Talk:Homosexual agenda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

institutionalized wikipedia bias[edit]

The article reads as though it was written by the head of GLAAD. Interesting that "homosexual agenda" is a disparaging term and bad word, yet the article on "homophobia" says nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MercCoug (talkcontribs) 21:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@MercCoug: Hear, hear! Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of content[edit]

I am opening this section so that 76.14.131.132 can explain why they keep removing content, against established consensus (see a few sections above).- MrX 23:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Standing consensus is in favor of this wording which has determined that whitewashing it is not the solution. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Nontraditional Love[edit]

A section on this novel, which has its own page, has been repeatedly re-added. The editor (I assume it's the same individual) has said that in an edit summary that it "is under the title Satire. What’s wrong? The first paragraph: non-fiction satire entitled "Gay Revolutionary" describes a scenario in which homosexual men dominate… It is the same topic, but NL is a fiction satire. Both paragraphs related to the sa[me].." Gay Revolutionary is here because it was used by the Christian-right as evidence of the 'secret' gay agenda. The section says just that. In itself the article isn't notable. Brokeback Mountain is also mentioned in an earlier section because it was part of the "agenda" according to one commentator. Unless you can find someone who thinks the novel is part of the Gay Agenda, it's not relevant. It's just a satire on sexual identity. There are numerous other works of fiction that explore related matters (how many episodes of Star Trek involve alien races with "nontraditional" sexual mores?). Paul B (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, if it isn't a notable satire, then we need not consider it for mention here. I removed that paragraph myself earlier, because I did not see how it was relevant to the topic of the article, other than the writer's own personal review of the book (which is also inappropriate for inclusions). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, and for this reason, the bulk of the second paragraph should be removed as well.- MrX 19:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homosexual agenda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Checked and fixed by Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 08:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

citation needed[edit]

The first section states: 'In the US, the phrase "the gay agenda" was first used in public discourse in 1992 when the Family Research Council, an American conservative Christian group,'. The given references says nowhere that the phrase was first used by the family research council. The reference is apparently included to establish that the family research council is a conservative christian group. This is important because the article frequently attributes the phrase to the christian right but provides no citations to the effect that the phrase was first used by the christian right or is more frequently used by the christian right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.245.132 (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The applicable reference is clearly ref #3, not ref #2. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, references 2 and 3 look correctly positioned in that sentence to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Not clear--if the reference is to the book, what is the page number? Moreover, the book is rather polemical; is there not a more balanced source? As a sanity check, google's ngram viewer has citations (in public discourse obviously) of the phrase back through the 80s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.245.132 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
"Gay agenda" appeared in newspapers at least as early as 1982, with increasing frequency in late the 1980s into the early 1990s. The material referenced by the OP is arguably inaccurate and should probably be revised. It may be accurate to say the the FRC popularized the term, but I don't think they were the first to use it in public discourse, nor was the first use in 1992.- MrX 23:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@MrX:That jibes with my recollection. Do you have access to the full text of the cited source? It would be nice to know exactly what it says, in context, at any rate. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I found it on newspapers.com. They only have images. It was in the May 25, 1982 edition of theIndiana Gazette, p. 15. The article was about Tim Holloway who was a Republican contender for congress, district 12.... hold on, now I see that the article date is October 5, 1998 on the newspaper image itself. Apparently newspapers.com made an error assigning the date. On further inspection, it looks like they misdated the other articles that came up in the search results. Please ignore my earlier comments.- MrX 12:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
agreed with OP. I just changed this to be more accurate. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)