Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 14

Protected
Ok, I have protected the page for a week because of edit warring. if everybody would be so kind to adhere to the Bold, revert, discuss cycle, this would not be necessary. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This'll give us all time to breathe and discuss. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 00:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

America-centric
Does the term "homosexual agenda" have an American basis or can the article be re-written to include the rest of the world. LordVetinari (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, it's an American conservative idea. I'm sure it's used in other countries, too, but I'm pretty sure it's mainly an American deal. Abyssal (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. A case can be made for either title, and there's certainly no consensus in this discussion. There's not even a significant majority, either in terms of sources, nor in terms of arguments being offered. Therefore, I don't see how a page move is broadly supported, or necessary at this time. - GTBacchus(talk) 17:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda → Gay agenda
 * This isn't the 1970s, "gay" is often more preferred over "homosexual"...least from what I've seen/read. gay has more results than homosexual. C T J F 8 3  06:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm getting old and out of the loop, but I've heard or read the phrase "gay agenda" only rarely. The phrase "homosexual agenda" has a specific history involving usage by people who weren't (in many cases still aren't) exactly cutting-edge in their thinking. The article should be titled based on the terminology predominant in its cited sources, whatever that may be. Rivertorch (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Skimming through the references, it appears the religious groups and the people pushing the idea of an agenda use homosexual, while the LGBT groups use gay. C T J F 8 3  06:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. And the former are the ones who coined the term. By and large, the latter use it ironically or in quotation marks. I'm a bit suspicious of the Google results (which shouldn't be definitive for article-naming purposes, anyway) and wonder whether the results for "gay agenda" might involve more mirrors and quoted passages. Rivertorch (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The meaning of "homosexual" is clear. For the old proper meaning of "gay" see gay. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No: The coiners of the term use "homosexual agenda". There was an athlete whose last name was "Gay" who ended up with "Homosexual" as a last name in some conservative news outlet releases because of their automatic software that stripped out all occurrences of "gay" in favor of the preferred term!  — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 15:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows the sources:
 * homosexual agenda .............gay agenda
 * googlenews.....79..........................87
 * googlebooks...4090.......................4830
 * it appears that the more common usage in reliable sources is (a surprise to me) "gay agenda" - support move. Active Banana    (bananaphone  18:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "homosexual agenda" wins on both searches if you restrict the search to just the years 2000–2011. Furthermore, results will be skewed in favor of "gay agenda" for headline convenience -- it's much shorter.  Powers T 19:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The term apparently originated in '92 - so we would restrict to the 2000's because.....? Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I 2nd that, why would we restrict? Other than to skew it to one result. C T J F 8 3  20:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because recent sources are more important. If recent sources show a different usage pattern, that means usage has shifted and we should favor the more current usage over the older one.  Powers T 02:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "[R]ecent sources are more important"? Really? Why? Because they're newer? Doesn't that seem to be a bit arbitrary? (See also: WP:Recentism) Seems to me the anti-gay movement originally came up with "gay agenda" then moved toward "homosexual agenda" when "gay" became a more acceptable word to the public and "homosexual" remains less acceptable (though they mean essentially the same thing.) Support. Wikipedia should continue to call it the gay agenda because being gay is more acceptable now than it was in the past and calling it the "homosexual agenda" seems to be weighted towards a fringe viewpoint. (Wikipedia probably originally called it "homosexual" because "gay" seemed more colloquial, though I don't know if that's true or not.) 207.65.109.10 (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. Problem is, the phrase arguably denotes a fringe viewpoint. If those subscribing to a fringe viewpoint invent something and call it by a fringy name, I'm not sure WP should be in the business of renaming it something less fringy. Doing so might have an inappropriately sanitizing effect, even if that's unintentional. (All this is probably academic, but I think it's an interesting point with some relevance here.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the other factor that I did not include yet in my postition is which term do the sources that we actually use in our article tend to use? Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See my 2nd post above. C T J F 8 3  21:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: I've always heard of it as "gay agenda", and while antigay campaigners may prefer "homosexual" over "gay" overall, I'm not sure that's true with "gay agenda" vs "homosexual agenda". For instance, the article cites a video series by the Family Research Council that used the name, The Gay Agenda (1992), followed by The Gay Agenda in Public Education (1993), and The Gay Agenda: March on Washington (1993). Senator Tom Coburn used "gay agenda" explicitly. But when inspecting some of the references in the article for "homosexual agenda", I found few: one 2010 pamphlet by the Family Research Council used "homosexual agenda", but by and large sources like James Dobson and the Alliance Defense Fund just allude to an "agenda" (the way Wikipedia paraphrases them implies that they use "homosexual agenda", but this is often not the case). The balance of sources in the article and the Google results lead me to believe that "homosexual agenda" is the rarer phrase. Quigley (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Opponents of the "agenda" generally use the word "homosexual", "gay agenda" is more typically used by gay/lesbian activists who claim the "agenda" doesn't exist (or that it consists of partying or stuff like that). 184.163.175.250 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — 184.163.175.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Even if that were true, which my search lead me to believe that it isn't, why are we bound to use the earliest variant of a term used in primary literature rather than the much more common variant used in the numerous secondary sources that criticize it? Quigley (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Because the primary use is what the article is about, not the reaction to it or criticism of it, which is secondary. Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Using google to scan specifically the FRC and AFA sites (using the "site:" search feature) shows that both organizations use both terms interchangeably. (I almost always hear it as "gay agenda," but I'm not hanging out with the FRC or AFA folks.) I'd argue that changing the page to "Gay agenda" would allow the article to also discuss how the GLBT community has appropriated the term for itself. It would be more inclusive, as they say. ;^) Aristophanes 68   (talk)  17:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * unnecessary, ActiveBanana's search results above are so close to each other that it is impossible to determine a "correct" title. The results do not indicate a more common usage. Move is unnecessary.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request from 95.37.8.120
TRANSLATE IT INFORMATION Russian languiage

Существует один неубиенный аргумент, почему пропаганды не существует. Этот довод вызвал не мало срачей на десятки страниц, но ни кто его так и не смог опровергнуть: Пропаганда гомосексуализма - выдумка. Она никого совратить не может ввиду того, что самый мощнейший фактор совращения - демонстрация эротических образов. "Всё уже украдено до вас", "все геи уже соблазнены до вас" эротическими образами одного с ними пола. Мужчине показывают эротический образ мужчины (в каждом фильме и каждом журнале)  и если он имеет соответствующую предрасположенность, то ему понравится этот образ в сексуальном плане. Рано или поздно это произойдет, но не из-за мифической "пропаганды гомосексуализма", меня смешат люди которые всерьез думают, что геев соблазняют ЛОЗУНГИ, а не эротика, которая всегда была частью нашей культуры. Т.е. это выдумки, чтоб задавить ЛГБТ движение, лишний раз его пнуть и пнуть те партии, которые ЛГБТ поддерживают, раскритиковав их за несуществующую пропаганду. Это называется ВЫГОДНЫЙ МИФ ибо кто-то на этом мифе делает политический капитал, разрушь этот миф и какое-либо протестное движение заглохнет. Я прошу популяризировать эту точку зрения в СМИ. Бессмысленно беспокоиться за "пропаганду" того, что каждый день дегустируется. БЕссмысленно беспокоиться о "пропаганде гомосексуализма", если эротические образы своих полов люди дегустируют каждый день через культуру (эротика всегда была частью культуры). А пропаганда лесбиянства? Посмотрите каких аппетитных девушек по ТВ показывают: на их образы соблазняются лесби, а не на правозащитную деятельность. Весь вой о "пропаганде" - мыльный пузырь: слов много а реальной почвы НЕТ, и миф о пропаганде гомо выгоден тем, кто хочет пинать политических оппонентов поддерживающих ЛГБТ, но я этот миф разоблачаю и он потеряет популярность со временем. Почему эротическая фотка женщины не считается пропагандой лесбиянства? Соблазнится же? Но гей-лозунги вызывают истерику. Точнее, не вызывают, а она вызывается манипуляторами. Всй это большая провокация с целью заработать политический капитал на этом мифе. Даже во власть проникает эта глупая паника. Даже Война и мир может быть сочтена "пропагандой гомосексуализма. Еще раз: все геи соблазнены эротическими образами через СМИ и имели к этому предрасположенность, эротические образы казались им аппетитными, а не лозунги, однако беспокоятся за ЛОЗУНГИ ибо лозунги это политическая конкуренция, а эротика - нет. Вот и верь теперь СМИ.

95.37.8.120 (talk) 27 August 2011


 * Google translate didn't do a good job with this text, but it appears to be an unsourced essay and is therefore unsuitable for WP. AV3000 (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Concise writing vs. improper grammar
Rather than trying to guess at the objections, here is my run-down of my recent touch-up to the lead. Please specify your objections here. Could we please concentrate on the areas of disagreement without resorting to blanket removal of grammatical and stylistic improvements? Thanks. FiveColourMap (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Moved the description of the term as a pejorative from the second sentence to the first. The article is in Category:Pejoratives, and the article does not indicate that the term is used seriously in any other sense. I am not aware of any attempt to reclaim the term, but if there is then this should be discussed separately. This change makes the old second sentence completely redundant, rendering its inclusion bad style.
 * 2) Linked to Conservatism in the United States instead of Conservatism. The sentence specifically references the US, so the more specific article is a better link.
 * 3) Removed links to LGBT social movements and List of LGBT rights organizations. These articles did not really fit the link text (would a reader expect to be directed there based on the context?); they are included in the LGBT template at the bottom, so the interested reader can still find the articles. I do not feel particularly strongly one way or the other on this bullet, though the link text should be changed if the links are restored.
 * 4) Changed advocacy to promotion. The old sentence was ambiguous. If you have a better word than promotion, by all means make the suggestion.
 * 5) Added a comma after the long parenthetical. When deciding whether a comma should be used, ignore the parenthetical. The sentence is then structured as The term is applied to Case 1, as well as Case 2. Omission of a comma here is grammatically incorrect. Please stop.
 * 6) Please read and understand English relative clauses, particularly the differences between that and which.
 * 7) Changed gay rights activists to LGBT rights activists. The latter term is both more descriptive and consistent with the usage elsewhere in the article. If the more restrictive term is justified here, please explain.
 * 8) Remove quote marks from "recruiting". The term is not being used as a term of art or as part of a direct quote. Why should it be formatted thus?
 * We do not write ledes based on the categories assigned to an article. The text of the article suggests that the term is considered a pejorative by some. There are insufficient sources for this usage in the first sentence.– Lionel (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You consider "homosexual agenda" not perjorative but that "bigot" is. A nice consistent argument. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WTF are you talking about? – Lionel (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Family Research Council pamphlet
As I requested with this edit, I am opening for discussion the mention of a 2010 pamphlet from the Family Research Council using the phrase homosexual agenda. As I see it, FRC is a relatively big fish in the little pond that is the use of this term. Their recent use provides a salient example of how the term is used. The example is noteworthy in itself, and also serves the function of providing evidence to the reader that the term has not fallen into disuse in the last half decade. Counterarguments? FiveColourMap (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an incident that, unless several reliable sources showing that it caused a stir can be provided, amounts to nothing more than trivia. There are many, many more examples that have attained much more notice, and are also just better examples. Take Antonin Scalia's (As I see it, a Supreme Court Justice is a significantly bigger fish than the FRC, nor is it a "little pond", it's a rather prevalent term used by certain parties) mention of it in his dissenting opinion during Lawrence v. Texas, for instance. As it stands, however, there are more than enough examples, and the use and prevalence of the term is more than sufficiently demonstrated by the examples we currently have. Mythpage88 (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, leave the sarcasm at home; it does nothing to bolster your argument.
 * By little pond, I mean that the term is not particularly common except among a certain set (idiom). Nobody is arguing for the removal of Scalia, so I am not sure I follow your point. I think that more and more prominent examples would only help the reader understand how the term is applied and by whom. Further analysis? FiveColourMap (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In looking the article over, I think it seems reasonable to include mention of the pamphlet as a recent use of the phrase by a notable actor. Since it breaks the chronological flow of the section, I'd suggest moving it to a new subsection (perhaps entitled "Recent usage") below the "After the Ball" subsection. Any thoughts on this? I'd normally be bold and just do it, but there's been way too much back-and-forthing with the article lately and I think it would be as well to shoot for consensus first. Rivertorch (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Pejorative?
New editor WHAMMBO removed the word "pejorative" from the lead sentence—which formerly read "Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by some conservatives in the United States to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships"—with the edit summary ''Removed the word 'pejorative'. What is pejorative about the phrase "Homosexual Agenda"? There may be some question of biased opinion here''. I restored it primarily because it seemed simply and uncontroversially descriptive of what the article went on to say, and to a lesser extent because the article is in the category Pejoratives. Mythpage88 has removed it again, citing "no mention of it being pejorative in the article".

"Pejorative" means "expressing contempt or disapproval". It seems clear that that's the way that homosexual agenda and gay agenda are used, according to the article. If there's any evidence that the term is used positively or neutrally, I think it would be important to include that information in the article. In the meantime, I'm unclear on what the problem is with the word. Is there a better word that communicates the same idea as clearly and concisely? Rivertorch (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The objection was that "pejorative" was not used in the body. You can either find sources that explain that it is pejorative (for example Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender public policy issues, p.83, labels this "derogatory") or use the word currently in the text as used by researchers of "anti-gay". --Fæ (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the latter, personally. Mythpage88 (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anti-gay denotes it being a pejorative. Jeez. The lede is a summary, you don't repeat sentences word for word in it. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   09:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anti-gay denotes it as being far more extreme than a pejorative. Since when is one word "repeating [a] sentence" word-for-word? Mythpage88 (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Mythpage, I think you may have missed Obsidian's point. The lede is a summary, not a word-for-word rehashing of later content. In other words, a word need not be found in the body of an article to justify its inclusion in the lede; as long as a given word summarizes without introducing something new or different or skewing the general thrust of the article in any way, it should be fine. And Fae, I'm aware of what the stated objection was, but I'm asking for clarification. My point was that I take "pejorative" to be a simply descriptive word that serves to summarize the way in which the phrase homosexual agenda is used in the world, per the article. Do others think that isn't the case? Rivertorch (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know my response was a bit literal, and I don't agree with the word being removed on a dubious basis. However we often struggle with ensuring that lead text does not introduce bias or subtly introduce material that turns out to be unsourced in the body. I suggest to avoid complications (in a previously controversial article) that a word mentioned in sources such as "derogatory" or "anti-gay" is used rather than bothering to logic-chop dictionary definitions of possible synonyms. --Fæ (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (conflict) A dictionary definition of "pejorative": "having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force". This is an accurate and succinct summary of the article body material, and I agree with Rivertorch that it does not need to be cited literally. AV3000 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The lifestyle sentence, lede
There's been a lot of fair back and forth about the use of scare quotes and such in this sentence, and I'm sympathetic to a lot of the views expressed there, but I don't think we're going to get consensus short of a discussion deeper than edit summaries, so I've brought it here.

My latest edit (which I'm not happy with) left it at:


 * The term has also been used by social conservatives to describe alleged goals of LGBT rights activists, such as recruiting heterosexuals into what they term a 'homosexual lifestyle'.[citation needed]

One of the real problems here is that "homosexual lifestyle" is a dog whistle term. Rather than a neutral description meaning only "the generic range of lives lived by homosexuals", the phrase is in practice pejorative and laced with sexual innuendo. it's problematic for us to say without unambiguously saying to a neutral reader what is meant by it, and it's problematic for us to say it without sources. We do both here.

(Try replacing "homosexual" in "homosexual lifestyle" with other racial, sexual or religious minorities and the problems may become clearer.)

Dobson's quote is the only thing we have close to a source for this anywhere in the article, but it doesn't define the term--even if we characterize it, the unexplained use of the term is still a problem, scare quotes or no.

Perhaps we should ditch the sentence entirely, or find another example of an item on the so-called gay agenda to use as an example. But I do think there's a real meaning to the sentence we have if we can make it more neutral and unambiguous to our readers, and my preference would be to find neutral sources that say what we're trying to say there, and work from them to recraft that particular bit of wording. --joe deckertalk to me 16:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has much more glaring cases of articles on terms which assign a POV pejorative terms in lieu of more neutral wording. A related one with problems 10x worse than this is Homophobia. Perhaps you could help fix that. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, I have blocked an edit-warrior just now trying to insert a POV into this article, but I do agree he made an unstated point that using "a pejorative term" rather than just "a term" wasn't in line with WP:NPOV either, so I have removed the word "pejorative" because nothing in the article or references seem to support the term "homosexual agenda" being pejorative. It's just a term, and the term is described quite well otherwise. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And if there are sources that say the term is not pejorative, I mean, reliable ones, then we should discuss that as well.  I suspect that those will be far fewer in number, but "let the sources tell."  --j⚛e deckertalk 18:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Likely you'll find zero sources making a negative claim like that. Even so, Wikipedia still shouldn't use the word in Wikipedia's voice, but rather attribute it to the source, as I see has already been done. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Until there are more neutral sources to establish it as a general truth, yeah. If we started seeing mainstream dictionary publishers labelling as pejorative, I'd disagree with you, but here it's definitely a battleground, and attribution isn't optional.  --j⚛e deckertalk 19:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, North8000, thank you for your indirect admission that the text I originally pointed at was problematic, even if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It may, I haven't looked at that other article, but your concurrence that the text here is a problem is appreciated.  --j⚛e deckertalk 18:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead section edit warring
appears to be engaging in an edit war regarding a sentence in the lead that simply serves to provide an overview of the body of the article, in accordance with WP:LEAD. Belchfire appears to think that a simple overview sentence somehow maligns a group, when all it does is summarize.

I invite Belchfire to participate here. Please explain your reasoning. You are being reverted multiple times by multiple editors. You won't get the version you want if you continue edit-warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with your last edit. It captures the narrower focus I was seeking very well. Belchfire (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I support the lead as it was before 3rd July. --Scientiom (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, every example in the article is a conservative Christian organization, and it shouldn't be controversial to state in the lead that the term originated with those organizations. The lead need not specify what groups use the term now. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't be controversial so long as we keep it factual and don't mislead. Towards that end, it's crucial to capture the nuances accurately: Not all conservatives are politically opposed to LGBT issues, nor are all Christians; not all conservatives are Christians.  Earlier versions of the article failed to convey those truths.  It smacked of bigotry.  Belchfire (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Per various Wikipedian policies and guidelines, the article is supposed to be about the topic covered by the term, not the term itself.    This article needs significant rewriting to conform to that. Right now it is more focused on covering (and criticizing) the term rather than the subject covered by the term. North8000 (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Articles can be about terms, so long as they meet WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT. Which of the two do you believe this article violates? I've always presumed that was the underlying basis of the existence of this article. For if this article is instead about the topic covered by the term, and I request that we get some consensus on which it is, well, then, I think it's pretty clear that the article has a non-neutral title and violates WP:NPOV and WP:ARTICLETITLE, wouldn't you say? --j⚛e deckertalk 23:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In any case, I would like to see a clear agreement on what the topic of this article is. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You make an interesting point, but I'm not sure if I share your discomfort with the content that exists so far. The term exists largely as a pejorative and is commonly seen as such by (thus, my insistence on correctly identifying its origins), and I think the article currently does a good job of explaining that.  To my eye, the definition of the term receives adequate explanation along the way to covering its history and usage.  There are other articles extant which explain the aims and history of LGBT politics, but without the quasi-pejorative word "agenda" tagged on to the end.  [shrug] What specific improvements would you suggest? Belchfire (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Scare marks and paragraph in satire section
I dispute that the scare marks are necessary for neutral distancing. It is the least neutral way to present the information. Also, there is other terminology in the article which does not have scare marks around them and so I don't think that "appropriate to this specific terminology" is a reason either. I also don't understand how the paragraph I removed is relevant to this article about the alleged homosexual agenda. 2.102.186.235 (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the quotation marks for a direct quote? Insomesia (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)To excluded the quotes would imply acceptance of the terminology by Wikipedia, even if it is attributed in context. The terminology is very loaded, bordering on invective. What other terminology do you think should have quotation marks?


 * (I can't speak to the removed paragraph.) – MrX 22:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any quote marks from a quotation. They are all scare marks that are already attributed to others. By putting scare marks around them makes Wikipedia take a position on the terms. It doesn't imply acceptance of the terminology by Wikipedia, it is simply reporting what they are without commenting on them. Placing scare marks around them is making a POV comment on the terms. I don't think any other terminology should have quotation marks. 2.102.186.235 (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you mean scare quotes. – MrX 22:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. 2.102.186.235 (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess its a matter of opinion whether its more POV to have quotes or to exclude them. I can not find a clear guideline in WP help, so I think other editors will have to weigh in. My view is slightly in favor of keeping the quotes in this case, but I wouldn't be opposed to removing them if consensus supports doing so. – MrX 00:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the scare quotes article, Style guides generally recommend the avoidance of scare quotes in impartial works, such as in encyclopedia articles or academic discussion. 2.102.186.235 (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed here before. As I see it, inclusion of phrases such as "gay agenda" and "homosexual lifestyle" without enclosing them in quotation marks carries the implication that they are terms whose meaning is clear or settled, whether or not they're accurately or fairly applied in the context. Rivertorch (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove them all. Some are necessary. I only remove two because one was preceded by "alleged" and the other was preceded by "presumed" and followed by saying it is anti-gay propaganda. The scare quotes makes both sentences biased. 2.102.186.235 (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you're saying, but I see quite the reverse: It seems to me that the sentences are biased without the quotes. Consider a hypothetical analogy: "At the anti-terrorism conference, Van Helsing announced his support for extending the ban on issuing phlebotomy licenses to all former residents of Transylvania, noting that the living dead are frequently found working in hospitals and blood banks."That sentence would be problematic because because it implies that the "living dead" actually exist. (See? I can't even discuss it now without putting it in quotes.) But they don't exist except as a construct that's disputed by most authorities and challenged by science and reason. Same thing with "gay agenda" and "homosexual lifestyle", which exist only in the rhetoric of certain parties who either are incapable of logical thinking or have objectives that are at odds with equality and civil rights. They are terms intended to produce an effect in their audience. Indeed, one might call them "scare terms". Rivertorch (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In your example, it shouldn't have scare quotes if it said "claiming" or "alleging" rather than "noting". I think your example shows how silly it would be to both say "alleging" whilst putting the terms in scare quotes. It would mean that WIkipedia is itself mocking what that person is saying. In the article, the sentences as they currently stand are mocking the allegation and terms in Wikipedia's voice, rather than simply presenting criticism of them through sources. 2.102.186.235 (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. "Van Helsing alleged that the count was one of the living dead" vs. "Van Helsing alleged that the count was one of the 'living dead'" . . . the first construction appears to imply that it's possible the count really is one of the "living dead", because it carries the presupposition that such creatures actually exist, while the second implies merely that the count is alleged to be something that Van Helsing believes to exist. It's not a perfect analogy, of course. In any event, I don't see it as a question of monumental importance, so unless someone else would like to defend the quotation marks, I'll rest my case. It looks like there are other things happening with the article. Rivertorch (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a better analogy. However, the allegation that this article describes has many more proponents than those that believe in the living dead and it is more likely to be true or possible than the existence of the living dead. Therefore, Wikipedia taking a position on the issue isn't NPOV. 2.102.186.235 (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The above IP is the idefinitely blocked Acoma Magic, who complained about and edit-warred over scare quotes in the same way. I'm surprised no one besides me has called him out yet on being Acoma Magic. But compare his editing style to that of Acoma Magic's and you will see that this is most assuredly him. 187.121.196.86 (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the lead
Let's discuss the change here. My view is that the current lead is not a summary of the main body. For instance, I can't see all these examples in the main body: same-sex marriage and civil unions, LGBT adoption, recognizing sexual orientation as a protected civil rights minority classification, LGBT military participation, inclusion of LGBT history and themes in public education, introduction of anti-bullying legislation to protect LGBT minors. Until the article is expanded to include all of these, then the change is correct per WP:LEAD. 2.102.186.235 (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems with the lead
The lead is supposed to be a summary of what is in the article. There is a large amount of material in the lead which is not in the article. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could be more specific about what changes you think are needed. – MrX 13:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, about 3/4 of what is in the lead is not in the article. I'll try a quick fix.    Which will be to copy that material into the article and then shorten/summarize the copied material in the lead. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I did that.  Both before and after my work what is in the lead is only the definition.  Now what needs doing is to expand / have the lead (to) include more summary of what is elsewhere in the article. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
Similar to War on Women, "Homosexual agenda" (or "Gay agenda") is properly introduced as a term, as a political catchphrase, not as a real agenda. For that reason, the first instances of the terms ("homosexual agenda" and "gay agenda") should be put in quotation marks, to unequivocally clarify in our encyclopedic voice that we are not discussing the concept as an actual homosexual agenda so much as the political buzzword it is. --213.168.89.157 (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite right. You may want to read some of the discussions further up this page, however. Not everyone agrees on this point. Rivertorch (talk) 06:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Vacation nine 03:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This request would certainly improve the article. If someone can provide a reference or two from a reliable source, it would be easier to add. Although from a quick scan of War on Women, it doesn't look like any source is specifically calling it a catchphrase besides us. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda → Gay agenda – This article was moved from gay agenda to homosexual agenda in 2006. Google Trends shows that the former is more common. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If we don't use Google hits to determine notability, why should we use them for titling articles? Google's analysis of books shows that "homosexual agenda" is still the preferred term in books. If I had to choose between Google hits and books as a reliable source for determining common usage, I'd go with the books. I'll add that "homosexual agenda" is how the term was coined by its originators. That said, I find the difference between Trends and Books interesting. Maybe it's because authors consider the word "gay" more slang than mainstream, and avoid using it in the formal context of a book? I don't know. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments the last time this was proposed. Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Google hits are completely irrelevant. Usage reported in reliable sources is what counts. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Google Ngrams throws up mixed results depending on case-sensitivity so I can't see a case to change the title. Zarcadia (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grammar error
Re: "In 2003, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote in his dissent in the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas that..." Someone should remove the comma between the subject and the verb ("Scalia, wrote"). In general, it is a grammatical error in English to separate the subject and verb by a comma unless they are separated by an interceding clause (and in that sentence, they are not). I would correct it myself, but I can't because the article is protected.
 * ✅ - Thanks. - MrX 19:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Responses missing one original response
This article about "homosexual agenda" references the tape or tape series "The Gay Agenda". GLEMC (Gay and Lesbian Emergency Media Campaign) provided an 8- or 9-minute response tape called "Hate, Lies, and Videotape". A clip of this is shown in the film For the Bible Tells Me So. I was hoping to learn more about it here, but surprisingly it isn't mentioned. I'm not sure I know how best to add this material, since it's a response both to the idea of "homosexual agenda" but also a direct response to "The Gay Agenda". Also not sure how to cite it. And also it wasn't the only tape GLEMC made on the subject. Sacred Lies, Civil Truths is an hour-long tape also from 1993.24.57.210.141 (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're hesitant to be bold and just add it to the article, you can propose the wording here on the talk page and see if there's consensus to add it. Either I or someone else will be happy to help format the citation(s). Rivertorch (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead
Editor 71.232.123.202 made these edits to the lead, which to my ears and eyes, renders the content less neutral, not more neutral.

My major concerns are:

- MrX 18:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Removal of the word pejorative. As far as I'm aware, the mainstream view from our reliable sources is that the terms "homosexual agenda" and "gay agenda" are in fact pejorative terms used to discredit all that is gay, but especially lobbying, advocacy, pursuit of civil rights, existing, and so on. Perhaps there is a better word than pejorative, but there does need to be qualifying adjective that properly shows that the term "homosexually agenda" is not broadly accepted.
 * 2) Removal of the phrase "by some conservative Christians" from the first sentence. I think there needs to be attribution to whatever group (or groups) commonly use these terms as a bludgeon. If it's not "some conservative Christians", then what is it?
 * 3) The phrases "advocacy of cultural acceptance" was replaced with "forcible cultural acceptance" in the first sentence. I think this is clearly NPOV, as forcible seems to imply the "use of force or threat of force", or possibly even violence. Again, I don't think this phrasing is at all consistent with the mainstream view, or our principles of creating neutral content.
 * I agree, especially concerning the word force, although I do think that the word advocacy shouldn't link to LGBT social movements per WP:EGG; it should be more apparent what is being linked. Other than that though, I agree with your points. - SudoGhost 18:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Homosexual advocacy redirects to LGBT social movements. Teammm  $talk email$ 18:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then homosexual advocacy is probably what should be displayed as opposed to advocacy, because if a reader clicks on the word advocacy, per the principle of least astonishment and WP:SPECIFICLINK they are probably expecting to land on advocacy, not homosexual advocacy. - SudoGhost 19:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have re-removed (as has been done many times in the past) the term 'pejorative', as there has never been a consensus that Wikipedia should dictate to readers how the term should be characterized. Including it violates WP:NPOV. It has been discussed before on this talk page. If you want to include the term, then find a way of doing so that isn't in Wikipedia's voice. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed, and as far as I can tell, your position on this is in the minority. By all means, let's discuss it now. I'll start: We call things what they are per SPADE. We also follow our sources and don't whitewash content to accommodate or give equal weight to fringe viewpoints. - MrX 19:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The more obvious flaw is saying who uses it, (just) some conservative Christians.   Even the sentence later in that paragraph refutes that. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest changing it to? - MrX
 * Consensus was not established to remove the word pejorative here in December 2011 or here, in June 2012, where there was no consensus, but more of an edict from two involved admins. Remarkably even Belchfire stated that the term is a pejorative. - MrX 20:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Responding to MrX, "Used by some social conservatives, conservative Christians and others" North8000 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. Then we can drop "social conservatives" from the last sentence of the first paragraph. - MrX 02:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus was not established to include the term. More to the point, consensus was never established to contravene Wikipedia policies or guidelines just because a small majority may see fit to do so by reference to an essay (WP:SPADE) that doesn't have the same weight. The WP:BURDEN is on those who wish to include the term to come up with a valid reason, grounded in policy, why Wikipedia should dictate an unsourced opinion on how readers should view the topic. Bottom line, stating that "homosexual agenda" is "pejorative" in the lead promotes a non-neutral point of view. Synthesizing sources to conclude that "homosexual agenda" is pejorative amounts to original research. The relevant policies and guidelines here are WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS. All three are violated by including the word "pejorative" in the lead. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Give me a break. I'm well aware of the policies. They don't prevent us from referring to Nazis as fascists, or the sky as BLUE. I accept that it the notion the term is pejorative (or what ever words best conveys the meaning) needs to be reliably sourced, but the notion that OR prevents us from describing an idea with a one word adjectives is unfounded. I also disagree that that word renders the presentation of the concept in a non-neutral fashion, although omitting that word seems to add a healthy amount of POV in support of the fallacious notion that there really is a gay agenda. Neutral point of view does not require stripping all meaning and nuance from terms that are the subject of articles. How about giving some credit to other experienced editors who have objected to your repeated removal of this term from the article? - MrX 22:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The policies don't prevent us from referring to Nazis as fascist because that assertion in the lead of Nazism is well sourced. They don't prevent us from calling the sky blue because that is verifiable by direct and objective observation, the same way that 2+2=4. Neither of those situations applies here.


 * If you can't see that synthesizing sources to come up with an adjective is OR, then perhaps we should take this to WP:ORN. I recall getting into a dispute like this before, and took your position that something was self-evident. It spread over multiple noticeboards and eventually I had to agree that what may be self-evident, isn't. The fact that this word "pejorative" generates controversy is an indicator that not everyone agrees it's self-evident. Bottom line, you want to call something pejorative, find reliable sources that describe the term in that fashion. If there aren't any, then the burden for including the adjective hasn't been met.


 * The notion that the presence of an unnecessary and controversial adjective does anything to maintain neutrality is unfounded. Omitting adjectives is always more neutral. The notion that omitting an adjective actually introduces a POV is, frankly, ridiculous. Omitting the word doesn't make the article claim there is a gay agenda. The lead sentence is quite clearly about a term, not about an agenda, and omitting "pejorative" does not change the meaning in any way.


 * Neutral point of view does not mean we should impose meanings and nuances to things that the readers should determine for themselves. The LGBT community considers it pejorative. The conservative religious community probably doesn't. Those communities have their own biases. They wouldn't agree about the term "pejorative" but both would agree that "homosexual agenda" is a term, which is precisely what the lead states. Can't get much more neutral than that.


 * Shall we take this to WP:ORN and WP:NPOVN? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's not take it to a noticeboard unless we can't resolve it here, hopefully with the participation of other editors. You make some compelling arguments and I'm very open to being shown the error of my ways.


 * Your third paragraph gives some pause. I agree that "pejorative" can be controversial in some contexts, but I disagree that it is unnecessary in this case. What I would ask you is, is there no subject in this encyclopedia that you believe warrants having the word pejorative attached to it? Or, to put it another way, is there any term or phase that can be called pejorative by our standards of neutrality? Then, if you answer yes, ask yourself if that descriptor is controversial or not.


 * I am going to take the opportunity to catch up with some sources, to better understand how they treat the subject. I'm also receptive to exploring other words that may better present the subject -- neutrally, but descriptively. - MrX 02:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the uses/ meanings in practice vary from the benign (where "agenda" means just "objectives" in a low key way) through critical/criticism/adversarial tactic / debating tactic in the mid-range through "pejorative" at the other range of the spectrum. Possibly wording which essentially says it's always the word from one end of the spectrum needs modification. North8000 (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is largely unchanged since what I said in this thread (which was short and to the point—I recommend it!), but I decided at some point that it wasn't terribly important. While it's hard to imagine a cogent argument that the term is used non-pejoratively (except when it's used ironically, of course), the "missing word" doesn't create a critical flaw in the article, as far as I can tell. I would suggest that omitting an adjective most certainly can introduce a POV problem. Whether it does so here is something reasonable Wikipedians can disagee over. I think it does, but I don't think it's worth spending much time arguing the point. Rivertorch (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Homosexual agenda is most assuredly meant as a slur and used pejoratively as is most cases of insisting LGBT people are homosexualists. It's in the same vein as mythologizing the "Civil War as though it were a misunderstanding between two equally worthy sides. Such misinformation helps to perpetuate and give sanction to much residual psychosis in American life. - Mick Lasalle" These are the same people who lead others to believe the non-stop brutalization of LGBT people including gruesome murders (not to mention the overt and covert discrimination faced every day) has nothing to do with the Christian right wings non-stop demonization of LGBT people. Let's not soft-peddle hate and spiritual violence. Insomesia (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the word pejorative is appropriate for the lead; omitting it is not consistent with NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course it's a slur. It's also a hoax. While we're at it, we could rewrite the lead sentence of Piltdown Man to read, "Piltdown Man is a term used to describe fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human." Or, at another article, how about "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a text used to describe a Jewish plan for global domination." Of course, that would be Point-y.
 * Right. It's also a canard (see Antisemitic canard for similar examples). - MrX 19:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For anyone who didn't have time to follow my link to the archived discussion of last year, I said: "Pejorative" means "expressing contempt or disapproval". It seems clear that that's the way that homosexual agenda and gay agenda are used, according to the article. And as long as a given word summarizes without introducing something new or different or skewing the general thrust of the article in any way, it should be fine. And I take 'pejorative' to be a simply descriptive word that serves to summarize the way in which the phrase homosexual agenda is used in the world, per the article. I would note also that the claim of no consensus for inclusion of the word "pejorative" is a bit suspect. Of the five contributors who participated in the aforementioned discussion, three supported inclusion of the word, one was on the fence, and the fifth preferred substituting "anti-gay". No one indicated support for simple removal of the word. A later thread resulted in no change in that apparent consensus. Rivertorch (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the past discussions, which is why I was surprised that Amatulić kept removing the word. - MrX 19:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a Conservative Christian, and I often use the term "Homosexual Agenda" but never in a pejorative way. I find extreme bias in most of these comments and in the article itself. I sometimes have heard the term used in a derogatory way, but RARELY. I think a more neutral position would be to say that it is sometimes used in a derogatory way. I use the term myself simply to refer to the many organizations that make up the social and political movement to change the way society views homosexuality and the way that laws deal with this sexual behavior. I do not use the term to express contempt or disapproval, although I might be critical of the movement while using the term.  There is an important distinction to be made here, or you will never allow anyone to express disapproval of any social or political movement without being considered a bigot.  I strongly object to the idea that the term Homosexual Agenda is any kind of slur. If any of you insist on that, then please suggest an alternative term to use. For example, most probably consider the words sodomite and faggot to be slurs, and the alternative word chosen by the homosexual community is to use the word gay instead.  Is there an alternative word to describe the social and political movement that would not be considered offensive, or is it just the idea of someone criticizing the collective movement with a label that you all find objectionable?  From my perspective, some of this dialogue sounds silly, like someone complaining about how the term "Feminism" would supposedly be a slur used in a pejorative way. Bestware (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you've tucked this into the middle of the thread, but four points in reply. (1) Homosexuality ≠ "sexual behavior". (2) The word "gay" is not an "alternative word" for "sodomite" or "faggot", both of which are almost universally considered slurs (not just considered so by "most"). (3) There isn't a "homosexual community" any more than there is a "heterosexual community". Within each of the sexual orientations there is an enormous diversity of individuals, and attempting to lump them all into some sort of "collective movement" is an exercise in pointlessness. (4) Where you used the word "feminism", substitute the phrase "women's agenda" and see how much sense it makes. Rivertorch (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I placed it to be in response to the COMMENT leading this thread, so that's why I made the indentation the way that I did. 1) You are being too narrow minded about the term homosexuality. The term homosexuality is used in two different ways: a) to refer to sexual relations between persons of the same sex, and b) to refer to sexual attraction between persons of the same sex. The first definition regarding sexual behavior is almost universally used in regards to the phrase "homosexual agenda" because no laws have made sexual attraction a crime. Sexual behavior is the only concern of laws against sexual immorality. In the same vein, laws against adultery focus on the sexual behavior, not the attraction a person might have for another person's spouse. 2) It is only in modern times that these alternate terms of faggot or sodomite have been considered to be slurs by general society. In many conservative communities, a word like sodomite is still not considered a slur because it is a word used in the Holy Bible. Scholars, especially historical scholars, generally do not assign any kind of taboo to words like these.  So while you find the word "most" not strong enough, such is simply an artifact of the community with which you associate.  Many years ago when I was ignorant of the taboo that homosexuals assigned to the term sodomite, I would use it regularly. When some homosexuals took offense at the term, I asked them what word was appropriate, and they said to use the word gay.  Sometimes I use the word homosexual and am asked to use the word gay instead. So I do not know why you would claim that "gay" is not an alternative word. 3) Of course there is a "homosexual community."  Haven't you ever heard of a gay bar? Haven't you come across websites devoted to the homosexual lifestyle? Haven't you heard of various organizations devoted to promoting acceptance of homosexuality? You are correct that there is a range of diversity, with blurred distinctions between heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual.  But this does not mean that no generalizations can be made, nor does it mean that terms like homosexuality, homosexual agenda, and homosexual community are meaningless and pointless.  The terms are used because they mean something, and your effort to now claim it is pointless is simply your aversion to any kind of criticism or analysis of sexual behavior as being good or bad. 4) Speaking of "women's agenda" would be a fair alternative to my use of the word feminism.  I originally typed "women's suffrage" instead of feminism, but changed it to feminism because I thought it to be a more general term than women's suffrage to communicate what I was trying to say.  I'm not sure why you think "women's agenda" doesn't make any sense except that it is not a phrase in general use like feminism or women's suffrage. It would basically communicate a similar idea.  You do not offer any alternative to the phrase "homosexual agenda" to refer to the socio-political movement to legitimize homosexual behavior. It seems to me that you simply want to claim that any kind of analysis of how homosexuals organize to promote their interests and to change laws is not proper.  You apparently want immunity from criticism, so you seek to label the term Homosexual Agenda as a slur no matter how it is used. Bestware (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An uncontroversial term to describe the socio-political movement is LGBT civil rights movement; the term "homosexual agenda" has undeniable negative connotations even if it's not always used with them. The problem when trying to identify a "homosexual community" is that it's as vague as talking of a single "religious community" or "religious movement" or a ("women community" at that) - it's just too general. Even if there are some common interests born from their shared attribute, there's no way to find some common goals to define a single, unified political interest - which is what the term "agenda" implies. How would you feel, if all attempts of people from different creeds to create congregations and spread their faiths were attributed to a single "religious agenda"? Diego (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The term LGBT civil rights movement is not neutral at all. Many critics do not believe this movement have anything at all to do with civil rights. The word "agenda" is neutral, referring to those political and social strategies used to gain acceptance of homosexual conduct.  And yes, we can talk about the agenda of religions, the Religious Agenda, or even more specific agendas like the Roman Catholic Agenda, or the Scientific Agenda, or the Positivist Agenda.  People generally work by paradigms and we can talk about the goals and strategies of that paradigm. Bestware (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If the problem is that the adjective was unsourced, let's add some sources for it. This reference (Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender public policy issues, p.83) (from the archived talk) labels the term "derogatory", and it should be easy to find others. Diego (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. If we find that sources use the word derogatory instead of pejorative, then we can also use the word derogatory, although pejorative is a synonym and sounds a little more encyclopedic to my ears. - MrX 19:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The most common (but not only) use in reality is as a tool in verbal jousting to assign a word than assigns negative connotations to the "opponent".  This is a common tactic used by every "side" and so there are lots of words like this.  Not that that leads to an answer.    Maybe "often used in a pejorative sense" or "often disparaging". North8000 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with this.^ Teammm  $talk email$ 20:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Describing the term as "often used in a derogatory manner" or something similar is far different from outright calling the term "pejorative" in Wikipedia's voice. I have no problem with that suggestion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I could live with that as well, especially if it gets us past this issue without a lengthy (-er) discussion. Good suggestion, North8000. - MrX 21:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A workable compromise, I'd say. My only qualm is the word "often", which might present something of an understatement. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can say "commonly", as the cases where it's not used that way are rare.Diego (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Marginally better, perhaps, but I wonder whether we need an adverb there at all. The absence of an adverb doesn't imply there are no instances of non-derogatory usage (although, as I said, I'm unaware of such instances except for those involving intentional irony). Rivertorch (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

Objection to 'often'in lead sentence
I object to the word "often" because it is not neutral. I rarely find the phrase used disparagingly. I would say "sometimes used disparagingly" but obviously I am in the minority here. The source given originally (Gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender public policy issues, p.83) obviously is from the gay community, from a book which is part of the homosexual agenda, so it can hardly be used to justify a characterization of the term as being used in some kind of hateful way. It presents one perspective of how the term is used. I honestly use the term homosexual agenda to talk about the socio-political movement which some here denies even exists, so if it doesn't exist, I guess the only way you can look at the term is as some kind of hateful slur. The problem is that those who actually use the term usually do not use it in that way. They are just using a term to describe the movement, like woman's suffrage describes the fight for women's right to vote. I might point out that virtually all the opinions for characterizing it as "often used in a derogatory manner" come from those who do not use the term themselves. Bestware (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Often" is a perfectly neutral word. I think what you mean is that you don't believe it to be factual, however, I'm unconvinced by the circular reasoning in the above post. How you personally use the term is only reflective of your own values, education and cultural beliefs and has little to do with how we write this encyclopedia article. If you have good secondary sources to support the idea that "homosexual agenda" is used in serious socio-political discussions, in a non-pejorative way, then that content can be included in the article with WP:DUE} weight. - MrX 14:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Often" does not represent reality so it is not neutral. Most of the time, the phrase is used in a scholastic context to refer to the agenda of the activists of the movement. You keep editing the word "sometimes" back to "often," which simply adds bias into the article. I rarely if ever hear the phrase "homosexual agenda" or "gay agenda" used in a derogatory fashion.  If it were strictly up to me, I would not even say that it was used that way at all, but I realize that others here have the perception that it is.  It seems to me that some are just unwilling to acknowledge that there are homosexual activists with an agenda. They want to falsely convey that the success of the movement is simply spontaneous and has nothing to do with people meeting together and strategizing how to accomplish their goals through parades, lawsuits, publishing literature, editing articles on Wikipedia to further indoctrinate people into their way of thinking, etc.  I engage in discourse on various blogs.  Inevitably people try to use Wikipedia to prove that I am using a derogatory term when I refer to the gay agenda in current political events. The edit of MrX hinders scholarly discourse and discredits Wikipedia among conservative scholars.  I have had to start referring to Wikipedia as having an extreme liberal bent and hostile to conservative thought because of these edit wars.  At one time this article had a call for conservative input, and I obliged, but it appears that the solicitation was not very sincere.  This article is still very biased.  I have donated in the past to this Wikipedia project and try to be helpful to its goals.  Nevertheless, I am seriously beginning to question the value of this.  We seem to have a block of liberals with lots of time on their hands to slant the articles on the slightest edits of just a single word like "often." Bestware (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ironically, you seem to be the only one with extraordinarily lengthy passages. One year later. Teammm  $talk email$ 16:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is only because promoting a certain agenda you need a lot of words, to have your needs heard. His wants and needs would never be admitted to wikipedia as that would push a Pov, that would not work with our POV. So what I would suggest for Bestware to do is to head over to conservapedia as his pov would be welcomed with open arms. NathanWubs (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Often" is a neutral word, but it can also be considered a WP:WEASEL word. I would advocate changing "often" to "originally". Nobody would dispute that the term "homosexual agenda" was originally intended as a disparaging term. However, that disparaging flavor seems to be greatly diluted in present-day mainstream usage. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'often' is a neutral word. If it's also a weasel word, then we can remove it so the the passage will read: "Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term introduced by some conservative Christians in the United States, used disparagingly to describe the advocacy...".


 * I wouldn't dispute that the term was originally intended as a disparaging term. I would disagree that it has become less disparaging, or more acceptable as a mainstream term. For example, it's still used disparagingly here and here.- MrX 23:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Uh, no, these articles are disparaging toward the gay agenda, but that does not make the term "gay agenda" a disparaging term. A person can use the same term and argue for its goodness.  For example, many disparage the Christian Right, or even just the Right, or they disparage conservatives, but that does not make these terms disparaging terms.--Bestware (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Just omitting "often" might work but might imply "always" unless the second clause is somehow linked to the introduction of the term. That's why I suggested "originally", which doesn't deny that it's still used disparagingly.
 * How about: "Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term introduced by some conservative Christians in the United States as a disparaging way to describe the advocacy..."
 * I believe that says it all in the proper context: that conservative Christians introduced the term, and the intent is disparaging, leaving un-answered (as it should be) the question about how it is still being used. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that wording seems fine to me.- MrX 01:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made the change to remove the word 'often'. Hopefully this addresses the concern raised in the beginning of this thread. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This change is much worse because it now ascribes the original intent of the Christians was to use the term disparagingly. I suspect most of you never even watched the video or have read the brochures that you now denigrate. I have.  You delegitimize the effort to engage in dialogue about the political and social strategies being employed by homosexual activist organizations.  Following is perhaps a compromise here:  "Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term first published by conservative Christians in the United States in reaction to politically active homosexuals.  Local municipalities such as Dade county, Florida and Cincinnati, Ohio had passed local ordinances treating sexual orientation as a protected legal class, and gay pride parades were becoming common.  Homosexuals organized into activist organizations like Act Up (1987) and Queer Nation (1990), strategizing and creating agendas as part of the LGBT social movements. Homosexuals had donated $3.4 million to Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential campaign, seeking to change the political landscape toward their cause.  Their efforts appeared in prominent news agencies like the Washington Post.  In 1992, a Christian organization responded to the political action agenda of these activists with a DVD and brochure outlining what they called, "The Gay Agenda."  The publication was used in political activities in Oregon and Colorado to educate the public with the goal of blocking the agenda of homosexual activists.  Most homosexual advocates consider the term derogatory and pejorative, but conservative Christians consider the phrase a scholastic term to describe the strategies and overall political and social agenda found within the LGBT social movements." I kind of doubt you liberals will accept anything close to this, but if by chance you would recognize your prejudice, I would properly footnote the information and edit it for better readability if something along these lines seemed acceptable. Because I have been asked to stop supporting Wikipedia in this talk, I am not too optimistic that my efforts are appreciated. --Bestware (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to find historical truth and other factual sources to support what you wrote and couldn't. The term homosexual agenda was used as a fear-mongering tactic and as verbal abuse, in the context of portraying gay people as predators who wanted to portray themselves as victims, emotionally trick people, make them sympathetic, so that the world, especially kids, would "turn gay". I didn't find instances where the term was used to simply describe gay people being more politically active or seeking to change policies. Instead, there was a much more extreme and negative context behind it. Never in a positive or neutral light. Gay rights organizations were demonized using the term, for example, an agenda to infect everyone with AIDS, etc. I failed to find an instance where it was a "scholastic term". Thank goodness for newspapers, the internet, and video. They've been helpful. Lately, there has been a shift for conservative activists to lighten their image in terms of things they've done and/or said in the past, including their use of the term homosexual agenda and it's purpose or meaning. However, history is already written and easy to research. Documentaries from the 1960s are accessible to everyone. No matter how much you footnote your proposition, it won't be made real. Teammm  $talk email$ 22:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Bestware, regarding your statement "This change is much worse because it now ascribes the original intent of the Christians was to use the term disparagingly." Well, yes. That was the original intent. Your initial objection argued that the word "often" implied that this is still the case. My modification to remove the word "often" fixed that. The fact remains that the original intent was disparaging, and that fact is now accurately reflected in the lead. Above, I suggested including the word "originally" to clarify things, and nobody objected: Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term introduced by some conservative Christians in the United States, originally as a disparaging way to describe.... but somehow it didn't get discussed. How about including 'originally' for clarification?
 * If you want to build a consensus for your proposed alternative, you need to come up with sources to support it. As far as I can tell, the sources support the current version. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of content
I am opening this section so that can explain why they keep removing content, against established consensus (see a few sections above).- MrX 23:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Standing consensus is in favor of this wording which has determined that whitewashing it is not the solution. Winner 42 Talk to me!  03:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Nontraditional Love
A section on this novel, which has its own page, has been repeatedly re-added. The editor (I assume it's the same individual) has said that in an edit summary that it "is under the title Satire. What’s wrong? The first paragraph: non-fiction satire entitled "Gay Revolutionary" describes a scenario in which homosexual men dominate… It is the same topic, but NL is a fiction satire. Both paragraphs related to the sa[me].." Gay Revolutionary is here because it was used by the Christian-right as evidence of the 'secret' gay agenda. The section says just that. In itself the article isn't notable. Brokeback Mountain is also mentioned in an earlier section because it was part of the "agenda" according to one commentator. Unless you can find someone who thinks the novel is part of the Gay Agenda, it's not relevant. It's just a satire on sexual identity. There are numerous other works of fiction that explore related matters (how many episodes of Star Trek involve alien races with "nontraditional" sexual mores?). Paul B (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if it isn't a notable satire, then we need not consider it for mention here. I removed that paragraph myself earlier, because I did not see how it was relevant to the topic of the article, other than the writer's own personal review of the book (which is also inappropriate for inclusions). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and for this reason, the bulk of the second paragraph should be removed as well.- MrX 19:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Homosexual agenda. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked and fixed by Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 08:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

citation needed
The first section states: 'In the US, the phrase "the gay agenda" was first used in public discourse in 1992 when the Family Research Council, an American conservative Christian group,'. The given references says nowhere that the phrase was first used by the family research council. The reference is apparently included to establish that the family research council is a conservative christian group. This is important because the article frequently attributes the phrase to the christian right but provides no citations to the effect that the phrase was first used by the christian right or is more frequently used by the christian right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.245.132 (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The applicable reference is clearly ref #3, not ref #2. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, references 2 and 3 look correctly positioned in that sentence to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Not clear--if the reference is to the book, what is the page number? Moreover, the book is rather polemical; is there not a more balanced source? As a sanity check, google's ngram viewer has citations (in public discourse obviously) of the phrase back through the 80s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.245.132 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Gay agenda" appeared in newspapers at least as early as 1982, with increasing frequency in late the 1980s into the early 1990s. The material referenced by the OP is arguably inaccurate and should probably be revised. It may be accurate to say the the FRC popularized the term, but I don't think they were the first to use it in public discourse, nor was the first use in 1992.- MrX 23:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That jibes with my recollection. Do you have access to the full text of the cited source? It would be nice to know exactly what it says, in context, at any rate. Rivertorch&#39;s Evil Twin (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I found it on newspapers.com. They only have images. It was in the May 25, 1982 edition of theIndiana Gazette, p. 15. The article was about Tim Holloway who was a Republican contender for congress, district 12.... hold on, now I see that the article date is October 5, 1998 on the newspaper image itself. Apparently newspapers.com made an error assigning the date. On further inspection, it looks like they misdated the other articles that came up in the search results. Please ignore my earlier comments.- MrX 12:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * agreed with OP. I just changed this to be more accurate.  Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Gay agenda vs homosexual agenda
There was some edit warring by anons in the lede recently. Part of the problem seemed to be that "gay agenda" as a term did come from the Christian right, while "homosexual agenda" didn't. It looks like the article rename from "Gay agenda" to "Homosexual agenda" left old text which was appropriate to the old title. Tried to fix this by moving provenance of "gay agenda" to a separate sentence. John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you're right about the difference in provenance of the two phrases? If you haven't already, you might look through the talk archive; I remember the page move and associated issues with the terminology being discussed extensively way back when. (Strange thing: over two and a half years' worth of talk archives appear to be missing. I don't know if a bot screwed up or what, but some sort of manual cleanup may be necessary.) In any event, I disagree with your edit, which relegates what I take to be the primary usage of either term (gay or homosexual agenda) to "additionally" status. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   15:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Provenance is tough. Here's a reference to the term "gay agenda" from the 1920s, in a history of the Mattachine Society. This was referenced in Talk. (You're right about something having gone wrong in talk archiving. Check Archive 1, where the archive bot's message is in the middle of the page, rather than the end.) As a term, "Gay agenda" now seems to have become a routine political term; the Huffington Post has it as a story category.. See also . "Homosexual agenda" now tends to show up more in Christian publications known to Google. Yet the early religious right sources have "Gay agenda" on the cover. It's possible that the pejorative vs utility usages have reversed over the decades. That may reflect what happened to "gay" vs "homosexual". Google Search returns hits for both phrases when given either phrase. John Nagle (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I noticed the archiver had been saving conversations into Archive 10, but there are later archives. I've moved that recent stuff to Archive 14 and updated the counter in the configuration. Hopefully that should correct it. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if we go with the notion that "[p]art of the problem seem[s] to be that 'gay agenda' as a term did come from the Christian right, while 'homosexual agenda' didn't.", there is the fact that the terms are used interchangeably to mean the same thing, and, per WP:Alternative term, there is nothing wrong with the way they are currently presented. By "currently," I mean that I reverted your (Nagle's) edit, as seen here (followup edit here). Your change gives legitimacy to the concept that there is such a thing as a gay agenda. It introduces the concept as legitimate. Per WP:Due weight, it should instead begin by noting that it is a disparaging term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, like you stated, "Homosexual agenda now tends to show up more in Christian publications known to Google." Unless you have evidence that some group other than Christians introduced the term homosexual agenda, I don't see the point in stating "[p]art of the problem seem[s] to be that 'gay agenda' as a term did come from the Christian right, while 'homosexual agenda' didn't." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Re "Your change gives legitimacy to the concept that there is such a thing as a gay agenda." A similar discussion came up at Kosher tax. "Kosher tax", though, does seem to be a thing with little or no real existence.  We have cites for a "gay agenda" as a real thing. There is a formal gay lobby. There are gay political action committees, such as the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund. While it may be a derogatory term to some, it seems to be a working term in politics today.  There are articles promoting a gay agenda that use the term.. Compare socialist as used in US politics. John Nagle (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That the term is now used in non-disparaging ways—e.g., ironically or through reappropriation—is a given, but that shouldn't change the focus of the article unless it can be shown that there is a new principal meaning of the term. And, if so, the wording of the lede should reflect that, not initiate it. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   22:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Principal meaning" is tough to address. We can show various meanings, uses, and emphases, but deciding which is "principal" requires some neutral authoritative source. We can get a little help from the Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought, at "-phobia" . They use "gay agenda" as a working term, but it doesn't have an entry of its own. GLAAD has a note on suggested terminology, and so does the Christian Post . They don't agree. About all we can do is cite who said what when, and track the history.  John Nagle (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a general problem with POV pejorative terms on Wikipedia. Similar problems have come up at
 * Israeli West Bank barrier a/k/a apartheid wall, Israeli separation fence, etc.
 * Kosher tax
 * Homophobia
 * Alt-right
 * Maintaining a neutral point of view in these areas is hard, but we have to try. John Nagle (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

institutionalized wikipedia bias
The article reads as though it was written by the head of GLAAD. Interesting that "homosexual agenda" is a disparaging term and bad word, yet the article on "homophobia" says nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MercCoug (talk • contribs) 21:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear!  Deus vult (aliquid)!   Crusadestudent (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Grow up kids. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)