Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Neutral opening paragraph

Attempt #27 (grin)

Okay. Bhuck has chimed in his readability issues too, and these are valid. I think the current working paragraph is easier to read. Also, in my opinion, using a computer program to determine how valid a sentence or paragraph is not accurate, although probably more objective. Some of the structure is required by the fact that we are straddling the line between the two perspectives as well.

Here is the most recent paragraph with all of the suggested improvements, including some edits to try to improve readability.

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the goals of gay and lesbian activists to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture, and refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family and shift focus away from traditional morality. Gay rights activists would argue they are removing anti-homosexual bias. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights.

Please comment and make suggestions. If its acceptable, we will put it on the article! Thanks. DavidBailey 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a few minor changes would make it more acceptable:

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the goals of gay and lesbian activists with regards to increasing public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture. It refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights and the removal of anti-homosexual bias from society.

I think this version is slightly more succinct, but I can certainly live with your draft. I realise the linking of "Anti-homosexual" to "Heterosexism" might be problematic for some, but I thought it was less charged than homophobia (and more accurate). It doesn't have to be linked to anything I guess. Martin 21:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Martin and David's revision is the best we've had so far. It could still be more succinct, eg "to advocate" rather than "with regards to increasing public support for". However, I have no major problems with it. David L Rattigan 21:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh - except for the italics. I still don't understand them! David L Rattigan 21:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, then, this is my suggestion:

The homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the goals of gay and lesbian activists to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture. It refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights and the removal of anti-homosexual bias from society.

I would have pared it down even more for stylistic reasons, but I'm sure someone would have objected that it introduced bias or changed the meaning somehow! David L Rattigan 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty good compromise; if DavidBailey agrees, and no one else has any objection, let's put it in the article! Martin 21:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that we need either quotes or italics in the places I have been putting them above, but am willing to concede this point assuming everyone else agrees with this edit. White I think we need to make it as succinct as possible without adding POV wording, I tried adding David Rattigan's recommended edit to replace "to advocate" rather than "with regards to increasing public support for", but we lost some meaning in that I think it is less the goal to introduce pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture, than it is to shift public opinion for them. Therefore, if everyone else is amenable, I am okay with David Rattigan's proposed paragraph. DavidBailey 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to have any objections, so I think we can agree that this paragraph is considered a consensus. I will move it to the article page. DavidBailey 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its a good paragraph. I congratulate you all. I am inspired by the great way this was resolved! I earnestly hope that no one feels that great violence was done to their position. --64.178.145.150 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Precision

I would like to see the term "pro-homosexual" removed and replaced with something more meaningful. A term that would explain what exactly these gays and lesbians are trying to achieve (this would also need citations from gay rights groups). Many consider the word to be completely nonsensical. I.e., How can one promote homosexuality if there is no scientific data illustrating one can change sexual orientation? Pro is from the word promote and I feel no need to explain the meaning of homosexual. A greater explanation is needed for "redefine marriage and family", whose family are they trying to redefine, and from what definition. And again the word "traditional morality"... Whose traditional morality? My suggestion for this would be the dominant morality in western socities since the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity. Globeism 00:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether science affirms or denies biological origins of something is irrelevant to the notion of being "Pro" that thing. A person can promote homosexuality by endorsing and seeking to have it affirmed as normal or natural or desirable. Just as someone can promote (and in some countries they do) heterosexual intercourse by describing it as normal and natural and desirable. However, I think that the term is somewhat laden. Nevertheless it balances anti-homosexual which is also found.

And on that note, it is troubling that people are so concerned about removing "Pro-homosexual and yet no one brings up "anti-homosexual". It smacks of some sort of agenda. If pro-homosexual is value laden then its opposite anti-homosexual must also be value laden. (And if so, then NPOV would suggest both stay or both go at once). --72.13.168.149 20:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why I haven't brought it up again. If we find the perfect wording for one, it'll probably take care of the other. We haven't been able to yet. CovenantD 20:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

When "anti-homosexual" appears in the article, it clearly states that this is the view of those who object to the term "homosexual agenda". When "pro-homosexual" is used, there is nothing to suggest it it is a POV term. David L Rattigan 20:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I covered this already. The opposite of anti-homosexual is not pro-homosexual. Al 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It may well be accurate to characterize one group as pro-X without the opposing group being anti-X. Think this through. Al 20:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thinking it through and using the dictionary where Anti is shows as meaning: "Opposed to; against" and Pro is shown as "Supporting; favoring", which appear to be opposites to me. Considering the term in another context "anti-abortion" and "Pro-abortion". They both seem to be opposites. Looking for an example where one word is properly modified by both "anti" and "pro", I am unable to find an example where they are not opposites or opposing views; Often words are improperly modified (pro-life being an example) and when that happens, typically "pro" has a positive upward lift that often indicates an optimistic perspective and "anti" seems to suggest that the position is somehow regressive, backward extreme, etc. --72.13.168.149 22:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am neither pro nor con skating. If people want to skate, fine. If not, also fine. I would not encourage or discourage anyone to skate (or to stop skating). This makes me neutral, not pro-skating or anti-skating. If some people oppose skating and want to make it illegal, I do not become "pro-skating" just because I don't agree with their "anti-skating" policies.

In short, you need to apply three-state logic, where a value can be true, false or null. Otherwise, you create a false dichotomy. Al 02:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't endorse these ideas, nor do I even claim they make sense. Our job is just to report them accurately. Of course, we can also report criticisms accurately, and should do so. Al 01:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the term could be replaced with "supporters of the gay rights movement". Indeed, "pro-homosexual" suggests actively trying to change other people's sexual orientation - which is not a goal of any gay rights organization. What I think is notable about the idea of a "homosexual agenda" is that it sounds like a secret conspiracy all homosexuals are aware of and are actively working for, but there is no such conspiracy. Gay rights organizations have goals--different goals at that--but individual homosexuals have widely differing views about them. Not all gay people are even interested in working for gay rights. The article could be clarified by explaining that better - perhaps in the intro. --Grace 02:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Gay rights is a controversial term. Many people who use the term homosexual agenda do not feel that any individual's rights are missing, inequal, or that an expansion is justified under current law. All individuals in United States and most democratic republics worldwide are protected from bodily harm and have equal rights to associate with whom they choose, own property, and conduct themselves as they wish in private. Most opponents feel that this is a moral or religious issue, not an issue to be debated in legal, media, or cultural circles. There are some who choose to demonize and to violate current law, but there have always been those who do so, whether the law exists or not, and not just over this issue. Pro-homosexual doesn't mean anyone is trying to convert anyone. It means that someone is for a homosexual perspective on issues. DavidBailey 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We could completely delete the term "gay rights" and just spell out the proposals. Pro-homosexual is too undefined. Globeism 03:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not replace "increase public support for pro-homosexual policies" with "increase tolerance and acceptance of same-sex relations"? Globeism 03:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Globeism, your suggestions sound reasonable. I am not opposed to any edits which clarify and don't shift the POV toward the gay activists perspective as has been the trend with this article. Please put a suggested edit here and I'd be happy to discuss it with you. DavidBailey 03:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Globeism, your wording is inaccurate. Many of the LGBT social movements are about equality in housing, employment, military service, adoption, etc., etc. To lump all of that as "same-sex relations" is misrepresenting the goals of those organizations. CovenantD 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CovenantD. I had thought about and rejected same sex relations for the same reason. --72.13.168.149 20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

It is perhaps too easy to slap a disputed tag on an article because you disagree with something. I believe the only time it is appropriate is when you can show that there are factual errors in the article. If there are, please discuss them here, so we can fix them. If there are wording issues, which seem to more often be the case, be aware that we are working very hard to make this article neutral in voice and balanced in presenting the major perspectives. Thanks for your help with the writing of this article. DavidBailey 03:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of this tag constitutes vandalism and will be reverted as many times as needed (since 3RR doesn't apply). Al 03:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As somebody who's been involved in the discussions over the intro, I have to agree that the disputed tag is appropriate. We still don't have wording that really fits - it's a poor compromise at best. CovenantD 03:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see it a dispute about facts. It is a dispute about tone perhaps. --64.178.145.150 06:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The debate seems to be more about neutrality than factual errors. Shouldn't that tag be used instead? Fireplace 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, sorry, I've been at this too long today. CovenantD 06:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to the "neutrality" tag as we all seem to agree that this is the problem with the article. Sophia 06:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is more appropriate while we work that out. Thanks. DavidBailey 11:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed First Paragraph

The homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the goals of gay and lesbian activists to increase media messages and public support for policies as well as cultural changes favoring same-sex relationships. It refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some[1], particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights.

This seems to handle everyone's objections as far as I can tell. --64.178.145.150 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. See this post-

Globeism, your wording is inaccurate. Many of the LGBT social movements are about equality in housing, employment, military service, adoption, etc., etc. To lump all of that as "same-sex relations" is misrepresenting the goals of those organizations. CovenantD 18:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, that wording has already been rejected because it's inaccurate. - CovenantD 17:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that. I don't really love "Same sex" either but I tried to use the word differently than in that example. Here is how I see it. The THINGS that are being described are : Goals to: 1) increase media messages, 2) Increase public support for policies and 3) increase cultural changes. These 3 GENERAL "THINGS" are all put forth IN FAVOR of same sex relationships. The DETAILS of increased public support and cultural changes may INCLUDE things like equality in housing, employment, military service, adoption, and more. But the COMMON element is FAVORING same sex relationships. (Incidentally, This means that even people who are not themselves gay, could be part of this so-called "gay agenda".) So, the statement the way that I put it, does not exclude those elements and is not in opposition to them but includes them.

A counter argument to my position might be to say: but not all gays are in same sex relationships. To that, my response would be --"Yes quite right. And they do not need to be. Because the article is not about "Same sex relationships" it is about this so-called "Gay Agenda" which according to perhaps both sides, is seeking various GENERAL THINGS that FAVOR those relationships. I would be surprised to see any instance of something put forward as part of this "gay agenda" that did not favor or endorse public tolerance, acceptance or embracing of same sex relationships through changes in media messages, public perception, legal policy or cultural shift. Do you have even one example? It is, as far as I can tell one of the TWO key issues that combine to provide this sense of "Gay Agenda" as it is called.

So, though I do not especially favor the term, I think it has been dismissed too lightly. --64.178.145.150 18:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Two main problems I see with the suggestion are that it does not explain the fact that this term is pretty much exclusively used by conservative and religous groups to create a sense that the LGBC are trying undermine what they see as traditional morality, and also the term "traditional morality" is so culturally subjective that it should not be used without explanation what these groups mean by it. Sophia 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We have previously covered that useage in discussions before you arrived. You can find it in the archives. I demonstrated that while it may be used quite a bit by the people who oppose gay rights, it is used by homosexuals as well and perhaps for a longer time than it was used by their opponents. The sense of traditional morality has been discussed before. I think it has been shelved for the time being while other matters are pursued. However, I do not think that you can describe what "these groups" mean by it in much more detail because, like "homosexual agenda" these groups are not so perfectly aligned that they all agree. --64.178.145.150 19:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think you have. In fact, I consider the current first paragraph unacceptable and endorse the following one, instead:

The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by conservatives who oppose gay rights to describe gay and lesbian activists' goals of increasing tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture. It refers to what is seen by conservatives as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider to be traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by many, particularly those who support the gay rights movement, who see the goals of the movement to be merely advocating equal rights and the removal of anti-homosexual bias from society.

As you can see, it doesn't speak of "pro-homosexual", and it recognizes the fact that the term is normally found with a "the" in front of it, to suggest that there is one specific agenda. It's much more accurate and neutral that the current version. Al 23:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are not a very good commentator on what I showed, because you did not even really read the cites I gave. You admittedly dismissed them out of hand and others told you that your criticisms were not valid. But never mind that. I sort of like your edit but I would change it as follows:

(I am combining several prior edits of this talk page together as I rethought my original position.)

The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by opponents to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture. It refers to what many opponents see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from what they consider to be traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by many, particularly those who see the goals of the movement to be merely advocating equal rights.

As you can see, it doesn't speak of either pro-homosexual or anti-homosexual. I also removed the word tolerance because its just another form of acceptance and hence redundant. It is also a bit laden. Finally, I do not identify the people as "conservatives" because this is extremely POV, laden and it is also not necessarily correct. So this is much more accurate and neutral than the current version and improves on your suggestion. (re-edited by)--Anon 64 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to implement a version of this. Al 03:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Al, please don't implement this until we've had a chance to discuss it. I'll comment on the paragraph in the next day or so. Right now, I'm going to bed. (grin) DavidBailey 03:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Your version is unacceptable according to WP:NOV so there is no need for me to wait for you. In the future, I will not do so. Instead, I will follow the consensus on Wikirules, even when this contradicts your efforts. Al 04:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with waiting a bit. For one reason, I think it would be good to see if there are any wordsmithing edits. Also, I hope that this version does not do any injury to anyone's views, but we need to see. However, I thank Alienus for agreeing with me! Perhaps a first. I have read that paragraph 3 times, now and, to my eye, it is so neutral it is bland and soporific. Perhaps that is a sign of a good compromise when the subject is "Controversial"? --Anon 64 04:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So, David Bailey -- everyone, are there changes that should be made to this paragraph? How long should we wait? --Anon 64 17:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. The answer is: we don't have to wait. Consensus is not a suicide pact. Al 04:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe we do not HAVE to wait but it is not totally inappropriate to give it a few days. Reasonable, I think. Polite as well. Anyway, I made some suggestions below. They are beyond the former changes. Do you have comments on those? --Anon 64 05:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought about the idea of "wordsmithing" for clarity some more and decided to put the paragraph through the MS Word Grammar analysis. Word says "considered to be" is too wordy. And we have it in there twice. Sort of weasle wordy. I dont want to weaken the sentences or do violence to any perspective but perhaps those phrases could be excluded, since, after all, we have established that we are describing a phrase used by opponents to describe something. So, I have made some changes... not to revised POV or content but only to improve readibility. However, I may have done some violence to the concepts. I'm looking for comments.

The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by opponents to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture. It refers to what they see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and to shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is offensive to some gay rights supporters, who see the goals of the movement to be merely advocating equal rights.

Word kind of likes this version and declares it to be at about the High School Sophomore level of reading, which I think is pretty good. Just for comparison purposes, look at how the paragraph used to read:

homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used to refer to the number of movements that share related goals of social acceptance of homosexuality and/or gender variance. It is not definitively known who first coined the term, but it is most often used by Christian fundamentalist groups and social conservatives, especially in the United States. Users of the term "homosexual agenda" typically do not support gay rights. [citation needed]

Social conservatives assert that gay and lesbian leaders and their supporters intend to redefine religion, marriage, and the family through law, culture, and popular media, and that they are shifting society's focus away from biblical morality.

GLAAD maintains that the term "Homosexual agenda" is a deeply offensive term used to refer to gay rights exclusively by those who oppose them.[1]

On the other hand, the similar term "gay agenda" is viewed by some as an attempt to make the argument more palatable to social moderates because most members of the LGBT community prefer "gay" to "homosexual" as "homosexual" appears clinical and recalls a time when homosexuality was viewed as an illness. Thus, the term "homosexual agenda" is often taken as an insult.[citation needed]

--Anon 64 19:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph by Anon 64 is largely acceptable to me. I think the first use of "gay rights" should be italicized to highlight that this is a controversial "term" and not assume a narrative role in the article. Here is what I propose.

The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by opponents to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture. It refers to what they see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and to shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is offensive to some gay rights supporters, who see the goals of the movement to be merely advocating equal rights.

Regards. DavidBailey 00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The article capsulizes the controversy between a group which sees the issue as one of Civil rights, and another group which sees the issue as one of Special rights. The uncritical use of the term "gay rights" accepts the viewpoint of the first group and therefore is POV and un-Wikipedic. Pollinator 03:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to be sympathetic to your perspective, but I just do not see it that way. Perhaps if you were to elaborate on the point more I could understand how exactly the term "gay rights" is (as David Bailey says) 'controversial' and how the use of this would be somehow not "uncritical". I just do not see it and perhaps it is a blindness on my part. --Anon 64 05:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or does anyone else think the old version of the intro has definite merits? I actually prefer it in the main (it needs minor grammar changes) as it is very clear and defines moralty as "biblical" which is pretty much where they get their justification for discrimination. It also identifies this as a largely US term which I suspect is true as it is not a frequently used here in the UK. There is a danger with introductions that they become grammatically perfect but actually say nothing very much. What do others think? Sophia 20:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There are some parts I like more, but there is no question that the current version is more bland and less POV. If you have a version you'd like to discuss beyond the most recently suggested, I love to read it. DavidBailey 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of the current introduction says "It is not certain who coined the term, but it is most often used by conservative Christian groups and social conservatives in the United States."

But are they any prominent users (or just widespread use) of the term who aren't conservative Christians but who are social conservatives? I suspect that the latter is unnecessary. Fireplace 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, David Bailey keeps reverting my edits to the intro paragraph. Unfortunately, what he keeps setting it to is in violation of NPOV, so I can't allow it. I understand that it would be nice if we all agreed on a consensus, but consensus cannot overrule NPOV. In addition, the version I've posted has been discussed and supported here on Talk, so it's not as if I'm ignoring consensus, either. The key here is that David is not permitted to freeze the page to his version, as he does not WP:OWN it. He can ask, but he cannot require.Al 21:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither do you own it, and I will not allow you to bully your way onto the article. The edit will proceed when there is consensus, not when you think it needs to. DavidBailey 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I reserve the right to enforce WP:NPOV, which is not negotiable. Al 22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that your NPOV is anothers POV. By being inflexible and tyrranical, you are thwarting the consensus process. DavidBailey 22:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Words like "bullying" are not helpful as Al has only had to make his point forcefully because David, you keep adding words such as "pro-homosexual" back into the intro which several editors have dismissed as unacceptably loaded. In fact unless I've missed it I think you are alone in feeling this term is suitable so please leave the current less POV version. We still have the tag and can work from there. Sophia 22:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Funny, I remember others that have gotten "bullied" too. They just tend to abandon the article rather than be berated by Al. And the only reason I reverted was so that we could complete discussion before implementing it. As I mentioned before, I have no significant quarrels with it. However, if folks don't get the chance to "yea" or "nay" it, then further edit wars are inevitable. DavidBailey 22:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a sad day for any thread when the focus turns from the issues at hand to commenting on other users actions. If you feel you have support to us the term "pro-homosexual" then please show me where I missed it. Sophia 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Al has made this necessary by his continued insistence on ignoring prior consensus. As to your query about that consensus, I direct you to archives 2 through 5. DavidBailey 22:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you have no actual objection to my repeated removal of such offensive terms as "pro-homosexual", then your repeated reverts are clearly counterproductive and should cease. Al 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole purpose of getting everyone to actually say they accept a paragraph is to avoid edit warring later. If you implement changes without allowing everyone to comment, you are making a value judgement in your opinion of what should be, not a consensus edit decision. In doing so, it is no different from directly editing the article without bothering to discuss anything with anyone. If you do that, especially in a controversial topic, you will get an edit war, because those who feel differently from you will make changes to your edits, then you will edit their edits, and so on and so forth. Both sides are attempting to enforce what they see as NPOV and both sides feel justified in their edits. We still have an edit war. If you will take a few deep breaths and allow the paragraph to distill over a period of a few days into something everyone supports, then we have something that can be used in the article that should withstand the edit wars. I should think this is something you would support considering your strong views. DavidBailey 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As we've established that there is a consensus against keeping "pro-homosexual", I see no reason to delay the removal of that misleading term. Remember, the process exists towards a purpose. Any process that fails to further the purpose is a waste of time. Al 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, simply removing the term changes the POV/NPOV of the paragraph, so it must be discussed in its entirety to ensure consensus. Here is my current candidate. If you don't support it, I'd like to hear your suggestions.

The Homosexual Agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term used by opponents to describe the goals of gay rights activists to increase acceptance of homosexuality in public policies, media, and culture. It refers to what they see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and to shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is offensive to some gay rights supporters, who see the goals of the movement to be merely advocating equal rights.

Regards. DavidBailey 17:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct: removing a POV term makes the paragraph more neutral, as is our goal. If you have any specific suggestions that you wish to explain the basis of, feel free. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss at this time. Al 17:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well, since there is nothing to discuss, I will edit as I see fit, and revert your attempts to silence me. DavidBailey 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Factual Disputes?

I understand that there are concerns about Neutrality, but what facts are disputed? --Anon 64 17:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added <citation needed> tags to the points that seem to be opinions presented as facts. CovenantD 14:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation and didn't see any more <citation needed> tags. I switched the article tag back to NPOV. Are you in agreement now CovenantD? DavidBailey 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything at the moment. thanks! CovenantD 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Characterizing the Agenda

I think that list is probably close to what people think is in the agenda, but the wording put up here seems to have a fairly strong POV. I realize that this is describing the views of people with a POV but the volume of the entries within the article and the length sort of detach the list from that sense of describing the views of others and so the list needs better working. For example I would not say Discrediting the Scriptures, but I would say something like "Disavowing the validity of religious teachings" or something like that. And instead of "Muzzling the clergy", I would say "Reducing or eliminating the influence of religion in public policy". Maybe that goes for both of those lines. And what exactly is "tapping" Corporate America? --Anon 64 18:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Just out of curiosity, why not leave the quote, which speaks for itself and requires no summary? Aren't we making it harder by trying to represent it in neutral terms? DavidBailey 00:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that approximating the content of the purported agenda is central to the article, and so more voices than Dobson's should be heard. A bulletted list (1) allows for an inclusion of multiple views without giving direct quote after direct quote, and (2) allows for easy editting (which cannot be done with quotes), such as those Anon 64 suggested (Dobson is on the more extreme end of the political spectrum, and his views may be distortions of the more common view). Fireplace 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe but I think that list needs a lot of editing work. It just rings wrong for an encyclopedia the way it is. --Anon 64 05:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to just include the quotes of those other than Dr. Dobson. That way, there is no interpretation taking place, and the comments are seen in context, or at least a reference allows the comments to be read in context. DavidBailey 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Because we're trying to show that belief in this agenda is shared and that common elements are ascribed to it, I think that three brief quotes describing the alleged agenda would be a good representative sampling, with appropriate references per David of course. Maybe even a few additional references in an Other reading section to show a larger sampling without overloading the article. CovenantD 19:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All good points. Since no one else is advocating extracting a list, I've reverted to the Dobson quote, plus a quote from Sears/Osten (president and VP of alliance defense fund). Fireplace 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fireplace. I think that's probably the best approach in an article so hotly contested. DavidBailey 22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Passive Voice in the Second Sentence

It refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality. I believe that it is better to use active voice. Instead of "is seen" we should write It refers to what XY see(s) as an attempt... Otherwise it sounds like everybody sees it as such an attempt, which is inaccurate. For the interim I would suggest the phrasing It refers to what certain people see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality until we can reach a more precise agreement on who sees it this way.--Bhuck 10:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Fireplace 16:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)\

Also agree. Sophia 19:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Bhuck, please the entire paragraph with your proposed edits here so we can discuss them. Thanks. DavidBailey 03:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, using the version history function, you should be able to place my proposed edits in the context in which they were made. Currently, the article has a sentence in this place which is in the active voice, and is more specific than "certain people", as it instead uses the phrase "many opponents". I consider this to be an improvement over my suggested phrasing, and a big improvement over the previous phrasing. However, I think there is also room for further improvement. The term "opponents" appears twice in the first paragraph, but there is no explicit statement of what it is, exactly, that they are opposing. Are they opposing gay rights activists? Or are they opposing the homosexual agenda? I think this should be more clearly stated, and I think to say that "the homosexual agenda is a term used by people opposing the homosexual agenda" is a bit self-referential, so we should probably define the term "opponents" by something else.--Bhuck 10:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that I can do that, but it makes discussion unwieldy. I believe it is better to the complete text here in discussion so all can easily view and comment on it. You may want to terminate this discussion thread, and add your recommendations to the paragraph that is being discussed further down so we can keep this discussion together instead of having it in so many places. DavidBailey 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The complete text keeps changing, however. You seem to be the only one having this problem; I get the feeling that you are attempting to delay discussion. I'm not sure what you mean by "further down", but I feel it is premature to archive this discussion thread as you did.--Bhuck 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I meant further up in "Proposed First Paragraph". And I am not intending to delay anything. It takes time to form a consensus. DavidBailey 22:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me briefly explain why I've once again been forced to revert David Bailey's changes.

1) Though there are a few ideas about what the homosexual agenda is, it is generally referred to as the homosexual agenda. Considier that, of the roughly 1,300,000 Google hits "homosexual agenda", 268,000 are for "the homosexual agenda". That's roughly a fifth, which supports my point strongly.

2) The edit failed to remove the "the" in "the gay agenda", which is sloppy and inconsistent.

3) The use of scare quotes or scare indents around "gay rights" is blatantly POV and entirely unacceptable. I will revert it at my convenience. Al 02:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The term "gay rights" is POV, and the use without attribution and/or qualification is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. So do you have another solution to the POV problem? -Other than just edit warring, that is... Pollinator 03:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to point me to where it says that allegedly POV terms should be given scare quotes or italics. Thank you. Al 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I invited you first to propose a truly neutral solution. You are evading the question. Pollinator 04:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The neutral solution is to remove the scare quotes and scare italics, as per the Wikipedia style guide. Al 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, let's also remove the "what they see as", "what they believe is", "what they view as", as they are also not neutral. DavidBailey 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you don't appear to understand WP:NOV at all. If I say "George W. Bush is a mass murderer", I am asserting this to be true and therefore violating NPOV. If I say, "According to Michael Moore, George W. Bush is a mass murderer", I am simply reporting someone's claim, which can be an entirely NPOV thing to do. The only way we can remove attributions is if we can show that the claim is uncontroversially true. For example, we don't write, "It is claimed by historian Miles Norwich that George Washington is the first American President", because this is uncontroversial and trivially sourced. At most, we put a little footnote to Norwich's notable monograph. Al 21:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case, you won't object to "The homosexual agenda (or the the gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of what activists call gay rights". DavidBailey 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say "...opponents of what everyone else calls gay rights", since those who do not call gay rights gay rights oppose gay rights. But I think that would serve neither your purpose nor the purpose of the rest of us editors.--Bhuck 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to homosexuality dispute

Since a lot of users seem to be active here, I'd like to invite you all to visit the Opposition_to_homosexuality and Talk:Opposition_to_homosexuality pages and help settle the dispute or improve the article. Thank you. --Facto 06:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV - equal validity

I think this page violates the Neutral point of view guidelines for "Giving 'equal validity'".

Basically the article quotes several sources which state (without proof) that there exists a "homosexual agenda" and then the article simply says that they homosexual community says that there is no agenda. To give a more specific example, the included quote "They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly" is in itself a violation of giving equal validity to POV vs fact.

The only way to save this article from the POV dustbin would be 1) If the "homosexual agenda" exists, then include hard evidence, or 2) if it does not exists, then give a clear description of what the homosexual community views as its goals to make it clear that the notion of an "agenda" is a POV from outside of the community.

Hope this helps.

ps In case I get flamed, please, show the facts?

Davidhc 21:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Davidhc

It's tricky because I think you can argue that the article is about the term, not the actual purported agenda (that would clearly be NPOV, because it's existence is controversial) -- and the term clearly does exist in widespread usage. Here are two proposals: change the title of the article to "Homosexual agenda theory", or (less drastically), just replace some/most/all instances of "homosexual agenda" with "purported homosexual agenda." Fireplace 21:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

To avoid violating WP:NPOV, we must carefully source all characterizations. In other words, we can never just say that there is a gay agenda and that it's about ruining marriage for everyone, but we can quote John Q. Notable in saying so. However, to achieve some balance, we can't let Mr. Notable and his partisans have the only say. We must also quote from supporters of gay rights who actively deny the existence of this Hitleresque secret agenda. Only when we have accomplished both of these will this article be neutral. Al 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10