Talk:Lavender Mafia

Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).

Need More Citations, Fewer Weasel Words[edit]

The allegations need to be cited/attributed, and the article re-worked to less heavily rely on weasel words. Thanks Dubc0724 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Merge[edit]

The content of this article seems highly POV. I'm sure it expresses fears by some individuals but is any of it actually based on fact? There are few sources actually cited. To some extent I think it might be sensible to delete but if people think there are parts to be saved then suggest that we merge with Gay Mafia which is an article encompassing all aspects of the conspiracy theory about a homosexual plot to take over the world. Odd that we have a separate article dealing rather sketchily with the Church Contaldo80 (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts. I would oppose a merge mainly on the grounds that this topic is taken quite seriously by at least some people while the other topic seems more of a cute cultural neologism ("powerful social clique, not some truly devious alliance ruling either an industry or our politics"), unless one is Michael Ovitz :) I am not familiar with that particular conspiracy theory but I am not Ovitz either :) :)

So I do not find it odd at all to have the article, but agree it is written poorly ("sketchily"). I wouldn't call this article POV but it is very clunky and awkward — the written-by-committee style that plagues parts of the project. One suggestion might be to use the sources described in excruciating verbatim detail to attribute the requested citation needed parts, with perhaps rewording to conform to the sources. I was actually at my library about two months ago and read quite a bit of diverse commentary discussing the topic, so I have no doubt that it is not just an urban legend. What I read was also (mostly) less polemical that the existing sources appear to be, so if I can find them again perhaps I can help. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be extremely surprised to find anything credible that backed the claims up. Although I have no doubt that there are people who really do believe in such a conspiracy. To me it sounds like an old-fashioned scape-goating conspiracy to lay the blame of something at the door of a minority. But certainly welcome your suggestions to help with the evidence. Thanks Contaldo80 (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall it was not described as a conspiracy theory at all but just rather here is the situation and here are the consequences, similar in spirit to the books sourced here albeit much (on average) less polemical. Actually I do not recall any discussion that the leadership of the, er, entity had any cabalistic or scheming activities, so calling it a conspiracy seems unclear at best. Perhaps the sources already here did so (would not seem out of character), or perhaps Greeley did, but I would hesitate to call it such without a source. And even if so it would still be only a claim (a contentious one at that) and thus have need to be directly attributed to its source. refactored and corrected Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The next time I get get to the library is in about a week and a half, so no rush. :) Some of the language could use toning down, as well as some diction improvements, so I'll have a go. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]