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.

Recent edits to the lead[edit]

Editor made these edits to the lead, which to my ears and eyes, renders the content less neutral, not more neutral.

My major concerns are:

  1. Removal of the word pejorative. As far as I'm aware, the mainstream view from our reliable sources is that the terms "homosexual agenda" and "gay agenda" are in fact pejorative terms used to discredit all that is gay, but especially lobbying, advocacy, pursuit of civil rights, existing, and so on. Perhaps there is a better word than pejorative, but there does need to be qualifying adjective that properly shows that the term "homosexually agenda" is not broadly accepted.
  2. Removal of the phrase "by some conservative Christians" from the first sentence. I think there needs to be attribution to whatever group (or groups) commonly use these terms as a bludgeon. If it's not "some conservative Christians", then what is it?
  3. The phrases "advocacy of cultural acceptance" was replaced with "forcible cultural acceptance" in the first sentence. I think this is clearly NPOV, as forcible seems to imply the "use of force or threat of force", or possibly even violence. Again, I don't think this phrasing is at all consistent with the mainstream view, or our principles of creating neutral content.

- MrX 18:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, especially concerning the word force, although I do think that the word advocacy shouldn't link to LGBT social movements per WP:EGG; it should be more apparent what is being linked. Other than that though, I agree with your points. - SudoGhost 18:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Homosexual advocacy redirects to LGBT social movements. Teammm talk
18:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Then homosexual advocacy is probably what should be displayed as opposed to advocacy, because if a reader clicks on the word advocacy, per the principle of least astonishment and WP:SPECIFICLINK they are probably expecting to land on advocacy, not homosexual advocacy. - SudoGhost 19:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I have re-removed (as has been done many times in the past) the term 'pejorative', as there has never been a consensus that Wikipedia should dictate to readers how the term should be characterized. Including it violates WP:NPOV. It has been discussed before on this talk page. If you want to include the term, then find a way of doing so that isn't in Wikipedia's voice. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been discussed, and as far as I can tell, your position on this is in the minority. By all means, let's discuss it now. I'll start: We call things what they are per SPADE. We also follow our sources and don't whitewash content to accommodate or give equal weight to fringe viewpoints. - MrX 19:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The more obvious flaw is saying who uses it, (just) some conservative Christians. Even the sentence later in that paragraph refutes that. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
What would you suggest changing it to? - MrX
Consensus was not established to remove the word pejorative here in December 2011 or here, in June 2012, where there was no consensus, but more of an edict from two involved admins. Remarkably even Belchfire stated that the term is a pejorative. - MrX 20:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Responding to MrX, "Used by some social conservatives, conservative Christians and others" North8000 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Then we can drop "social conservatives" from the last sentence of the first paragraph. - MrX 02:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Consensus was not established to include the term. More to the point, consensus was never established to contravene Wikipedia policies or guidelines just because a small majority may see fit to do so by reference to an essay (WP:SPADE) that doesn't have the same weight. The WP:BURDEN is on those who wish to include the term to come up with a valid reason, grounded in policy, why Wikipedia should dictate an unsourced opinion on how readers should view the topic. Bottom line, stating that "homosexual agenda" is "pejorative" in the lead promotes a non-neutral point of view. Synthesizing sources to conclude that "homosexual agenda" is pejorative amounts to original research. The relevant policies and guidelines here are WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS. All three are violated by including the word "pejorative" in the lead. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Protected. Settle it here, and quit edit warring. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break. I'm well aware of the policies. They don't prevent us from referring to Nazis as fascists, or the sky as BLUE. I accept that it the notion the term is pejorative (or what ever words best conveys the meaning) needs to be reliably sourced, but the notion that OR prevents us from describing an idea with a one word adjectives is unfounded. I also disagree that that word renders the presentation of the concept in a non-neutral fashion, although omitting that word seems to add a healthy amount of POV in support of the fallacious notion that there really is a gay agenda. Neutral point of view does not require stripping all meaning and nuance from terms that are the subject of articles. How about giving some credit to other experienced editors who have objected to your repeated removal of this term from the article? - MrX 22:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The policies don't prevent us from referring to Nazis as fascist because that assertion in the lead of Nazism is well sourced. They don't prevent us from calling the sky blue because that is verifiable by direct and objective observation, the same way that 2+2=4. Neither of those situations applies here.
If you can't see that synthesizing sources to come up with an adjective is OR, then perhaps we should take this to WP:ORN. I recall getting into a dispute like this before, and took your position that something was self-evident. It spread over multiple noticeboards and eventually I had to agree that what may be self-evident, isn't. The fact that this word "pejorative" generates controversy is an indicator that not everyone agrees it's self-evident. Bottom line, you want to call something pejorative, find reliable sources that describe the term in that fashion. If there aren't any, then the burden for including the adjective hasn't been met.
The notion that the presence of an unnecessary and controversial adjective does anything to maintain neutrality is unfounded. Omitting adjectives is always more neutral. The notion that omitting an adjective actually introduces a POV is, frankly, ridiculous. Omitting the word doesn't make the article claim there is a gay agenda. The lead sentence is quite clearly about a term, not about an agenda, and omitting "pejorative" does not change the meaning in any way.
Neutral point of view does not mean we should impose meanings and nuances to things that the readers should determine for themselves. The LGBT community considers it pejorative. The conservative religious community probably doesn't. Those communities have their own biases. They wouldn't agree about the term "pejorative" but both would agree that "homosexual agenda" is a term, which is precisely what the lead states. Can't get much more neutral than that.
Shall we take this to WP:ORN and WP:NPOVN? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's not take it to a noticeboard unless we can't resolve it here, hopefully with the participation of other editors. You make some compelling arguments and I'm very open to being shown the error of my ways.
Your third paragraph gives some pause. I agree that "pejorative" can be controversial in some contexts, but I disagree that it is unnecessary in this case. What I would ask you is, is there no subject in this encyclopedia that you believe warrants having the word pejorative attached to it? Or, to put it another way, is there any term or phase that can be called pejorative by our standards of neutrality? Then, if you answer yes, ask yourself if that descriptor is controversial or not.
I am going to take the opportunity to catch up with some sources, to better understand how they treat the subject. I'm also receptive to exploring other words that may better present the subject -- neutrally, but descriptively. - MrX 02:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that the uses/ meanings in practice vary from the benign (where "agenda" means just "objectives" in a low key way) through critical/criticism/adversarial tactic / debating tactic in the mid-range through "pejorative" at the other range of the spectrum. Possibly wording which essentially says it's always the word from one end of the spectrum needs modification. North8000 (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────My opinion on the matter is largely unchanged since what I said in this thread (which was short and to the point—I recommend it!), but I decided at some point that it wasn't terribly important. While it's hard to imagine a cogent argument that the term is used non-pejoratively (except when it's used ironically, of course), the "missing word" doesn't create a critical flaw in the article, as far as I can tell. I would suggest that omitting an adjective most certainly can introduce a POV problem. Whether it does so here is something reasonable Wikipedians can disagee over. I think it does, but I don't think it's worth spending much time arguing the point. Rivertorch (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Homosexual agenda is most assuredly meant as a slur and used pejoratively as is most cases of insisting LGBT people are homosexualists. It's in the same vein as mythologizing the "Civil War as though it were a misunderstanding between two equally worthy sides. Such misinformation helps to perpetuate and give sanction to much residual psychosis in American life. - Mick Lasalle" These are the same people who lead others to believe the non-stop brutalization of LGBT people including gruesome murders (not to mention the overt and covert discrimination faced every day) has nothing to do with the Christian right wings non-stop demonization of LGBT people. Let's not soft-peddle hate and spiritual violence. Insomesia (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the word pejorative is appropriate for the lead; omitting it is not consistent with NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's a slur. It's also a hoax. While we're at it, we could rewrite the lead sentence of Piltdown Man to read, "Piltdown Man is a term used to describe fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human." Or, at another article, how about "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a text used to describe a Jewish plan for global domination." Of course, that would be Point-y.
Right. It's also a canard (see Antisemitic canard for similar examples). - MrX 19:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
For anyone who didn't have time to follow my link to the archived discussion of last year, I said: "Pejorative" means "expressing contempt or disapproval". It seems clear that that's the way that homosexual agenda and gay agenda are used, according to the article. And as long as a given word summarizes without introducing something new or different or skewing the general thrust of the article in any way, it should be fine. And I take 'pejorative' to be a simply descriptive word that serves to summarize the way in which the phrase homosexual agenda is used in the world, per the article. I would note also that the claim of no consensus for inclusion of the word "pejorative" is a bit suspect. Of the five contributors who participated in the aforementioned discussion, three supported inclusion of the word, one was on the fence, and the fifth preferred substituting "anti-gay". No one indicated support for simple removal of the word. A later thread resulted in no change in that apparent consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I read the past discussions, which is why I was surprised that Amatulić kept removing the word. - MrX 19:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I am a Conservative Christian, and I often use the term "Homosexual Agenda" but never in a pejorative way. I find extreme bias in most of these comments and in the article itself. I sometimes have heard the term used in a derogatory way, but RARELY. I think a more neutral position would be to say that it is sometimes used in a derogatory way. I use the term myself simply to refer to the many organizations that make up the social and political movement to change the way society views homosexuality and the way that laws deal with this sexual behavior. I do not use the term to express contempt or disapproval, although I might be critical of the movement while using the term. There is an important distinction to be made here, or you will never allow anyone to express disapproval of any social or political movement without being considered a bigot. I strongly object to the idea that the term Homosexual Agenda is any kind of slur. If any of you insist on that, then please suggest an alternative term to use. For example, most probably consider the words sodomite and faggot to be slurs, and the alternative word chosen by the homosexual community is to use the word gay instead. Is there an alternative word to describe the social and political movement that would not be considered offensive, or is it just the idea of someone criticizing the collective movement with a label that you all find objectionable? From my perspective, some of this dialogue sounds silly, like someone complaining about how the term "Feminism" would supposedly be a slur used in a pejorative way. Bestware (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Not sure why you've tucked this into the middle of the thread, but four points in reply. (1) Homosexuality ≠ "sexual behavior". (2) The word "gay" is not an "alternative word" for "sodomite" or "faggot", both of which are almost universally considered slurs (not just considered so by "most"). (3) There isn't a "homosexual community" any more than there is a "heterosexual community". Within each of the sexual orientations there is an enormous diversity of individuals, and attempting to lump them all into some sort of "collective movement" is an exercise in pointlessness. (4) Where you used the word "feminism", substitute the phrase "women's agenda" and see how much sense it makes. Rivertorch (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I placed it to be in response to the COMMENT leading this thread, so that's why I made the indentation the way that I did. 1) You are being too narrow minded about the term homosexuality. The term homosexuality is used in two different ways: a) to refer to sexual relations between persons of the same sex, and b) to refer to sexual attraction between persons of the same sex. The first definition regarding sexual behavior is almost universally used in regards to the phrase "homosexual agenda" because no laws have made sexual attraction a crime. Sexual behavior is the only concern of laws against sexual immorality. In the same vein, laws against adultery focus on the sexual behavior, not the attraction a person might have for another person's spouse. 2) It is only in modern times that these alternate terms of faggot or sodomite have been considered to be slurs by general society. In many conservative communities, a word like sodomite is still not considered a slur because it is a word used in the Holy Bible. Scholars, especially historical scholars, generally do not assign any kind of taboo to words like these. So while you find the word "most" not strong enough, such is simply an artifact of the community with which you associate. Many years ago when I was ignorant of the taboo that homosexuals assigned to the term sodomite, I would use it regularly. When some homosexuals took offense at the term, I asked them what word was appropriate, and they said to use the word gay. Sometimes I use the word homosexual and am asked to use the word gay instead. So I do not know why you would claim that "gay" is not an alternative word. 3) Of course there is a "homosexual community." Haven't you ever heard of a gay bar? Haven't you come across websites devoted to the homosexual lifestyle? Haven't you heard of various organizations devoted to promoting acceptance of homosexuality? You are correct that there is a range of diversity, with blurred distinctions between heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual. But this does not mean that no generalizations can be made, nor does it mean that terms like homosexuality, homosexual agenda, and homosexual community are meaningless and pointless. The terms are used because they mean something, and your effort to now claim it is pointless is simply your aversion to any kind of criticism or analysis of sexual behavior as being good or bad. 4) Speaking of "women's agenda" would be a fair alternative to my use of the word feminism. I originally typed "women's suffrage" instead of feminism, but changed it to feminism because I thought it to be a more general term than women's suffrage to communicate what I was trying to say. I'm not sure why you think "women's agenda" doesn't make any sense except that it is not a phrase in general use like feminism or women's suffrage. It would basically communicate a similar idea. You do not offer any alternative to the phrase "homosexual agenda" to refer to the socio-political movement to legitimize homosexual behavior. It seems to me that you simply want to claim that any kind of analysis of how homosexuals organize to promote their interests and to change laws is not proper. You apparently want immunity from criticism, so you seek to label the term Homosexual Agenda as a slur no matter how it is used. Bestware (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
An uncontroversial term to describe the socio-political movement is LGBT civil rights movement; the term "homosexual agenda" has undeniable negative connotations even if it's not always used with them. The problem when trying to identify a "homosexual community" is that it's as vague as talking of a single "religious community" or "religious movement" or a ("women community" at that) - it's just too general. Even if there are some common interests born from their shared attribute, there's no way to find some common goals to define a single, unified political interest - which is what the term "agenda" implies. How would you feel, if all attempts of people from different creeds to create congregations and spread their faiths were attributed to a single "religious agenda"? Diego (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The term LGBT civil rights movement is not neutral at all. Many critics do not believe this movement have anything at all to do with civil rights. The word "agenda" is neutral, referring to those political and social strategies used to gain acceptance of homosexual conduct. And yes, we can talk about the agenda of religions, the Religious Agenda, or even more specific agendas like the Roman Catholic Agenda, or the Scientific Agenda, or the Positivist Agenda. People generally work by paradigms and we can talk about the goals and strategies of that paradigm. Bestware (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If the problem is that the adjective was unsourced, let's add some sources for it. This reference (Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender public policy issues, p.83) (from the archived talk) labels the term "derogatory", and it should be easy to find others. Diego (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If we find that sources use the word derogatory instead of pejorative, then we can also use the word derogatory, although pejorative is a synonym and sounds a little more encyclopedic to my ears. - MrX 19:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The most common (but not only) use in reality is as a tool in verbal jousting to assign a word than assigns negative connotations to the "opponent". This is a common tactic used by every "side" and so there are lots of words like this. Not that that leads to an answer. Maybe "often used in a pejorative sense" or "often disparaging". North8000 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this.^ Teammm talk
20:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Describing the term as "often used in a derogatory manner" or something similar is far different from outright calling the term "pejorative" in Wikipedia's voice. I have no problem with that suggestion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I could live with that as well, especially if it gets us past this issue without a lengthy (-er) discussion. Good suggestion, North8000. - MrX 21:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
A workable compromise, I'd say. My only qualm is the word "often", which might present something of an understatement. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
You can say "commonly", as the cases where it's not used that way are rare.Diego (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Marginally better, perhaps, but I wonder whether we need an adverb there at all. The absence of an adverb doesn't imply there are no instances of non-derogatory usage (although, as I said, I'm unaware of such instances except for those involving intentional irony). Rivertorch (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

Objection to 'often'in lead sentence[edit]

I object to the word "often" because it is not neutral. I rarely find the phrase used disparagingly. I would say "sometimes used disparagingly" but obviously I am in the minority here. The source given originally (Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender public policy issues, p.83) obviously is from the gay community, from a book which is part of the homosexual agenda, so it can hardly be used to justify a characterization of the term as being used in some kind of hateful way. It presents one perspective of how the term is used. I honestly use the term homosexual agenda to talk about the socio-political movement which some here denies even exists, so if it doesn't exist, I guess the only way you can look at the term is as some kind of hateful slur. The problem is that those who actually use the term usually do not use it in that way. They are just using a term to describe the movement, like woman's suffrage describes the fight for women's right to vote. I might point out that virtually all the opinions for characterizing it as "often used in a derogatory manner" come from those who do not use the term themselves. Bestware (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"Often" is a perfectly neutral word. I think what you mean is that you don't believe it to be factual, however, I'm unconvinced by the circular reasoning in the above post. How you personally use the term is only reflective of your own values, education and cultural beliefs and has little to do with how we write this encyclopedia article. If you have good secondary sources to support the idea that "homosexual agenda" is used in serious socio-political discussions, in a non-pejorative way, then that content can be included in the article with [[WP:DUE}]] weight. - MrX 14:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
"Often" does not represent reality so it is not neutral. Most of the time, the phrase is used in a scholastic context to refer to the agenda of the activists of the movement. You keep editing the word "sometimes" back to "often," which simply adds bias into the article. I rarely if ever hear the phrase "homosexual agenda" or "gay agenda" used in a derogatory fashion. If it were strictly up to me, I would not even say that it was used that way at all, but I realize that others here have the perception that it is. It seems to me that some are just unwilling to acknowledge that there are homosexual activists with an agenda. They want to falsely convey that the success of the movement is simply spontaneous and has nothing to do with people meeting together and strategizing how to accomplish their goals through parades, lawsuits, publishing literature, editing articles on Wikipedia to further indoctrinate people into their way of thinking, etc. I engage in discourse on various blogs. Inevitably people try to use Wikipedia to prove that I am using a derogatory term when I refer to the gay agenda in current political events. The edit of MrX hinders scholarly discourse and discredits Wikipedia among conservative scholars. I have had to start referring to Wikipedia as having an extreme liberal bent and hostile to conservative thought because of these edit wars. At one time this article had a call for conservative input, and I obliged, but it appears that the solicitation was not very sincere. This article is still very biased. I have donated in the past to this Wikipedia project and try to be helpful to its goals. Nevertheless, I am seriously beginning to question the value of this. We seem to have a block of liberals with lots of time on their hands to slant the articles on the slightest edits of just a single word like "often." Bestware (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ironically, you seem to be the only one with extraordinarily lengthy passages. One year later. Teammm talk
16:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
That is only because promoting a certain agenda you need a lot of words, to have your needs heard. His wants and needs would never be admitted to wikipedia as that would push a Pov, that would not work with our N:POV. So what I would suggest for Bestware to do is to head over to conservapedia as his pov would be welcomed with open arms. NathanWubs (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
"Often" is a neutral word, but it can also be considered a WP:WEASEL word. I would advocate changing "often" to "originally". Nobody would dispute that the term "homosexual agenda" was originally intended as a disparaging term. However, that disparaging flavor seems to be greatly diluted in present-day mainstream usage. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that 'often' is a neutral word. If it's also a weasel word, then we can remove it so the the passage will read: "Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term introduced by some conservative Christians in the United States, used disparagingly to describe the advocacy...".
I wouldn't dispute that the term was originally intended as a disparaging term. I would disagree that it has become less disparaging, or more acceptable as a mainstream term. For example, it's still used disparagingly here and here.- MrX 23:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Uh, no, these articles are disparaging toward the gay agenda, but that does not make the term "gay agenda" a disparaging term. A person can use the same term and argue for its goodness. For example, many disparage the Christian Right, or even just the Right, or they disparage conservatives, but that does not make these terms disparaging terms.--Bestware (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Just omitting "often" might work but might imply "always" unless the second clause is somehow linked to the introduction of the term. That's why I suggested "originally", which doesn't deny that it's still used disparagingly.
How about: "Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term introduced by some conservative Christians in the United States as a disparaging way to describe the advocacy..."
I believe that says it all in the proper context: that conservative Christians introduced the term, and the intent is disparaging, leaving un-answered (as it should be) the question about how it is still being used. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that wording seems fine to me.- MrX 01:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've made the change to remove the word 'often'. Hopefully this addresses the concern Bestware raised in the beginning of this thread. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This change is much worse because it now ascribes the original intent of the Christians was to use the term disparagingly. I suspect most of you never even watched the video or have read the brochures that you now denigrate. I have. You delegitimize the effort to engage in dialogue about the political and social strategies being employed by homosexual activist organizations. Following is perhaps a compromise here: "Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term first published by conservative Christians in the United States in reaction to politically active homosexuals. Local municipalities such as Dade county, Florida and Cincinnati, Ohio had passed local ordinances treating sexual orientation as a protected legal class, and gay pride parades were becoming common. Homosexuals organized into activist organizations like Act Up (1987) and Queer Nation (1990), strategizing and creating agendas as part of the LGBT social movements. Homosexuals had donated $3.4 million to Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential campaign, seeking to change the political landscape toward their cause. Their efforts appeared in prominent news agencies like the Washington Post. In 1992, a Christian organization responded to the political action agenda of these activists with a DVD and brochure outlining what they called, "The Gay Agenda." The publication was used in political activities in Oregon and Colorado to educate the public with the goal of blocking the agenda of homosexual activists. Most homosexual advocates consider the term derogatory and pejorative, but conservative Christians consider the phrase a scholastic term to describe the strategies and overall political and social agenda found within the LGBT social movements." I kind of doubt you liberals will accept anything close to this, but if by chance you would recognize your prejudice, I would properly footnote the information and edit it for better readability if something along these lines seemed acceptable. Because I have been asked to stop supporting Wikipedia in this talk, I am not too optimistic that my efforts are appreciated. --Bestware (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I tried to find historical truth and other factual sources to support what you wrote and couldn't. The term homosexual agenda was used as a fear-mongering tactic and as verbal abuse, in the context of portraying gay people as predators who wanted to portray themselves as victims, emotionally trick people, make them sympathetic, so that the world, especially kids, would "turn gay". I didn't find instances where the term was used to simply describe gay people being more politically active or seeking to change policies. Instead, there was a much more extreme and negative context behind it. Never in a positive or neutral light. Gay rights organizations were demonized using the term, for example, an agenda to infect everyone with AIDS, etc. I failed to find an instance where it was a "scholastic term". Thank goodness for newspapers, the internet, and video. They've been helpful. Lately, there has been a shift for conservative activists to lighten their image in terms of things they've done and/or said in the past, including their use of the term homosexual agenda and it's purpose or meaning. However, history is already written and easy to research. Documentaries from the 1960s are accessible to everyone. No matter how much you footnote your proposition, it won't be made real. Teammm talk
22:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Bestware, regarding your statement "This change is much worse because it now ascribes the original intent of the Christians was to use the term disparagingly." Well, yes. That was the original intent. Your initial objection argued that the word "often" implied that this is still the case. My modification to remove the word "often" fixed that. The fact remains that the original intent was disparaging, and that fact is now accurately reflected in the lead. Above, I suggested including the word "originally" to clarify things, and nobody objected: Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term introduced by some conservative Christians in the United States, originally as a disparaging way to describe.... but somehow it didn't get discussed. How about including 'originally' for clarification?
If you want to build a consensus for your proposed alternative, you need to come up with sources to support it. As far as I can tell, the sources support the current version. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

Removal of content[edit]

I am opening this section so that 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)