Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Gay agenda. 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 6

Archive 7

→

THE homosexual agenda

If you do a quick google, you find that about a fifth of all mentions of "homosexual agenda" are in the context of the phrase "the homosexual agenda". The idea behind the term is that there is such a thing as THE homosexual agenda, an agenda that the gays and their allies are collectively pushing so as to affect society. That's the entire controversy. After all, there is no doubt that everyone -- gay or straight -- individually has an agenda. The issue is whether there is a shared agenda by this entire group.

For this reason, I think the article is slightly clearer if the lead paragraph speaks of "the homosexual agenda", rather than merely "homosexual agenda". If you disagree, please respond. Al 21:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly an element of truth to your argument, but I believe this would then support moving the article from Homosexual agenda to The homosexual agenda (or The Homosexual Agenda?). This is not, however, a point I feel particularly strongly about.--Bhuck 07:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Of course, if we do move it, we'll still have it redirect from Homosexual agenda, so it won't matter very much in the practical sense. I don't feel that strongly about the issue, but the details do matter, so I'd like to go ahead with this if there is no clear and plausible opposition. Al 13:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the title of the article, Homosexual agenda seems fine to me, as it seems common practice on Wikipedia to drop "the" in the actual heading. In the article, however, it should be "the homosexual agenda", as the article is clearly about a specific concept rather than just a generic term for any agenda that happens to be "gay". David L Rattigan 13:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as a matter of style, we should therefore leave the article under its current name. I've changed the intro to use "the", and done a bit of other clean-up while I was in the area. Al 17:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added a redirects from the homosexual agenda, for completeness. There was already one from the gay agenda. Al 20:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the word "the" preceeds the term, it is not accurate to include it with the term itself. Even the most strident opposition is not positing that all activists have the same goals. Different activists have different goals, but many are aiming for similar goals. It does not follow that "the" should always preceed the term. DavidBailey 21:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

David, your latest round of changes ignored consensus and inserted a lot of POV into the article, so I was forced to revert them. Please explain your proposed changes here and get some buy-in before implementing them. Otherwise, it is likely that they will continue to be reverted. Thank you for understanding. Al 21:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry my friend. You are the one who continues to push an agenda. Please climb off your soapbox. Thanks. DavidBailey 21:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

David, if you continue to edit war, I will have you blocked for WP:3RR violation. There will be no further warnings. Al 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm begining to think you both need to be banned from these articles for a while. I see both of you engaging in edit warring. CovenantD 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it typically goes like this. I edit. He reverts me. I discuss. He ignores me. I try to edit again. He reverts me. I revert him. etc- ad nauseum. Or in the case of this article, start the list with achieve consensus among editors (see archives 2-5), he edits, I edit, and so on. DavidBailey 11:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken, of course, but do feel free to trot out a biased admin to support your attempt to get us banned. It'll be fun to watch them fail. Al 21:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of this article was to describe what some see as a common agenda by the GLBC to promote their rights and way of life. This would certainly be phrased as "the Homosexual agenda" as is reflected in a quick google which shows most of the top links for "homosexual agenda" to all be preceded with "the" [1]. However the wikipedia standard seems to be to drop the "The" from the title so I think the redirects Al added should cover it and we can then leave the article here. Sophia 22:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I can be very easy to work with. In Alienus's case, I grown weary of his posturing and constant violations of Wikipedia policy (I'm not going to both to cite them again.) I realize that attempting conversation with him is useless, as regardless of how well thought out, or how much time I've spent writing, he will revert me anyway. So I have to revert it back, or else I'm just wasting time. The most damning behavior I feel he has is that regardless of how I attempt to edit the article to conform to NPOV, it is never acceptable to Alienus. He starts with name-calling and personal attacks, then moves on to constant reverts, and this failing to work, starts individual edits, which are still basically reverts to put it back to his perspective, ignoring NPOV. Perhaps this strategy has worked well in the past for him and so he continues to use the method. It is clearly against Wikipedia policy.

However, getting back to the point, using the term the homosexual agenda implies that there is a unified, singular agenda which, of course, it is not. The thread that I do see in many of those making the claim of the homosexual agenda is that the homosexual activists are collaborating, not that they are working from a "master plan". I don't think this point can be credibly disputed. Of course there are homosexual activists with an agenda to change the laws, culture, media to meet their requirements. Of course they work together when they feel it appropriate. It appears to me that the reason why pro-homosexual editors like to use this term is as a way to discredit those "conspiracy theorist conservative nuts". Of course, since there are many activists and many different objectives and goals, only many have the objective to do some of the things as suggested, the most neutral way to explain this is to state that there are people making the claim that a "homosexual agenda" exists, what their quotes are, and then what the counter quotes are, without editorializing in the article through wording bias. DavidBailey 10:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I find Al direct but easy to work with as I have no personal stake in this subject other than to present what others say about it. As such the research I have done shows that very many of the people using this term do view it as The Homosexual agenda so the article should reflect this. Neutrality is not about watering down the extremes of some views - it is about presenting them, as you rightly say David, with references and in a way that does not imply judgement on the part of the encyclopedia. Sophia 11:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So you think the term the is so crucial in this case that the article is harmed by its removal to keep a more neutral POV? DavidBailey 12:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I find that Al is civil to anyone who doesn't oppose his edits. Usually. DavidBailey 12:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I make it a rule to be civil to all - even those who disagree with me and I generally find it's returned. I don't agree with Al - I just share his view that as this article treads a tight-rope of being POV, extreme care is needed to stop the very people who subscribe to the idea of an agenda turning it into a justification for the term. The word the changes the stress of the term from a general one to a co-ordinated movement so debating it's relevance is important to NPOV. Sophia 07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I try to be civil to all, but sometimes it is challenging when a great deal of thought and work is repeatedly reverted because someone else doesn't like it. To your point: I think the article (and all of Wikipedia) needs to avoid making judgements like you mention with "extreme care is needed to stop the very people who subscribe to the idea." It is demonstrably true that gay activists have an agenda. It is debatable, controversial, and highly POV-biased whether or not all gay activists have the agenda. Put the quotes up, include reference material for each side's perspective and let the reader determine the truth or error themselves. Coming to the table with the assumption that all discussion of an agenda is the agenda and that such agenda does not and never did exist does not meet WP:NPOV standards. DavidBailey 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Waaay too early to remove the NPOV tag

The opening paragraph is fast becoming a trumpet for the homosexual activist position, rather than becoming more neutral. The lead sentence couches the page in absolute pro-homosexual terminology, while completely denying any expression of the position of the "opponents". That's more POV rather than less POV. Pollinator 04:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Got anything specific or are you just in a bad mood? Al 05:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please! While I have been very conservative about editing pages, I HAVE explained the increasing systematic bias on this cluster of pages. Your condescending attitute, your lack of paying attention to past comments about POV, your recruitment of others of like POV, and your steamroller edits, are exhibits of your agenda. Please refer back to previous talk and save me having to explain it all over again. Pollinator 05:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have exactly the opposite problem with this article - nearly half of it is given over to quotes from highly POV sources. They should be paraphrased and linked and not given a free forum here - notice there are no individual quotes on what the LGBC have to say about these people. Sophia 06:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "Characterization of the agenda" section is pretty accurate and informative. I tried replacing the direct quotes with a synthesized bullet list a while back, but people prefered the quotes (I think I agree now). The sources are highly POV, you're right, but as "the homosexual agenda" is a pejorative term, anyone who uses it is going to be POV. I think the best next step is to expand on the "Opposition" section. Fireplace 14:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The quotes are fine. If there's a problem, it's that there aren't enough of them for some semblance of balance. Al 14:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep article NPOV, not Gay-POV

I've reverted the opening paragraph back to an earlier version because, frankly, you cannot possibly claim that it is balanced or NPOV without looking foolish. Wikipedia is not a forum to mock ideas or do comedy, please. DavidBailey 11:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Restoring "Pejorative"

I've restored "pejorative" to the opening sentence and "pejorative political terms" to the category list. As I said in my initial edits, the term "homosexual agenda" is almost always used in a derogatory way (or, sometimes, satirically) -- there's no widespread, neutral use of the term. Fireplace 13:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this. Al 15:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This was reverted again under the reasoning that it is "less pejorative than 'homophobic,' which ascribes motivation." Even if that's true, I'm not sure how it's relevant. "Homophobic" isn't used in this article, and being "less pejorative" doesn't imply being "not pejorative". A phrase doesn't have to be outrageously offensive to count as pejorative. I'll leave this open to discussion before I revert though. Fireplace 17:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A good test of one's own bias is to apply the situation in reverse. It has to do with the overall NPOV of Wikipedia, not just one page. There is a whole cluster of pages which refer to this topic. On another page I removed a comment that impugned nefarious motives to homosexuals. Pollinator 17:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's good general advice, but doesn't really respond to this specific issue. It's a pejorative term and should be describes as such -- there's nothing POV about that claim. Fireplace 17:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the bolded "the" was removed again, without discussion or explanation, so I restored it. Also, a quote about the agenda was removed without sufficient basis, so I restored that, too. Let's try not to remove content or move backwards. It looks a little too much like vandalism, eh? Al 15:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fireplace, the term is not always used pejoratively. Please keep it out of the article. It is POV-biased. DavidBailey 19:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, in widespread use, the term is used to express disapproval (unless it's being used satirically). For example, in the first 100 google hits for "the homosexual agenda", every instance of it was used either disapprovingly or satircally/sarcastically (by gay rights advocated to "claim the term for their own", e.g., or to make fun of it). Is there any evidence otherwise? Fireplace 22:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Fireplace, there is a big difference between disapproval or disagreement, and "pejorative" which impugns motives and disparages. This is a descriptive term. Consider how much more "homophobic" disparages and impugns motives. Pollinator 00:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My rollback just now was accidental. Now then. Please show how "homosexual agenda" is ever used in a non-pejorative manner (unless it's a joke). Exploding Boy 00:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There are pages of this exact discussion and citations in the archives. I'm not going to pull them out again. Just be aware that it is not always pejorative, and the article shouldn't make unnecessary generalizations. DavidBailey 03:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry David but "refer to archives" is becoming a stock answer from you. If you have a good reason why EB is wrong then you should be able to quote it. The term is used in a derogatory way by people who disagree with homosexuality - either that or skits on the type of people who use the term. Sophia 10:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sohpia, this is exactly the second time I have said this since you became involved. I don't like to rehash old issues that were already discussed. See Archive 4. DavidBailey 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion (which was left unresolved), I think most or all of the uses of the term count as "claiming the term for their own", analogous to some feminists who call themselves feminazis -- that's satirical use, not neutral use. Further, the examples are pretty obscure, don't come from prominent people, and don't reflect standard usage of the term. Fireplace 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Towards a compromise, I suggest we use "a term with negative connotations" rather than "a pejorative term". I think that handles Pollinator's objection while still saying that the term is typically used to express disapproval. Fireplace 18:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is fine as it is. Let the reader decide whether it is negative or not. The quotes I think are illustrative enough. DavidBailey 11:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)