Talk:Anti-LGBT rhetoric/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

"Over 80% of paedophiles are homosexuals"

Sorry if I've misinterpreted this addition when I reverted it, but it seemed to be intended as a statement of fact with a supporting reference, not as an example of anti-LGBT propaganda. If it's the latter, please feel free to re-add it, although an English-language supporting reference would be more helpful if one could be found. Karenjc 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have got a English language source, I just thought that we made use of original documents where possible. And at the moment, the sentence is rather isolated, perhaps it should be better incorporated into the article? Duckelf (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
To AV3000, how is that citation "irrelevant"? It is a source for the link between homosexuality and paedophilia, which is what the sub-section is about. Duckelf (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The citation link pointed to an article titled "Only one game, the beautiful game". But please, read WP:RS before posting anything more; editorial commentary is not a reliable source. (Please also note the WP:3RR policy.) AV3000 (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll fix the citation. Duckelf (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If the linked editorial comment contains a primary example of the "80% claim" about homosexuality and paedophilia being used in published anti-LGBT work, then it is relevant. The problem is a confusion of meaning. When I reverted I thought Duckelf was stating that 80% of paedophiles were homosexuals, and using an editorial comment to support this. I think that's what AV3000 thinks too. But I understand now that that wasn't the case - Duckelf was giving the 80% claim as an example of anti-LGBT rhetoric, and using the editorial as an example of the propaganda in use. To solve the ambiguity, the sentence needs expanding and clarifying a bit (say, "The claim that "over 80% of paedophiles are homosexuals" has been asserted as part of anti-LGBT propaganda", or something similar.) Then cite both the Italian and the English-language sources as examples of the propaganda in use. Karenjc 19:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No, even that would be WP:OR. AV3000 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No, over 80% of paedophiles are homosexual as the study that the article refers to shows. And an article critical of homosexuality is not automatically "propaganda", this whole article needs to be balanced as at the moment it is very much biased towards the homosexual agenda. Duckelf (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Your citation is an editorial by an Italian sociologist written for a site with a non-neutral POV and is therefore not a reliable source. Please learn Wikipedia policies. AV3000 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The fourth source used in this article "the Skeptic's dictionary" would also according to those requirements be an unsuitable source, and organisations like CNN are not exactly known for their neutrality. This article is extremely biased and needs to be corrected. Duckelf (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)
Mainstream news sources such as CNN are indeed generally considered reliable; again, consult WP:RS. You should not edit Wikipedia if you cannot agree with these policies.
Regarding issues with other citations, work to improve them. AV3000 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
AV3000, I disagree profoundly that linking to an example of a claim being published somewhere, in order to reference an assertion that it has been published, would be WP:OR. However, that's moot now. Duckelf, since you do indeed wish to add the 80% statement as fact to the article, you need to provide a reference. That would ideally be the original study as published, not a synthesis of what the original study said on another website, particularly one which clearly has a religious agenda and probably doesn't have a neutral point of view on the issue. Even then it would be more accurate to say that "80% of paedophiles in so-and-so's study targeted victims of the same sex as themselves", which tells us some interesting things about paedophilia but doesn't (from a scientific viewpoint) have much to do with consensual adult homosexuality, which is what the "LGBT" in the article's title refers to. To address your concerns about "propaganda", "balancing" the article and "the homosexual agenda", I would point out that the subject of the article is anti-LGBT slogans. Slogans are catchy, emotive phrases and factoids used as part of marketing or awareness-raising campaigns in order to influence opinion, and may vary considerably from very accurate to highly dubious; i.e., they are propaganda. I agree with you 100% that an article critical of homosexuality is not in itself propaganda. However, an opinion piece that takes genuine impartial scientific research and distorts, exaggerates or over-simplifies its conclusions, or strips it of its caveats and turns it into a handy soundbite in order to bolster its own campaigning agenda, is indeed indulging in propaganda. Someone who wants to use the "80% of paedophiles" soundbite to balance an article against a "homosexual agenda" needs to look at WP:NPOV. I believe my initial revert was correct. Karenjc 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
About citation #9, the one about pædophiles, I would say that it would be wrong not to lump man-man and man-boy individuals. Either way, the case is male-male, and if the man really liked feminine characteristics, would you not see better ones in girls or even women? I am not, in any way, suggesting that all pædophiles should start running to houses with girls/women, but really, how is having gross indecency with a male not homosexuality? And if you pro-LGBT rebels decide that people should stay out of the bedroom, how exactly do you receive information on the fact that M-m pædophiles are really M-F and not M-f? Please clarify this point, because WP should be more informational by leaving out information for other sites and articles.
Any grammatical/mechanical/usage errors?
71.177.0.120 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
How much of this is a dispute over the implications of the word "homosexual"? In some circles, homosexual is used to describe behavior: sex with someone of the same gender. In other contexts, the term homosexual refers primarily to one's sexual orientation; in such contexts, sex with someone of the same gender (as in prison or on a military ship) might be considered an "outlet" rather than an expression of one's orientation or identity, and on those grounds a person might object to calling such behavior "homosexual". I've seen the term MSM (men having sex with men) used to bypass this issue.
So are we saying that 80% is an expression of sex with someone of the same gender, or that the person who "molests" (seduces?) a minor is himself/herself a homosexual?
(If we ever get this far, then I'd like to ask what they're implying by this. It sounds like the sloganizing over "Most terrorists are Muslims" vs. "Most Muslims are terrorists".) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, even if reliable sources find that 80% of pedophiles (or even 80% of people who seduce young children) are gay, those of us who know basic statistics know that is is utterly unrelated to the percentage of homosexuals who are pedophiles or child seducers. The problem for Wikipedia articles is that we can't be sure how many of our readers can do the math correctly: i.e., realize there is no "converse conclusion" to be drawn.
  • Maybe we need to quote a statistic that clarifies this. So, what percent of gay people, and what percent of straight people, are pedophiles?
  • This is like asking, what percent of Catholic priests vs. what percent of (non-Catholic?) schoolteachers are child molesters. I daresay the teachers are 10 to 50 times more likely to commit the offense, while public opinion is probably leaning the other way. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Based on Abel’s statistics, if approximately 33 percent of all molestations are male-on-male, and 21 percent of these cases are committed by homosexuals, the actual percentage of molesters who are homosexual is 21% x 33% = 6.9%. [1] --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Boy Scouts

Is this a good place to mention the Boy Scouts (BSA), and their opposition to "gays in the ranks" or the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale case? --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be, if there were significant rhetorical reasons given for such opposition. AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
After reading these comments, I can't for the life of me figure out why so many people think this entry is so insanely biased. Significant rhetorical reasons? I suppose you are the arbiter of that, right? Give me a break. Your Boy Scout comment is almost as asinine as your claim that most evangelicals actually hate gay people but don't know it yet. Because clearly, you know. -- 16:14, 14 September 2012‎ 74.141.152.194
It's called "being on-topic with respect to the article subject area". And if I understand what you're trying to say, I said the opposite of what you think I said in my remarks of "10:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)" above... AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

that whole t thing

i just want to point out that there's no mention of anti-transgender or gender nonconforming folks here. if you're going to call it lgbt, maybe be inclusive? ... aa:talk 06:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Pat Robertson is actually transgender-sympathetic.[2] I'm sure that many other Christian conservatives regard them as unnatural freaks (and there seems to be particular concern about biologically male children having access to girls' bathrooms), but it doesn't seem to have given rise to many memorable slogans so far... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Trangender Section

In the interest of equality, I feel some type of anti-transgender section can be started from recent controversies bringing the subject into a more public light. Such as the pope's comments or Bruce Jenner getting threats and insults. I will start the section in a hidden format and invite anyone to come and add what they can until it is substantial enough to be shown.

Thanks for the help,
Panther5324 (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No citation

  • Recent work by biologists has shown same-sex sexuality to be widespread in nature (see: animal sexuality) as well as in human society, leading gay rights advocates to assert that opposition to same-sex desire would itself be against nature. [citation needed]
Animals being gay is not relevant. Animals have sexual practice like sex cannibalism, polygamy, pedophily, murder of babies to get the mother , necrophily (sex with dead animals). If homosexuality is considered as good or natural BECAUSE of animals, you can say that all the other things I mentioned are good and natural.

Animals may have gay behaviour, but they are not real gays, because when you let them choose between males and females, they always choose the females. If you find an animal who choose only males, show us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:45F4:F876:17BF:D701 (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Apotemnophilia

Recently, people who suffer from apotemnophilia have started asking to have their members removed, because as LGBT ask doctor to fix their biological sex, they want doctors to fix their body, that is different from the ideal body they have in their mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:45F4:F876:17BF:D701 (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Renaming the page

I hope I wasn't too bold in moving the page from Anti-LGBT slogans. You won't hurt my feelings if you move it back without discussion, because I moved it without discussion.

But I felt that there was a lot more to the issue this page is describing, than just slogans. Of course the parody of the insecticide advertisement is especially vexing; if anything qualifies as hate speech, AKFD is definitely up near the zenith. But calling AIDS a "gay disease" might not necessarily be (quite so calculatedly) hateful. In fact, I came to the article planning on expanding on the origin and meaning of the GD term.

I wonder if even a merge with Opposition to homosexuality would be helpful, but maybe I'm going at this too fast and without enough input from other contributors. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreement with the rename, since, as you say, more than slogans is involved. AV3000 (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer the title "opposition to homosexuality". English is not my language, but I'm pretty sure "rhetoric" implies they have argument, but they are not true. Rhetoric vs argument.

It appears as a bias? I think it shold be neutral and balanced, neither pro-LGBT, neither anti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:45F4:F876:17BF:D701 (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-LGBT rhetoric. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm a little confused as to this article's intent. Some people have speculated it is a homophobic article in disguise, claiming that there is no reason to include a list of anti-slogans anywhere.
Others have continually questioned the article's motive's when it comes to debunking the claims that it posits.
I think that the introduction is effectively nonpartisan, but starts to slip when it begins referring to unsupported counter-arguments as holding greater weight than the slogan it is reporting. This article should be absorbed into another article about homosexuality under a sub-heading. I don't see any articles on Anti-Asian slogans or Anti-African slogans or Anti-Muslim slogans so why is this an exception. It's disguised homophobia. Let that other loony religious encyclopedia have it, but not Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.35.144 (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to Conservapedia, and I'd have to agree. Even if it does remind you how stupid some people are, the article really shouldn't be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.59.183 (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both comments above. Wikipedia prides itself on being a balanced, even-handed work. This article is just a thinly disguised homophobic tract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.29.201.57 (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! This article is pro-LGBT if anything. Saying homosexual acts are sinful doesn't mean that people should hate gays (quite the opposite; see 1 John 3) so it's anti-sodomy and oral sex rather than anti-LGBT and straight people could do these things with each other in any case. Rare but it happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.226.161 (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not an forum

I see a lot of off topic/ not cited arguing regarding the legitimacy of LGBT People. The Wikipedia talk page guidelines clearly states " Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." Stay on task people! AI coolTIM (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-LGBT rhetoric. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-LGBT rhetoric. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Untitled help request

Hello all, I was wondering if any wikipedians can provide me with any feedback to my contribution. Kanaivart (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

proposed or copied article text for which the user is asking for feedback

Intersectional Microaggressions

Intersectionality plays a role in how people who identify with the LGBTQ[1] community are treated in society. Intersectionality [2] (1989) is a term coined by Black feminist Kimberlé Crenshaw[3] is used to describe the overlapping identities we hold as humans. These identities consist, but are not limited to: race, social class, gender, religion, nationality etc.

In a review of Canadian empirical research, Sadika et. al.(2019)[4] concluded intersectionality must be included in research regarding lived experiences of Black LGBTQ communities and LGBTQ Communities of Color and most of the research to date is based on the White LGBTQ lived experience. The review found that Non-White LGBTQ communities experienced microaggressions from both their familial units as well as the society they reside in due to the intersections of their lives. Microaggressions [5] are defined as “as the everyday, subtle, intentional — and oftentimes unintentional — interactions or behaviors that communicate some sort of bias toward historically marginalized groups” (NPR, 2020.) Microaggressions also transpire against Black LGBTQ and LGBTQ Communities of Color within White LGBTQ spaces[4] (Sadika et. al.,2019.), hence the term intersectional microaggressions[6] coined by K.L Nadal et al., (2015).

Sadika et al., (2019) also reported Non-White LGBTQ communities had trouble finding social and medical support due to the same intersections. In the studies reviewed, researchers found that Black LGBTQ and LGBTQ Communities of Color experienced disconnection, lack of support, exclusion and/or prejudices from their ethnic and cultural communities due to religious beliefs (ideologies and beliefs with a heteronormative lens) and language barriers (usage of inclusive language, pronoun usage, etc.) Sadika et. al., (2019) evoked from a study conducted by Yan (2014) that “LGBTQ youth of color hid their sexual identity from members of their own racial and ethnic group, as they feared being exposed to negative reactions from family members and losing financial support from parents.”[4][7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanaivart (talk • contribs) 21:30, August 7, 2020 (UTC)

In order to combat this rhetoric, ethnic and cultural communities should practice inclusivity and not avoid conversations about this particular identity and lived experience. It must also be noted that silence could hurt more than help.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanaivart (talk • contribs) 22:57, August 8, 2020 (UTC)


Nadal, K. L., Davidoff, K. C., Davis, L. S., Wong, Y., Marshall, D., & McKenzie, V. (2015). A qualitative approach to intersectional microaggressions: Understanding influences of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and religion. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 147-163. DOI 10.1037/qup0000026  

Sadika, B., Wiebe, E., Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2019). Intersectional microaggressions and social support for LGBTQ persons of color: A systematic review of the canadian-based empirical literature. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 16(2), 111–147. DOI 10.1080/1550428x.2020.1724125

Yan, S. (2014). Through an intersectionality lens: Service provider views on the sexual needs of radicalized LGBTQ youth in toronto. [Master's thesis]. https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2732&context=etd

References

  1. ^ LGBTQ
  2. ^ Intersectionality
  3. ^ Kimberlé Crenshaw
  4. ^ a b c d Sadika, Bidushy; Wiebe, Emily; Morrison, Melanie A.; Morrison, Todd G. (2020-03-02). "Intersectional Microaggressions and Social Support for LGBTQ Persons of Color: A Systematic Review of the Canadian-Based Empirical Literature". Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 16 (2): 111–147. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2020.1724125. ISSN 1550-428X.
  5. ^ Microaggressions
  6. ^ Nadal, Kevin L.; Davidoff, Kristin C.; Davis, Lindsey S.; Wong, Yinglee; Marshall, David; McKenzie, Victoria (2015-08). "A qualitative approach to intersectional microaggressions: Understanding influences of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and religion". Qualitative Psychology. 2 (2): 147–163. doi:10.1037/qup0000026. ISSN 2326-3598. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Yan, Shanshan (2014-01-01). "THROUGH AN INTERSECTIONALITY LENS: SERVICE PROVIDER VIEWS ON THE SEXUAL HEALTH NEEDS OF RACIALIZED LGBTQ YOUTH IN TORONTO". Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive).

Refactoring: collapsed long section of proposed article content. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Kanaivart:, welcome to Wikipedia as a Wiki Ed student editor at your SDSU course. I'm sorry no one got back to you earlier; your feedback request was hard to see because it was unsigned and there was no section header, and it got lost in some sections that used to be here just above this one. I added the missing Wiki Ed course assignment banner for your course assignment to the Talk header above. I also added missing signatures for you, and collapsed the long section of your proposed added content above, to make it easier to read this Talk page. (It seems you went ahead and added that material to the article, when no one responded here.)
It looks like another editor (buidhe) found some of your added material too detailed or off-topic for this article (and I agree), and a portion of it has been removed. It appears that your course already ended a few days after you posted above; do you still need more detailed feeback? Before you answer, please have a look at WP:THREAD about how to reply and indent on Talk pages, and also, *very important*, don't forget to sign all your Talk page posts with four tildes: ~~~~. Adding course content advisors Ian (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sections "Homosexuality as..." are now adjacent

I've moved a couple of subsections of section "Anti-gay rhetoric" down, in order to keep the three subsections entitled "Homosexuality as... " adjacent, namely: "Homosexuality as a lifestyle", "Homosexuality as unnatural", and "Homosexual acts as sin". To these I've added added a new subsection, Homosexual agenda", and seeded it with content on the Ugandan Kill the Gays bill. Depending on the bulk of other "homosexual agenda" material moved in from other articles, it may need to be trimmed for proper balance. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Blanked section "Intersectionality"

I blanked the "Intersectionality" section, as having little to do with the title topic. There was a sentence on microaggressions, which could possibly be resurrected and expanded into a section on LGBT microaggressions. Here are the two references that were removed:

Copy of references from rev. 975184509‎

Refs:[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Sadika, Bidushy; Wiebe, Emily; Morrison, Melanie A.; Morrison, Todd G. (2020-03-02). "Intersectional Microaggressions and Social Support for LGBTQ Persons of Color: A Systematic Review of the Canadian-Based Empirical Literature". Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 16 (2): 111–147. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2020.1724125. ISSN 1550-428X.
  2. ^ "Microaggressions Are A Big Deal: How To Talk Them Out And When To Walk Away : Life Kit". NPR.org. Retrieved 2020-08-09.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Cite error – list defined reference

There is a CS1 "no key" error in the Notes section, which stems from the first {{efn}} explanatory note in the #Homintern section. I don't know what's causing it yet, but I raised this discussion at the CS1 Help talk page, so hopefully we'll get some feedback there that we can apply to fix it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: - I've seen this issue as well several times, I finally asked at the help desk, and now I see another editor has asked the same question at the help desk - see here in this discussion, and they got the same answer I did → The only solution I know of at the moment is that the notes have to be placed inline instead of in the |refs= parameter. Of course I was already doing that as a workaround, but apparently it's a known bug with list-defined notes. I'd suggest that you just put the notes back inline like they were before, while someone tries to figure it out. The issue has also been raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) seen here in this discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Zimbabwe a good early example

1995: https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/safrica/safriglhrc0303-02.htm

https://www.democraticbacklash.com/the-perfect-enemy-from-migrants-to-sexual-minorities Zezen (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: should I add it or smb will take it up? Also Zambia etc. are mentioned there. Interesting arguments, too (their veracity notwithstanding): cultural imperialism, other sex acts, etc. Plus globalization of this article. Zezen (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes those are good finds, and should be added. Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

My attempt at using them was reverted with an argument that they are too old, see History. Here, a quick newer one then, less detailed but more nuanced:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43904852 Zezen (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That article is hardly more "nuanced", it is a commentary (ie. editorial), not a peer reviewed paper, and is only reliable for author's opinion (t · c) buidhe 07:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, v. crackpot or fringe

It’s all pretty much wrong, but do we want to include stuff that’s on the crackpot fringe, possibly labeling it differently? I’m thinking of the major religious figure with an audience of millions who claimed that the World Trade Center attack was due to LGBT activity, and said so openly. Mathglot (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That's already in the article. He may be a crackpot but not a fringe figure. Overall, however, I think the article should focus less on the lunatic fringe (such as Westboro Baptist Church) and more on mainsteam figures, even those who are less extreme. (t · c) buidhe 22:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, must have missed that one. You've raised an interesting contrast between crackpot and fringe, and on reflection, I agree one can be one but not the other (either way) or both. In this case, I would consider him fringe; but I admit to not being up on how many others have said something similar; I assumed nobody, but am I wrong about that? Mathglot (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I think if you have a huge audience and mainstream appeal, it's hard to call that "fringe", no matter how "crackpot" (i.e. wrong, outside of the median person's opinion/mainstream discourse) the viewpoint is. (t · c) buidhe 00:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I have to disagree with you there, based on WP:DUE. No matter how many millions of people subscribe to it, it's fringe if only a tiny minority of published, reliable sources adhere to that view. "Huge audience and mainstream appeal" does not equal "significant viewpoint" published by more than "a tiny minority" of reliable sources. All the Tumblrs in the world, and a paying tv audience in the millions, counts for nada in that evaluation. Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Addendum: let's not get confused here, between the presence of significant coverage by reliable sources about some wacko quotation, and the importance of WP:DUE relative to minority views on a subject. Falwell's statement about gays causing the WTC attacks got *plenty* of coverage on RS's. That makes *the fact that Falwell said that* newsworthy, and possibly worth including. But Falwell's view on what caused 9/11 is an extreme minority view, afaict. His claim was notable for its widely-covered crackpottery; not because it's a view shared by anybody. Mathglot (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Let us use "Main article" template for Homosexual agenda section. Am on mobile, so cannot. Btw see there the bestseller After the Ball (Kirk and Madsen book) (read it on Archive) for a non-crackpot, non-fringe argument used by opponents of homosexuality. Caveat: I do not claim for its veracity. I claim it exists as a nonfringe argument and at least should be wikified here, as examples now are cherrypicked fringey bordering on loony bin; cf. the ones therein. Zezen (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Good source for T deception rhetoric

Found this great source with full text online for the transgender deception narrative section: "Passing" and the Politics of Deception: Transgender Bodies, Cisgender Aesthetics, and the Policing of Inconspicuous Marginal Identities. I don't have time for it right now, so if you want to use it to expand the section, be my guest. Mathglot (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead

At some point, we'll have to revisit the lead, and expand it to accommodate a summary of the new, larger version of the article. In addition, the WP:LEADSENTENCE has a couple of issues: currently, it's:

Anti-LGBT rhetoric and anti-gay slogans are themes, catchphrases, and slogans that have been used against homosexuality or other non-heterosexual sexual orientations in order to demean lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

It's more than just catchphrases and slogans; perhaps "themes" is enough to encompass concepts like discriminatory false theories and political or cultural theories. The other thing in the lead sentence, is that "non-heterosexual" covers LGB but not T. Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

We have to be careful that in changing the scope of this article, it does not overlap too much with homophobia or transphobia. (t · c) buidhe 12:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I support Mathglot.

Rhetoric = arguments. Much more.

Zezen (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

What you are proposing would then duplicate LGBT rights opposition, which focuses on substantive arguments. (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I could not find these there. It is a list of religions and regions: Religion X thinks Y because of their book Z. Country X was Y and now is a tad more Z.

This is what the title hereof suggests: 

Rhetoric (/ˈrɛtərɪk/)[note 1] is the art of persuasion, which along with grammar and logic (or dialectic – see Martianus Capella), is one of the three ancient arts of discourse. Rhetoric aims to study the capacities of writers or speakers needed to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations....

Let us other list how the opponents persuade, what their discourse is. Much more than POV "catchphrase and slogans".

Or rename thus article. Zezen (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I was going to make a similar point in different words. Article title policy says, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." I feel like I know what this one is about, and how it's different from LGBT rights opposition, but words matter, and the title may, in fact, not be adequate to match "what it's about". I'm not overly concerned about this right now as we expand the article in a way that seems to have at least a hand-wavy consensus, but I think you are both right: User:Zezen in that it's more than "catchphrases and slogans", and also to consider a rename, and USer:buidhe in worrying about duplication or overlap with "LGBT rights opposition". At some point, the distinction between the two articles needs to be drawn in such a way that it's either obvious, or explained in the lead, so that editors know where the dividing line is, whether through a change in the WP:LEADSENTENCE to specify it with more WP:PRECISION, or perhaps in the title itself. For the moment, I'm content to just carry on, but if anyone thinks it's urgent to deal with it now, I'm not opposed. Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I have thus changed it, Mathglot .

See also here: 

There are some credible-though ultimately unpersuasive-arguments against gay marriage, dealing mostly with respect for long-standing traditions,empirical uncertainty about the effect of gay couples on their children, and the possibility of unintended cultural consequences. These types of arguments have to be addressed carefully by advocates of gay marriage.� ...

https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=faculty_articles

A quote from a self avowed partisan of gay marriage (! check it), hence as allowed as can be, who concedes "credible but bad" arguments exist. Let us add some of this, too. Zezen (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that opposition to same-sex marriage is necessarily included in "anti-LGBT rhetoric". That seems exactly like the sort of content which belongs in LGBT rights opposition. (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree with User:buidhe here. If we can't figure out what belongs in the article and what doesn't, then maybe we do need to move up the discussion about the title, or at the very least, the definition. Speaking of the that: how does everyone feel about the clause, "...in order to demean..." as part of the definition in the lead sentence? We've been worrying about the WP:PRECISION issue wrt the ability to distinguish between this article, and LGBT rights opposition; if the "in order to demean" is an integral part of the definition of this topic, then we might have to also worry about how to clearly distinguish this topic from List of LGBT-related slurs. Mathglot (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You convinced me. This quote and article referred to specifically 

gay marriage. I will try to find a +rhetoric +arguments +RS in spare time.

I agree with other Mathglot 's remarks and motions hereinabove. Let us proceed.

Zezen (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Just keeping on track with changes to the lead sentence, which currently (rev 977427752) looks like this:

Anti-LGBT rhetoric are themes, arguments[1][2][3], catchphrases, and slogans that have been used against homosexuality or other non-heterosexual sexual orientations in order to demean lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

Not sure we really need three refs there for "arguments"; they should be moved to the body. Mathglot (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Zezen keeps trying to insert "arguments" into this article, without addressing my point about duplicating LGBT rights opposition, which should describe the arguments against LGBT rights. It's not clear to me that opposition to same sex marriage, in reliable sources, is equated to being "anti-LGBT". (t · c) buidhe 05:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is this article covering anti-homosexuality and anti-transgender viewpoints in one?

There should be two separate articles for anti-homosexuality viewpoints and anti-transgender viewpoints. I hold the belief that promoting transgender ideologies is bad for society and it is not "transphobic" to have opinions that don't conform with many "progressives", however I do believe strongly that being homosexual is perfectly acceptable. These two viewpoints are completely different and should not be included in the same article just because they happen to come under a stupid acronym that shouldn't be in use anymore. --NitroblastDigi (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this user has a point because anti-gay rhetoric and anti-transgender rhetoric follow different patterns and might be better split into anti-gay rhetoric and anti-transgender rhetoric. (t · c) buidhe 11:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Parisian Review. Is that a thing?

Quote from Homintern section: "Auden used the term in the "Parisian Review" in 1950. A takeoff on Comintern (Communist International), it was meant to convey the idea of a global homosexual community."

This is meant to be Partisan Review, right? Auden wrote for that, and I can't find anything about a Parisian Review. Chris1564 (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it is Partisan Review. I added a citation to the article in question, Auden's article "A Playboy of the Western World: St. Oscar, The Homintern Martyr" and changed the instances of "Parisian" to "Partisan." http://archives.bu.edu/collections/partisan-review/search/detail?id=284002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1564 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Rainbow Plague - what it does/doesn't mean

I see that you put "rainbow plague" as part of ilness - nobody would treat that speach in this way (in Poland) - and the source does see that it is not related to "ilness" part, as it reads: "Marek Jedraszewski, described Poland as under siege from a “rainbow plague” of gay rights campaigners he compared to Poland’s former Communist rulers.

“Our land is no longer affected by the red plague [...] but born of the same spirit, neo-Marxist. Not red, but rainbow,”" - if you are citing it as source - you should read it before - it clearly points what these words mean - comparison to communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.138.78 (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A student editor's Evaluate for POLS 431

I chose this article because it directly relates to the issues we are discussing in my POLS 431 class. This article matters because Anti-LGBT rhetoric is a major issue that is continuously seen within our society. Furthermore, it is essential for the general public to acknowledge and be aware of the negative impacts that Anti-LGBT rhetoric has within the LGBT community in order to minimize its' influence in the future.

The lead section within this article provides a strong introductory sentence that clearly describes the article’s topic. This section is concise and not overly detailed. Nevertheless, some issues arise in lead section’s ability to provide brief descriptions of the articles major topics discussed. More specifically, the lead section does not mention the overall effects of anti-LGBT rhetoric on the LGBT community. Furthermore, the lead section also does not mention anything about the illegitimate political influence of anti-LGBT rhetoric. Finally, within the lead section, the statement that antisemitic conspiracy theories argue that the “LGBT movement is an instrument of foreign control and domination” should be more specific, in order to avoid any confusion over how the LGBT movements could result in foreign domination.

The overall content of this article is relevant and up to date. Although the article covers all the important aspects within the topic of anti-LGBT rhetoric, I find that there is not enough information on the effects of anti-LGBT rhetoric. Sections such as “homosexual recruitment” provide detailed information regarding the arguments made by social conservatives, while the “effects” section only provides a quick sentence stating that homophobia results in substantial effects towards one’s health and welfare. This goes to show that this article tends to put too much weight on specifics attributes within anti-LGBT rhetoric, while neglecting to discuss the lasting effects that anti-LGBT rhetoric has on a specific individual and society. I also found that the section “homosexuality as a lifestyle” did not provide enough information to fully understand the concept at hand, since it is a major concept that Christian Rights activists worry about.

The tone and balance of this article is in fact very strong. The article is written from a neutral point of view and no heavily biased claims are made towards a particular position. All viewpoints seem to be presented equally and the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position from another.

This article is composed primarily of academic and peer-reviewed sources from a diverse spectrum of authors. All of the links seem to work, and the information seems reliable. However, sometimes it is confusing to try and understand where some of the information came from within this article. For example, within the “As Western ill” section, the statement is made that “Homosexuality is sometimes claimed to be non-existent in some non-Western countries, or to be an evil influence imported from the West.” Although it is likely that these claims do exist, there is no specific source directly backing this statement, but rather an array other sources throughout the section. This made it difficult to differentiate and determine which source backed the statement. Nonetheless, this article still provides the best sources available for the topic at hand and the issue lies more in how these sources are organized.

This article consists of professional writing and the content is well organized. As I previously discussed, the only issue that I found in the organization of this article is the way sources were organized, since it is sometimes difficult to figure out where specific information is coming from.

In its’ entirety, this article provides well-rounded content towards the topic of anti-LGBT rhetoric and has a diverse set of sources defending its’ claims. The only issues that I found was regarding the organization of the article, as well as the fact that sometimes too much weight was put on one section while neglecting another. In order to avoid this moving forward, more research needs to be done overall regarding sections such as the effects of anti-LGBT rhetoric, as well as numerous other subsections. Furthermore, sources need to be clearly placed immediately after a statement is made and not later on in the section to avoid any confusion. Jshowe33 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jshowe33: thanks for the evaluation. If you're still monitoring, you're welcome to edit the article to fix up any of the points you might find lacking. By the way: we tend to avoid putting usernames into the section title, so I've edit the title slightly accordingly; hope that's okay with you. Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-LGBT_rhetoric/Archive_3&oldid=1136523957"