) the article brings up fringe, extreme views like repealing age of consent or polygamy laws as being on a list of "LGBT rights" without labelling them as fringe and extreme (NAMBLA, etc., is a tiny organization mainstream gay rights groups loathe as much as everyone else does); (4) the importance of "After the Ball" is overblown... most people involved in these issues haven't even heard of it; (5) some valuable information has been removed, and generally the logical structure of the article is less clear upon a quick look. So, I don't think this is the right direction to go. Fireplace 19:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon 64's Defense

Thank you for the kind words. I did work on it a long time. 10 hours actually! I did not quite start from scratch but almost. I tried to find the most commonly agreed to things and make the article very small. I think I started with just the first sentence. Then I did research as hard and as long as I could. For every point that I found, I tried to find a counterpoint or a different perspective. I did not have an "agenda" or care how things came out as long as they were reasonable (not sure that I succeeded).

However, I was not quite arguing for a complete rewrite. I wanted to see where the article would go if I tried my very best to write an NPOV version. How different would it go? That was really all I was trying to do. I hoped that by doing so, I would learn some things about the topic to help improve the article and to inspire some thought in readers. I did not really believe I could actually achieve NPOV, but I did my best. And if I was successful, I hoped it would suggest some ideas to other editors. I think that as far as that last wish goes, it was a waste of time though! :-)

To address your specific issues: Regarding the Causual Link. Maybe you are right, but one of the things that took so much time was trying to find the earliest claims or references to the gay agenda. I think the AFA article indicated that they had identified the Homosexual Agenda from this magazine publication as early as 6 months after it was published. (That seems to be their claim though I could not find the original article, I could only find their reference to it). I also noticed that repeatedly in article after article, from people who were decrying the "Homosexual Agenda", that this article was frequently mentioned. It was quite a bit. I would say it was the single oldest clear and if not universal, at least fairly common thread. At least one of the sources and maybe more, looked at this article of future statements as though it were a real itemized list of tasks to be accomplished in the Homosexual Agenda.

Consistent List. This was also Covenant's problem. You mention that the highly funded groups have overlapping concepts. Perhaps that is what I uncovered. It may be that my choice of wording suggested all lists were consistently identical. That is not what I said or meant, but perhaps that is how it reads. What I saw was a general tendency around those few points, remaining consistent over time. It is not that the lists were entirely consistent in every item -- the original list was huge and had many other items on it, but that these are the elements that seemed to be enduring across the years and I found most of them on multiple lists. I did not mean to imply or suggest or say that these were the only things desired, but under the aegis of "normalization of homosexuality" and other specific charges, all of these items fit into the ideas put forward as "The Homosexual Agenda". However, I totally agree that there are other concepts. In fact, I found one site that listed 4 generic strategies, and one of these was sort of a "hide low" strategy, which would, of course, not make such a list. However, those strategies that do not create such activists lists, are not part of the identified "Homosexual Agenda".

Fringe Arguments. I did not identify them as "fringe" because I felt that term was loaded and POV. Furthermore, it can reasonably argued that the lists that contain these items are NOT particularly "fringe" when it comes to lists of demands for the gay rights movement. There are a couple of lists produced for political or rallying or related purposes that include these items. In some cases I got the impression that they borrowed from the 1971 statement that looked to me to be a national statement. However, I *DID* say that these were not universally acknowledged or desired. This was my way of saying "fringe" without it being a loaded POV word. I feel that the way I said it was more like a fact (they are not universally accepted) than an opinion (They are fringe). But the key to mentioning these things is that these are some of the items that REALLY BUG the people who are up in arms about the Homosexual Agenda. They mention such things fairly often. So clearly, regardless of whether these things are held constant among homosexual, they are found fairly often in the fears of the social concervatives regarding the Homosexual Agenda.

Incidentally, I did not attend to any sites that were "fringe" type sites like NAMBLA. However, I was surprised to find that there are OTHER organizations that share the same views as NAMBLA but they are not well known. I did not use them in my review of data though. Your identification of NAMBLA as a potential source is not right.

However, you may recall that I have repeatedly discussed my focus on "activism". I suspect activists are (by nature) more radical than the general population of gays. Yet they are the voices heard. These voices are the same as those feared by the social conservatives and so they help define the "Homosexual Agenda", not the larger, perhaps less radical general population. I want to re-emphasize this point again, because I have never quite got it across I think: The homosexual Agenda as developed by the social conservatives and christians is a reaction to the efforts of activists. Whether the general population agrees with them or not is a separate issue, but I do NOT detect that people using the term Homosexual Agenda just hate gays per se, but rather they object to societal change that is projected by activists. I don't know how to say that differently. I think it is an important distinction but it is lost by people favoring homosexuality because they just cannot get past the sense of identifcation with the activists, while at the same time not agreeing with all of the radical ideas of the activists. But these radical ideas are VERY IMPORTANT to the people who fear the Homosexual Agenda.

After the Ball Importance. I agree that its importance to the GLBT movement is overstated by those who claim it as part of the Homosexual Agenda. I found an actual statement by one of the authors making that very definite statement recently. HOWEVER, I also found many praises for it in the Gay press as an important work and its authors as perhaps iconic. At the same time, I found TONS of instances where those who were upset about a Gay Agenda mentioned this book. It is a fairly common theme among Social Conservatives.

But, your comment is troubling. Because, remember, the article is not about "What is the truth of the Gay Rights Movement?". It is not about "What do most Gays want?" (You are making the exact same mistake that Bailey is making but in the other direction) It is about THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA. And what is this? In this article it is a term used by Social Conservatives to describe something. What is it describing? Both common and less common (or "fringe", if you like) elements of the GLBT Activist program for change in society. That is what it is describing. Describing it this way is not a matter of bias; it is the fact. That is what it is. Now, we can describe those elements of the agenda as universal, common, typical, unusual, fringe or rare but they ALL exist and they ALL figure into the fear of the "Homosexual Agenda". The degree to which they are part of any one gay person's perspective or any one organization's focus can start to get POV, but it is a fact that they exist -- and often there is documentation that even the more radical suggestions have been put forth by "mainstream" organizations. That is the social conservatives' fear of the Homosexual Agenda.

The key to this fear is the sense of incremental change that is advocated by most political activists. It is a "camel's nose under the tent" issue and it is on both sides - Gay Rights activists openly describe an incremental strategy and the Social Conservatives openly fear it and its ultimate outcome. Gay rights activists may differ on how big the final camel is while the social conservatives are sure it is the largest version possible. That gay activists and perhaps the gay population in general have a smaller camel in mind is possible -- but it has not been verified by any polls that I know of. And at the same time, the final size of the big camel is a huge driver to the description of the Homosexual Agenda, and it is not just a fantasy: these things really have been put forth and by relatively mainstream activists.

I feel that this is part of the problem you are having. You want to say the camel is small and the social conservatives are overblowing the problem. Having studied with absolutely no preconceived notion in mind, I conclude: that view, that it is overblown, cannot be verified. It may indeed be true... but I am unable to detect that there is a any final "limit" to the efforts of the activists. I CAN detect that not all ACTIVISTS agree with the "other" elements put forward AT THIS TIME, ... but (and this is important) they almost never repudiate or object to those "other" elements either. They are *quiet* on them. So, to my eye, while it is reasonable to say that not all gay activists and probably not all gay people agree with these Other items, it is NOT reasonable to say that the fears are unfounded and irrational. This is my conclusion without any prejudice either way -- or if I have a prejudice, it would be very slightly in favor of the idea that the fears are overblown.

In short, I think that THERE IS TOO MUCH COVERT ARGUING OR HIDDEN AGENDA MONGERING about whether homosexuality is good or bad or whether the conservative reaction is good or bad. I worked hard to just identify the facts and report them. That is all. I note that Pollinator thinks the article does not go far enough to negate gay perspectives, and if I read your comments correctly you feel it goes too far to make them look bad. I would not argue that having both sides of an argument disagree with me is a certain sign that I have cut the baby exactly in half, but it suggest that there is a chance that I did. It would be interesting to see how you and Pollinator would work together to adjust the article to make it correct each of you. But I think that to do that, each of you would have to throw out your own preconceived notions. In saying that, I have summarized my reason for taking ten hours and originally producing that re-write. I think THERE NEEDS TO TRUELY LESS POV on the part of editors here. STOP WORRYING ABOUT WHETHER THE OTHER SIDE IS GETTING AN ADVANTAGE and worry more about whether the article is correct for what it is seeking to describe without getting off track into SECRET APOLOGETICS for one or the other side.

(Having said that, I think the current article, except for the religious stuff, is pretty good.)

--Anon 64 06:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comments, thanks. I hope you don't mind if I just respond to the last paragraph. You suggest that I feel the article goes too far to make the gay perspective look bad. Not at all. In fact, I think the article is mostly neutral and mostly complete. The only outstanding major issues for me are (1) the blanking of citations (see above, comments appreciated), and (2) the out-of-place section on religion. Otherwise, I think it's a pretty good article. Fireplace 15:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant that you believed my rewrite went too far to make the gay perspective look bad. That seemed to be the focus of your comments. I agree with you on the article. I think it is pretty good except for the section on religion. ----Anon 64 02:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My problems with the Religious Section

I believe the whole religious section should GO!

We already know that most groups who use this term oppose its fulfillment. Thus, the opening statement of this section is redundant and unnecessary.
This section gives cause to believe that the term "Homosexual Agenda" is code for being against gays. Once again, I do NOT think that this is the way it is really used, even by most of the Christian Fundamentalists. I feel very strongly that this is an ACTIVIST RESPONSE TO AN ACTIVIST EFFORT regarding changes in society. I do NOT think that when this term is used it is meant as code to restrict homosexual's personal and private activities, even if they are considered sinful.
Somehow, discussing the motives looks less like information and more like apologetics. This gives the impression of weakness to the Social Conservatives -- as if they HAVE to explain themselves in detail for the use of the term to be legitimate.
In reading the sites that use the term Homosexual Agenda, I sometimes see references to sinfulness, but this does not appear to be the primary motivator. The primary motivator seems to be first and foremost: "Defense of Families" and followed by a general response to moral conditions of society. Thus, if we were going to discuss motives, it should reference marriage and family issues but that greatly complicates the article.
The motives of the people who use this term are fairly unimportant in the informational context of the article, but bringing them in, in order to provide in the NPOV technique of argument by proxy requires that other views be brought in as well. This causes the whole section feels like a drift away from the focus of the article. The only time that the term "homosexual agenda" is used is by Bishop Robinson, and then, (supposedly) that is ironic or satirical use.
The statement by Bishop Robinson already appears as a footnote to the first paragraph. So it is redundant.
The very last statement "A coalition of mainline Protestant groups also recently campaigned successfully against a referendum in the state of Washington to repeal an anti-discrimination measure passed to protect gay men and lesbians." is simply but utterly off topic. It does not support the article or this section. It belongs in a different article about "Religious Opposition to Homosexuality" or something like that.

--Anon 64 13:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article were to be read in complete isolation, it would make sense to add a section that surveys why social conservatives are opposed to particular elements of this agenda (religious disapproval of homosexuality, child-rearing arguments, arguments from tradition, psychological arguments, etc.). Similarly, it would have to include a section surveying the reasoning behind the gay rights movement's advocacy of these issues (arguments for same sex marraige, hate crime legislation, anti-discrimination laws, adoption rights, etc.).

But, the article doesn't exist in isolation, and any attempt to survey that reasoning in a four sentence paragraph is bound to fail (like the current one does). Here's an alternative:

Specific controversies

Some issues often listed as included in the agenda are hotly debated today, from same-sex marriage, to hate crime laws, to gay sex education, and more. The reasoning behind these debates are subtle, and many people find themselves on opposite sides of the debate on different issues.

That's very rough, but the idea is that we can link off to the actual debates over these issues without trying to survey the opposition and support for them in four sentences. Fireplace 17:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your idea and the general thrust of your approach -- to kill the debate here and throw the debates onto other pages. In my view more pages in wikipedia should have that approach. If a debate can be abreviated reasonably in a few words, then that seems ok to me so that the article has a sense of completeness about it, but still you should like to the larger debate pages so that fewer pages have recurring debates and edit wars and all the attention can go to those secondary debate pages. This page in particular, is not that important in context but look at all the archives! Its ridiculous! --Anon 64 20:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add the religious opposition linking to LGBT righs opposition, but I am okay with this edit, as long as the conspiracy paragraph remains dropped. DavidBailey 12:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yay consensus. New section swapped in, with a new sentence per DavidBailey, and no conspiracy talk.Fireplace 16:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it great when we can all agree to something? :) DavidBailey 16:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have said this sort of thing before but I will say it again. I am very impressed with the quality of work that is obtained when people of good will, but perhaps of differing views, work together to get things right. Thank you to everyone! I think this article is pretty good. I will not edit it further for a while, but I would add this final thought: I think that the last two sections should really be combined into one section. The Controversy section that is now last should be put on top of the Objections to useage section and the whole section should be renamed "Controversies. However, I do not hold this view with such strength that I am ready to fight for it at this time! --Anon 64 04:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also opposed to the Scalia Quote

First, my own personal POV: I completely and 100% agree with the Scalia quote as it is cited here. The second half of it sounds exactly like something I would say.

Nevertheless, I consider it to be off topic. It is a single instance of the use of the term and everything up to this point has been a description of the term by those who use it, which I think is reasonable and appropriate for this sort of article.

Related Note: The second section should be renamed to "Descriptions of the Homosexual Agenda"

And if it were named like that the Scalia statement would REALLY Stand out. But if we keep the same title "Uses of the Term", then we would have justification for including quotes of every possible varient of the term here. If that is how it is, I would want to see all those terminologies: Gay sites for travel, Gay criticism of the Homosexual Agenda, etc, all in this part of the article. Either it is truly about Uses of the Term OR it is Describing the term. And for an Encyclopedic article, I think a description of the term is superior. --Anon 64 13:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Scalia quote should go (but for a different reason: because Scalia enshrouds it with "so-called"). But towards the goal of compromising with DavidBailey, I think it's fine to include it with the right context (see my argument above about differentiating it from the other quotes).

I don't agree that the section should be renamed, for two reasons: (1) as you said, so we can logically include the Scalia quote, (2) the article is about a term, and "Use of the term" is much more bland and neutral than "Descriptions of the agenda", which might implicitly assume it exists. Fireplace 16:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it is about "Uses of the term" and even fairly obscure quotes like the one by Scalia get to go in, can I also put in a plethora of vague and odd quotes that show it being used in a variety of ways? Or is this a rule that only works one time for one person? --Anon 64 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I tried my best. If you want to remove the quote, or footnote it, I'll support that edit. Fireplace 01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually you and I tend to be in agreement. So the question really was for Pollinator and David Bailey. I have hardly edited at all until yesterday, when I did a pretty big edit. So now Im gonna sit back and wait and see.--Anon 64 14:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is an important quote because it's an example of one of the most important people I know of using the term to describe a situation that is not already directly involved in the debate (such as Dr. Dobbs). DavidBailey 12:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Self destructive

I've edited two longstanding POV problems on this page (they exist on several other pages too, but we'll get to that).

One is the stereotype of the religious viewpoint as "hellfire and brimstone." The negative focus is certainly a violation of AGF. The sentence is brought back (part way) toward NPOV by the simple addition of "self destructive." See previous comments above.

The other is the phrase "gay rights" which casts the issue as a human rights issue. This is very much a POV. The idea is extremely offensive to many of the African-American veterans of the civil rights era. I've replaced it with "gay activist," although "gay" is still POV, and there may be a better term than "activist." It still is a step in the right direction, and reversions simply indicate the POV pushing that has dominated this and similar pages all along.

I'll be taking a little Wiki-vacation, so will not be participating in any edit war. In any event I'm not in a hurry to deal with this, as there are other things in life besides sex. But I do hope that those who sincerely want a neutral POV page will address these issues, that have not been adequately addressed in the past. The POV-pushers have tended to dominate by rapid-fire edits, frequent reversions, and ridicule or abuse of the editors who try for a more balanced version. Pollinator 17:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I see we had an edit conflict Fireplace. I was not trying to edit your edits. Pollinator 17:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I never saw a "hellfire and brimstone" viewpoint here, either as though that were a good or a bad thing. I just do not think it existed. However, I think the term "self destructive" has potential to offend. I also think it is too limited for the concept being described. So I probably do not agree with that term. (Revision: It looks like it fits ok in the sentence --Anon 64)

The term "sin" brings hellfire and brimstone to many people's minds. And yes, of course "self destructive" has the potential to offend, but it is a more neutral and more accurate portrayal of the position. Why didn't you consider "sin" to be offensive? And why should the "potential to offend" only work one way? The term "homophobia" is much more offensive (besides being innacurate), but it is often bandied about on Wikipedia - and no mention is made of its offensiveness. We need to bring neutrality not only to one lone page, but to the whole issue, if Wikipedia is to be NPOV. Pollinator 00:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the issue about gay rights. I had never thought of it before you mentioned it (see above), but acknowledging the word "rights" does automatically assume some things -- those things themselves being disputed by others. (I hope that point is brought up on any of the pages referring to "gay rights"). I do not have a problem with removing the sense of "rights" from this page as an effort to move toward NPOV. However, I DO oppose removing it on pages that are dedicated to discussing "gay rights". This page, is NOT about discussing gay rights (or, really, opposition to gay rights either). --Anon 64 20:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment here (because as I've argued above, this whole section should be replaced with a section linking to articles on specific issues): I think "gay rights movement" is unobjectionable on these grounds (perhaps unlike "gay rights"). As a name of a movement, that phrase is widespread and lacks assumptions. Some may think it misdescribes the movement, but it is nevertheless its name. Compare "the pro-life movement", which many people think misdescribes the movement (in light of their usual views on the death penalty, stem-cell research, sex education, needle-exchange programs, etc.) -- both terms are neutral because they are commonly accepted names. Fireplace 22:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree --mboverload @ 22:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the points raised above.-- JiMoTh Y^TALK 17:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

recent edits removing text

Recent edits by Janusvulcan (75.128.116.193), as seen in these diffs, have not been discussed here and are highly controversial. Continued reversion by this user may be seen as Wikipedia:Edit warring, as the user has been asked to discuss these controversial changes on the talk page to work toward consensus. I have created this section so that Janusvulcan can bring up whatever concerns are driving these edits. — coelacan talk — 02:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia. Wikipedia:List of policies

One of the most important things you should know is that we (the existing community) have established some cultural norms that you should respect. First, we try not to argue. Everyone tries to reach a consensus about what entries should say. Second, we try to make the entries as unbiased as we can, which means that the articles, even on controversial topics, are not meant to be platforms for preaching of any kind. There are also some other community norms codified via some links listed below, particularly Wikipedia policy. --Janusvulcan 04:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:74.128.116.193 has complained to me about this on my talk page. (See User talk:Will Pittenger#recent edits removing text.) I think you both need to discuss the changes first. Clearly there is a problem here. I don't know if the topic of the article is the cause or not, but if so, I will summon the appropriate authorities. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by social conservatives to describe the

The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by many in a degrading manner to describe the goal of

I like the way it reads now. This is the only other change I would make. --Janusvulcan 06:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you find a mention of "social conservatives" to be contentious, then we'll cite it. Paul Weyrich, who founded the Heritage Foundation, speaks for social conservatives.[1] The Heritage foundation speaks for social conservatives.[2] Paul Weyrich uses the term "homosexual agenda".[3] There you have it. I use Weyrich because he is such a huge figure. But we can get both terms in a single citation if that's preferable. The Florida Family Association speaks for social conservatives and talks about a "homosexual agenda".[4] [5]. And the Concerned Women for America tells us explicitly that "social conservatives regard the homosexual activist agenda as one of the gravest threats facing America."[6] Yet another "from the horse's mouth" citation of both terms comes from the "Culture and Family Institute".[7] And again, from "The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property".[8] Now, it's an objective fact that "social conservatives" use the term "homosexual agenda", and we can cite that in the article if you find that necessary. But you can't take "social conservatives" out, because it's a citable fact. And if you want to expand it to "social conservatives and others" then you're going to have to come up with a citation for "others". — coelacan talk — 09:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I find the version proposed by Janusvulcan highly problematic. The term is definitely used predominantly by social conservatives (as coelacan argues above) but that it is used in a degrading manner is clear POV. I don't think social conservatives would deny use of the term, but they would say their intention is not to degrade the agenda but to highlight it as a threat. I would strongly oppose the change you plan to make. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 11:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Phenomenon of the United States

Isn´t it important to say that all of this is a thing of the United States? First of all, in other countries they don´t have such an expression like "homosexual agenda". If you say "agenda homossexual" in Portuguese, people may think you are talking about a little book containing telephone numbers which somehow is gay. It looks like this phrase was created in the US and is a part of a discussion which has been going on for some time in that country, a discussion within that country, among US politicians, US groups, US citizens. And of which people in other countries may not be familiar with at all. This article could be very useful to those people, but it assumes that everyone reading it already knows a lot about the discussion about gay rights in the US. People from the US may take it for granted, but people from other countries may not know this term and not know that "conservatives" refers to the "US right", for instance. A.Z. 17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. I apologize for removing the {{globalize/USA}} tag in this[9] edit. I only meant to re-add the category. CovenantD 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes so it is clear that the article is about the debate which is currently happening in the United States. However, I think the article could explain better to non-Americans what is happening there. If the section "Specific controversies" were in the introduction, the readers which don´t have a clue about the "hot debate" in the U.S. would know the context in which the term was created and understand a lot better what is it about. Also, after the section is in the introduction, it would be nice to expand it by adding the information about who are the debaters. In many countries, the Christian right doesn´t have a major political role and the existence of Christian non-profit organizations debating a social issue would seem strange to some people reading the article. LGBT non-profit organizations also don´t play an important political role in many countries. If French people or Brazilian people or Chinese people or Indian people had written this article, it would be much different than it is. A.Z. 21:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I have a feeling that the entry about the essay Homosexual Agenda should be merged with the main subject. As it stands, that entry is merely a stub and poorly sourced, and I feel that it would do better here with the help of greater context. Any thoughts? --JianLi 06:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to expand the article significantly with good sources (which are needed in any case), then a merger seems like a good idea to me. -Aleta 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge would be a good idea. Have Homosexual Agenda redirect here, and if anyone ever wants to expand the info on the book it can be split off again. Koweja 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to clarify that an essay by the name The Homosexual Agenda is being merged with an article about the homosexual agenda? The way it is, it's a little... unclear. --Dookama 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pederasty

My attempt to insert a statement on this has been repeatedly reverted. Though Wikipedia can't endorse it (NPOV) it is a common belief that the gay agenda is associated with pederasty and it would be POV not to mention that. The way, the truth, and the light 07:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I slightly rephrased it and added it back. It is certainly useful, but I personally don't see how it was POV.--Orthologist 18:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you endorsed it, I'll put it back. What you actually added was a duplicate of the previous paragraph; I assume that was a mistake. The way, the truth, and the light 04:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who believes this? Please cite and attribute this, and remember to avoid weasel words. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced inflammatory/offensive content can be removed immediately, which I've done. Please rephrase and provide a source. Fireplace 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not inflammatory or offensive to report that some people associated the homosexual agenda with pederasty. The policy you cite says that immediate removal is justified only if the content is harmful to the page as a whole. Since the purpose of this page is the debate about the homosexual agenda, it does not fall in that category. The way, the truth, and the light 13:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have put the disputed information back in. I would urge each and every one involved not to engage in edit wars and revert wars. I would advise/suggest that the disputed information be left out until consensus has been reached on its inclusion. And I would also urge editors to cite the sources for this particular assertion. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The pederasty claim is simply common knowledge. You are apparently trying to censor it because of your pro-homosexual POV. True, I haven't found a source I consider reliable for the claim. Nonetheless it's something everyone knows anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 00:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nonsense unless you can reference it. Virtually everything is that is unreferenced. Everything that is added to Wikipedia must be referenced in one way or another. This isn't. If it's something that everyone knows anyway, it should be easy to reference, preferably to multiple reliable sources. Moreschi ^Talk 19:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read it many times, just not in sources I'd be willing to add to an encyclopedia. The statement 'It's nonsense unless you can reference it.' is nonsense; would you demand a reference for 2 + 2 = 4, or even for acetone being an organic chemical?

Personal experience is the most reliable source of all. The way, the truth, and the light 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:NOR for why your personal experience is completely irrelevant. If you aren't willing to cite your sources for statements that only you seem to agree with, then you shouldn't be surprised when you get reverted. Common knowledge is stuff that it's so laughably easy to reference no one bothers: this is not common knowledge. This is, seemingly, your knowledge. Moreschi ^Talk 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Please realise that I am trying to remain civil discussion here.

First, I do agree this would be better with a citation. If I find a reasonable one, I surely will add it.

Second, personal experience is not the same thing as original research.

Third, a statement is verifiable if it's something any intelligent man can see it for himself. That some people will make a connection between the 'gay agenda' and pederasty is so verifiable, given the history (adequately documented at Pederasty and related articles) of the correlation between male homosexuality and pederastic relationships that are questionably ethical by modern standards.

Fourth, citing sources does not eliminate the need for editorial judgement. Judgements must be made about what sources are reliable, and necessarily an important aspect of such judgements will be whether the editor agrees with that source or not. A few days ago I insisted on removal of material on Casanova's bisexuality from the Casanova article because the source was obvious bullshit, and I could only conclude that because of the falsity of its claims - and when one accuses a man of being homosexual or bisexual, there certainly ought to be reliable evidence.

Fifth, as far as no one else agreeing with me, one editor did - see the edit history. And the rest of you disagreeing can be easily explained by your all being pro-gay activists or sock puppets thereof - such people would be most likely to be interested in this article, anyway.

The way, the truth, and the light 20:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling those who disagree with you pro-gay activists or sock puppets thereof isn't being civil. The guidelines are outlined above. Unsourced statements are to be removed. IrishGuy ^talk 20:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the most civil thing I could honestly say, given the circumstances. The person that instigated this, User:Fireplace clearly is, looking at his edit history.

See my statement above for what official policy actually says. The way, the truth, and the light 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are incorrect. The guidelines most assuredly support the removal of the unsourced claims you are inserting. Also, please don't make assumptions about other editors. IrishGuy ^talk 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines may allow the removal of such material, but they certainly don't require it: unsourced statement (with tags) in science articles are often left indefinitely. I have the right to make conclusions about other editors - everyone does that, and the edit histories are public. The way, the truth, and the light 23:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The point remains that your unsourced statement was validly removed per guidelines. You may think anything you would like about anyone else in the world...but actually typing such thoughts on Wikipedia is different. Please be civil. IrishGuy ^talk 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never claimed that it wasn't - I have not called the edits reverting me 'vandalism' or anything similar. I believe that I am remaining civil, and that calling a spade a spade should not be called uncivil.

My addition remained in the article uncontested for 4-5 days after the initial dispute. Then, within 2 days, a total of 7 people align against me. Except for Fireplace, none have any history of editing this or similar articles. 2 of these people used edit summaries that are misleading, claiming that my statement says that homosexuality will lead to pederasty - which is of course not what it says. Except for you, none apparently have read the talk page discussion.

I consider this 'hit-and-run editing' to be insulting, and inappropriate given the nature of wiki and the mutual good faith required to make it work. In addition, it makes me suspect that some of you may have been contacted privately to weigh in on this matter (there's nothing in any of your talk pages) - if I were to do that, it would be deemed disputive behavior. Please correct me, though, if there's a reason why those suspicions are unfounded. The way, the truth, and the light 12:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been in contact with anyone privately in this regard. This is a frequently vandalized article, and many users have it on their watchlist. Fireplace 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have to take your word for it right now. It's awfully suspicious, though, for the reasons given above. The way, the truth, and the light 14:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that blanking warnings from your talk page (here (edit warring)~~, here,~~ and here (3RR warning on this article)) is discouraged. Fireplace 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Only one related to this article (and is presently back on my page anyway). The other two were not warnings at all (one was a 3RR message about a different article). The way, the truth, and the light 14:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some more claims about this dispute have been raised at the thread at ANI stemming from this. Since ANI is not the appropriate place, I will respond here.

First, my edit is not in itself a policy violation, and some of my opponents seem to be implying. I think that has been demonstrated by me, and User:Irishguy implicitly accepted it above.

Second, that any editors at all left my information in shows that I am not in a tiny minority on this. The persons that edit homosexuality-related articles are predominantly those with a pro-gay POV, that much is obvious, and are not necessarily representative of a broader consensus. Indeed the very nature of the disputed assertion is such that if a significant number of people agree with it, it is true!

Third, my opponents on this issue have persistently failed to address any of the points I have made in my rebuttals.

The way, the truth, and the light 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? When did I "implicitly accept" the validity of your statement? I did no such thing. Furthermore, you are clearly in a tiny minority on this as you were reverted numerous times. Two of the editors you are claiming agree with you actually put citation tags on your unsourced comment. That is far from agreeing with you. IrishGuy ^talk 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In the sentence above starting 'The point remains ...' you granted that concession and said that nonetheless it was valid to remove my statement. I just indicated why my being reverted does not necessarily put me in a 'tiny minority'. I do not disagree with inserting citation tags! Adding tags instead of immediately removing the unsourced statement indicates a belief that it is valid to have in the article. The way, the truth, and the light 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I was sidestepping the entire argument about what your comment entailed as I feel it was covered above by multiple other editors. You were edit warring and I was pointing out that policy allows the removal of unsourced statements and therefore you shouldn't have continued to war as it wasn't vandalism. No, adding tags doesn't indicate a belief that the statement has a valid reason to be there. Some editors add tags, others simply remove the statement. Please stop making assumptions about the beliefs and motivations of other editors. IrishGuy ^talk 23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, to further address your statements: First policy states Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. So, yes, your addition was against policy. Second one editor above agreed with you and two added tags (one for needing a citation, the other for use of weasel words). That obviously illustrates that you are in a tiny minority as one agreement hardly makes it a large minority. Third, every single thing you have put forth has been rebutted. Whether or not you choose to accept that fact is up to you. IrishGuy ^talk 23:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

GCN of Dublin did not print this article.

I am removing the bit about the article appearing in Gay Community News. This is widely cited on the Internet as the source for the article, but it was written in February of 1987. If it was written by Gay Community News, it is not the one that exists today, which was started in *1988* in Dublin, as shown on the Wiki entry for it, and on GCN's own website.

I have contacted the editor of Gay Community News, and he denies that GCN printed the article, stating further that "This kind of article would never have appeared in GCN." He states that there is another GCN, called Gay City News (gaycitynews.com). I'm trying to get in touch with them. This is all original research, I guess, but the Dublin GCN still didn't exist at the original date of print. Kaktrot 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The article appeared in the Boston based journal of that name [10]. Paul B 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

1972 Gay Rights Platform

1972 Gay Rights Platform has text (which should be copied to Wikisource) purporting to be a historical document. The text is copied on many webapges, but I can't find the original source. Supposedly it was drafted by the "National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972". Does anyone have any scholarly source to confirm this? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)