Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 |
|
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Legality and censorship section
editThis section just repeats what has already been said and is not expanded in a way that adds any usefulness to the article.
Its contents also doesn't seem to justify the use of the word censorship in the heading title. PitterPatter533 (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
"Anti-LGBTQ" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
The redirect Anti-LGBTQ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 13 § Anti-LGBTQ until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
"Conspiracy"
editThis article claims that the idea of a gay lobby is a conspiracy theory and does not exist
, but how do you explain organizations like Human Rights Campaign, ILGA-Europe, Stonewall for example? Shoshin000 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Shoshin000: The article does not say that pro-LGBTQ lobbying does not exist, or that it is a conspiracy theory. It says:
According to the German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel, advocating for LGBT rights could accurately be called lobbying, but the term Schwulen-Lobby ('gay lobby') is insulting because it is used to suggest a powerful conspiracy which does not actually exist.
I think that is a fine summary of the source. Do you disagree? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)- My bad, I misread it as "could not accurately be called lobbying" Shoshin000 (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)