Talk:Gay bomb/Archive 1

POV?
This section is a POV and should be rewritten or removed
 * The reality of the Gay bomb

All these are not as "non-lethal" as alleged but tools of a not so stealthy worldwide american CIA terror warfare directed at innocent civilian populations that is still continuing.

And this sentence 'It seems to be once again a typical CIA produced piece of disinformation to cover up the reality of their psychotronics warfare.' As it stands it looks more like a conspiracy theory than a good article. The article also appears to have been written from one source, additional referrences would in my opinion improve the article --nixie 05:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually much of the original article didn't come from the cited source -- I'm thinking most of it came from the little voices in the author's head. I've removed much of the nonsense, but conspiracy nuts usually reinsert it, so the more eyes watching the article, the better. - Nunh-huh 06:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a terrible entry. Words like "Sensationalistic" and "Preposterous" are essentially impossible to use in a neutral manner. The necessity of a "gay bomb" entry is suspect in and of itself, but that is another matter I suppose.

Perhaps in place of the current entry we could settle for:

"A purported suggestion for a non-lethal chemical weapon by the U.S. Army..." and follow with a direct quote from the source?


 * Rewritten, and hopefully it's NPOV enough now. Rhobite 02:22, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Much more NPOV, but I made a further edit because I thought it didn't quite convey the impression of the actual paper, which was of wildly speculative free-wheeling brainstorming. Funny, isn't it, that this paper gets released and we have newspaper articles about the "gay bomb" but not the "halitosis bomb" (which is probably much more realistic). Securiger 16:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the media coverage was pretty sensational. I don't think it's our place to call the proposal "wildly speculative", but I agree with the rest of your change. Rhobite 18:29, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt this stuff will work on people who are strongly anti-gay. Dudtz 9/24/05 12:42 PM EST
 * Um, if you read the article, you'll see there actually is no stuff to work. It's just an idea. "Let's drop a bomb on soldiers with a chemical that will make them horny. And gay. To do: actually develop the chemical." I'm happy to see the U.S. army encourages lateral, homo-erotical thinking. Your tax dollars at work, so to speak... The guy who wrote this brilliant gem of tactical innovation down was probably being completely serious, too. "So crazy, it just might work". Well, no. So crazy it's crazy, actually. 82.92.119.11 02:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is this? I think it belongs on uncyclopedia.

^ Sign your posts and try to contemplate the potential of homopsychoactives to demoralise and incapacitate Islamic fundamentalists. Anyone who believes that the gay bomb will not be deployed as soon as mass production becomes technically feasible is beyond naive. Aussie Jim 19:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Aussie Jim is right, but I don't think such a chemical will ever be developed (at least not in the foreseeable future). No one knows the causes of homosexuality, and I seriously doubt it's as simple as one chemical. (Not to get into a major fight, but there's pretty good (though circumstantial) evidence that it's partially biological and partially cultural.) Vultur 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thegaybomb.com
Where should we post [] ?

I really really do wish that this was just a joke. And I really REALLY wish that we had one. Xthepicturex 19:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Suorces
It was mentioned on France 24 T.V. just now. It will apear on the web page tomorrow, due to a time lag.[]-- 86.25.52.201 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[] [] [] [] --86.25.52.201 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The France 24 'gay-bomb' news web-page artcle is up and running. --86.25.52.20 05:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

CATEGORY
Smith Jones 22:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)''

is this notable?
I don't understand why this article is here. A lab 'speculated' about producing this hypothetical weapon. So what? Dlabtot 21:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is definitely notable. In fact, it just won the 2007 Ig Nobel Peace Prize!


 * "Wright Laboratory won the 2007 Ignobel Peace Prize for 'instigating research & development on a chemical weapon--the so-called 'gay bomb'--that will make enemy soldiers become sexually irresistible to each other.' However, Air Force personnel contacted were not willing to attend the award ceremony at Harvard University's Sanders Theater to accept the award in person."


 * Jacob1207 05:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * hmm, you're actually reinforcing my point, imho. Dlabtot 07:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it not notable? A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - this is clearly the case, it's been given international coverage from a variety of news agencies and other sources (such as being featured on QI and numerous other TV shows, and the Ig Nobel Prize mentioned). You have given no reason to rebut this presumption. If you can provide a reason why it is not notable despite this coverage, then please do. Darksun 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. common sense tells me that this is an article about something - a 'gay bomb', that not only never existed, but never could possibly exist. It's a joke, basically.  Mentioning it in the WP:Non-lethal_weapons article could be justified. Having an article about it is silly.  But, whatever, obviously there exists some passion for keeping the article. I'm not one to swim against the tide. Dlabtot 18:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of subjects exist nowhere but in the "public consciousness" - just about every controversy ever, basically. Bigfoot, UFOs and Area 51 spring to mind, as does "the Grassy Knoll conspiracy" and "Diana was pregnant". You would be hard pressed to argue that these topics are "not notable". (Tasteless and/or embarassing sure, but still notable). A quick Google indicates that AAP, Reuters, the BBC, the Washington Post and Australia's News Limited all saw fit to give it coverage. Manning (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)