Talk:Homonationalism/Archive 1

List of homonationalists?
The list of supposed "homonationalists" seems rather unnecessary. Rahn, Röhm, etc. never really incorporated their homosexuality into their politics, and hardly fit Puar or any other scholar's definition of the term. It doesn't seem very relevant when we already have a category for LGBT Nazis, which is much more appropriate a way to categorize such characters. I feel it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure-impure (talk • contribs) 22:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Done. (By the way I wonder what “LGBT Nazis” can mean – were there any documented transsexual Nazis ? Lesbian Nazis ? This acronym is already silly when used for current issues – as if all people identifying with either of those qualifiers had the same problems, the same interests, the same aims, and were speaking under the same voice –, but it makes absolutely no sense to use it in relation with a time period when those notions either did not exist or had a completely different meaning.)--Abolibibelot (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

NPOV concern
I have a very deep NPOV concern with this article. I think the introductory paragraph is balanced and fairly well-sourced, but the article body is riddled with really egregious examples of heavy POV-pushing. Here are some excerpts that demonstrate the problem (as of 03/26/19): These are only a few of the POV-pushing examples. I claim that the article needs a dramatic overhaul. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The responses of the presidential frontrunners in the U.S. 2016 election are evidence of ... homonationalist sentiment" (no citation)
 * "Trump used the Orlando tragedy in his nomination acceptance speech in order to justify his antimuslim platform". This is a normative claim, and is an original interpretation of a primary source document
 * "Hillary Clinton pledged to fight the terrorist virus in its origins, and therefore justified her party’s platform of military intervention in the Middle East. She othered these Muslim majority countries"
 * "One of the most pungent discussions regarding homonationalism is how the State of Israel is proclaiming itself as a defender and advocate of gay rights as an excuse to justify the occupation of Palestine", another strongly normative and again unsourced claim

NOR concern
The section Homonationalism is almost entirely original research (as of 3/26/19). The paragraph beginning with "Donald Trump and other Republicans embraced this sentiment" is an original reading of a quotation from a POLITICO article. The same is true of the next paragraph's claim that "candidate Trump used the Orlando tragedy his nomination acceptance speech in order to justify his antimuslim platform". The following paragraph opines in detail on Hillary Clinton's motivation for certain platform planks, this time appearing to present an original reading of a Time article. The final paragraph is just strongly normative claims with no citations at all. This section needs to be rewritten with secondary sources and no original research. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Essay-like concern
The extremely normative claims in the section Homonationalism, like calling a discussion "pungent", are not appropriate writing for an encyclopedia. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit for clarity
This article is really heavy on direct quotes from people writing on the subject that are heavy in academic jargon. I think this may be difficult for some readers to understand. Perhaps some non-academic summarizing with less quoting would be helpful.Mcc1789 (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

No major critiques?
The process being described by Puar is making some pretty blatant accusations in regards to the people accused of pushing Homonationalism. I would think somebody has openly disagreed with some of her characterizations. I can find sources to begin including criticisms against Puar's characterizations but do sources have to be addressed directly to Puar or can they be in response to someone else but the same argument?

On the subject of sources, there are far to many unsourced claims littered throughout the article including entire paragraphs with no citations at all. I get we normally put a [citation needed] but there are a lot of places to include that, would it be more prudent to just delete those unsourced sections?

I also see a lot of NPOV issues as well: "the bodies of the fallen queer people in the Pulse tragedy had been used by both presidential candidates as ammunition to strengthen the sense of urgency for their own political national projects." is said with no citation and no quotation marks so referring to these actions as using "the bodies of the fallen queer people" is not at all appropriate for Wikipedia. 76.184.196.142 (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see somebody went and did some edits in regards to the issues I raised. Seems the lack of citations isn't a glaring issue from what I've seen so far and the NPOV quote has been removed. Thanks to whoever jumped in and cleaned it up 76.184.196.142 (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why does this 'article' exist?
This entire "article" is fringe NPOV based almost entirely on a fringe concept of a single obscure "scholar", using low-quality and/or non-English sources and copious amounts of OR, presented uncritically and as if it were fact. It is unencyclopedic in the extreme and shows no signs of meriting inclusion on Wikipedia. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus of the community in 2016 was that the topic of this page is notable; see the deletion discussion here. If you disagree with that consensus and think that this article should not exist, you can follow the steps at this link to start a second deletion discussion. If you think the writing and the sourcing are bad then you can find other sources, delete the WP:PUFFERY and WP:CRUFT, and add in some sources by other scholars to make it a good page. This last one, by the way, is what I failed to do early last year when I templated the page and complained a bunch on the talk page -- it's better to just WP:BEBOLD and do something about it. Hope that helps! - Astrophobe  (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Though it's also worth noting before you start an AfD, to my reading a major hinge of that consensus 4 years ago was that the main scholar cited here is not "obscure", and that it's trivial to find other authors who use the idea of homonationalism as a major theoretical part of their papers. - Astrophobe  (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the topic is likely notable. But what we want is an encyclopedia article neutrally describing the concept, not a dense academic argument in favour of it. I've taken a pass at trimming OR and excessive quotations, and rewriting a bit for clarity. There is certainly more that could be done. One challenge with the structure is that most of the main content is in the lead. It should be moved to the body, with a briefer lead written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I think a clearer lead sentence would help a lot.--Trystan (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you said, and thanks for some much needed edits! - Astrophobe  (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is homophobic in intent and effect. It is saying gays have no right to national sovereignty. Delete it. 2600:1700:8D91:83C0:1D83:5219:49FC:EB20 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Where does it say that? Also, what is a right to national sovereignty? This page is denying gay people the right to form their own country? - Astrophobe  (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)