Talk:Homosexual recruitment/Archive 1

Post-AfD comments
Hi, I'm the one that put this up for AfD last week. I stand by my decision to put it up given the state it was in then. But several editors, most notably FT2, have improved this article immeasurably, and this is well on its way to becoming a fine article and now makes the case for notability. At the very least, something good came from the AfD in that it got this article in much better shape. In any case, kudos to the new editing. --Deville (Talk) 02:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Its fine that this article talks lots about the debate with christians, but IMHO it needs to prominently state: (a) what scientists think, and (b) that choice and sexual orientation, or related articles, say why scientists think that. JeffBurdges 13:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * AFD is right for articles that have no chance to become notable or meet standards. But if they do, it's worth researching a bit to check, is all. I didn't know much about it except that I'd heard the term. One of the great things about wikipedia is you learn by having to reasearch yourself for edits !! :) Anyway the important thing is its now visibly not contentious what content it has so... yup, the AFD actually did well !! :) FT2 (Talk) 02:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Awfully POV
"Of course this represents a lack of critical thinking…" This is supposed to be neutral? - Jmabel | Talk 03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, clearly no, its not supposed to be neutral. -Seth Mahoney 04:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

psychologists
I suspect that psychologists are not particularly fond of this idea, as they usually believe that accepting your homosexuality is the way to "cure" it. Anyone know what should be said about this? At minimum, it should be mentioned that psychologists view having a problem with your sexuality as a disorder, but don't view being homosesxual as a disorder. JeffBurdges 18:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Valid verifiable information, not germane to topic. Its more relevant to other topics such as choice and homosexuality which are linked from here as backup and where it is mentioned. Psych view isnt relevant to actual homosexual recruitment. FT2 (Talk) 23:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but you need to restore some aspect of my edits. This article is inherently a pseudo-POV fork of choice and sexual orientation and yet it fails to even link to choice and sexual orientation!! My editer were primarily meant to place this extremely important link into the intro, where it belongs. I did not intent to significantly alter the intros content otherwise, although I probably did on hindsite. Please restore the link in whatever manor you feal preserves the content of the intro. JeffBurdges 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags
I added fact tags on the two quotes currently in section 3.1, Notable activists and speakers. I don't have the slightest doubt that these quotes are correct, and they certain sound realistic. But if we put something actually in quotation marks, then it makes sense for us to have a source describing when and where these people said this. Surely this Pat Robertson quote is written down somewhere? -- Deville (Talk) 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: I tried to find a source for "socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." using a Gsearch. What I find remarkable is that there are tons of sites which attribute this quote to Robertson, but none of them say where. Moreover, this link attributes this quote of his to describing both "feminism" and "the Equal Rights Amendement". Again, I don't have the slightest doubt that Robertson could have said something like this. On the other hand, this particular quote could be a hoax, given that every site I went through attributed it to Robertson but neglected to mention where and when, or even if it was spoken or written. -- Deville (Talk) 14:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

He said it in a fund raising letter.

"A fund-raising letter written by the evangelist Pat Robertson in opposition to a proposed equal rights amendment to the Iowa Constitution suggests that feminists want women to kill their children and practice witchcraft.

The equal rights amendment, on which Iowans will vote Nov. 3, is a broadly worded measure that would bar sex discrimination.

But Mr. Robertson's letter, distributed late last month to supporters of the evangelical organization Christian Coalition, described the proposal as part of a "feminist agenda" that "is not about equal rights for women."

Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." " ROBERTSON LETTER ATTACKS FEMINISTS, NY Times, p.A16, 8/26/92 [|link] Ck4829 20:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet another follow-up: I this this search and the same applies. It is always attributed to Anita Bryant, never told where it was spoken or even if it was spoken, and in fact one source said 1977 and the other said 1983. -- Deville (Talk) 14:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories
Categories have disappeared from this article. I think it may have something to do with an unclosed tag of some kind though I couldn't find it. -- Longhair 03:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it's fixed ;) -- Longhair 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Read, Conservative"
Not sure who put that there, but it's really, really POV. Wikipedia isn't a base for making snide comments about opinions. It's for hard fact. Should that sentance be there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.45.163 (talk • contribs) 16 August 2006.

Sources and Viewpoints provided
I'm concerned that the majority of sources and opinions provided gives this article an imbalanced viewpoint towards those who believe this to be true, rather than being balanced with an equivalent amount of opposing viewpoints and sources. In addition, I'm particularly concerned that the inclusion of a long quotated paragraph referring to one "Hannon" listed under the "Use of the Term" section is solely for the purpose of further getting an intended message across, and that the source provided for this is both unreliable and undeniably prejudiced. However I'm not sure if my first concern is rightly founded, or what should be done about my second concern. --Os-osiris 15:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious recent changes
I'm not going to wade into this bigtime, but recent changes seem to me to be headed the wrong way. For example, the lead paragraph, which used to read…

"Homosexual recruitment is a term used for the idea that homosexuals (usually gay men) actively target impressionable individuals (usually youth) for homosexual indoctrination to persuade them towards homosexual self-identification, or alternatively, that there is a widespread conspiracy to subvert 'appropriate' values by promoting homosexuality as a valid normal sexual orientation in schools and other areas of life. It is mostly used by activists in the United States who strongly disapprove of homosexuality, but has also been used in some other countries."

…now reads…

"Homosexual recruitment is a term used for the idea that LGBT people actively target impressionable individuals (usually youth) to persuade them to identify as LGBT, or alternatively, that there is a widespread conspiracy to subvert 'appropriate' values by promoting LGBT sexualities in schools and other areas of life. It is mostly used by activists in the United States who strongly disapprove of homosexuality, but has also been used in some other countries."

In particular, isn't "LGBT" just political correctness in this context? I don't know of any theories about bisexuals or (especially ) transgendered people "recruiting". - Jmabel | Talk 08:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the 'T', but yes for the 'L' and 'B' -- in high schools, there are communities where it is trendy to be bisexual (especially among girls) (see, e.g., ), and there has been a reaction against this by the Christian Right. Also, see the Pat Robertson quote in the article.  Fireplace 12:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual recruitment in seminaries
I've noticed that the expression homosexual recruitment was also used to describe a peculiar recruiting practice in various corrupt Roman Catholic seminaries, by which homosexual seminarians were given social privileges by homosexual seminary instructors, who had a tendency to deliberately ignore non-sexual or heterosexual candidates who did not fit into the liberal seminary mold. This rather unusual recruiting climate has been cited by academics as one of the root causes for the clerical child abuse scandal, in which corrupt clergy would tend to re-create the abnormal seminary patterns within a given parish context, and begin to sexually abuse altar boys and other children instead of going after their fellow seminarians or instructors. ADM (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please present reliable sourcing that makes this novel assertion or likely we should delete this as yet another thread from you trying to conflate LGBT people and pedophilia, a subject you seem to have immense time and energy for. -- Banj e  b oi   14:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are probably many sources about this, but the one I had been reading is a 2002 interview by PBS that was recorded during the heart of the clerical abuse crisis. It describes the Church's crisis and explain the USCCB's response at curtailing what was perceived as the artificial inflation of gay seminarians on the part of seminary leadership. ADM (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a great reliable source that doesn't support your opening statement at all, it supports why homophobia is also bad for the clergy but not anything your presenting and certainly nothing to do with homosexual recruitment. -- Banj e  b oi   18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSED MOVE: Is this about the term, or the practice of recruitment?
The lede says it's about the term. But every single source fails to meet the standard that would be required of an article about any other sort of neologism (as per WP:NEO), that there be reliable secondary sources which discuss the meaning and usage of the term. But every source for this article is a primary source, not a secondary source, with respect to the usage of the term. The article, much as WP:NEO warns, attempts to "track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest", but as the sources aren't secondary with respect to usage of the term, the resulting text involves analysis and original research. If you want to argue the term isn't a neologism, can you point out a mainstream dictionary that defines the term?

If, instead, this article is not about the term "homosexual recruitment", but is about the practice of recruitment, then I think the article can be sourced, but a two remaining problems arise.. First, the lede should be changed to be clear what we're talking about, that's probably straightforward enough, and minor. However, lacking widespread usage of the term in dictionaries, etc, again WP:NEO and in particular I suspect that this article should probably be renamed as per applies, and thus the article should then be renamed, "even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." Of course, a redirect from the current title would be appropriate. I suggest "Claims of recruitment of children into homosexuality." This seems the less drastic path. Suggestions? --Joe Decker (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)   (Suggestion added --Joe Decker (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC))  (Section title updated --Joe Decker (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

I agree with the points above, but I also don't see why this is a separate article rather than a redirect to "Homosexual agenda" or "societal attitudes toward homosexuality". I think most of the current examples are inappropriate as descriptions of "homosexual recruitment" specifically, but would be appropriate under those other two articles.

If we're keeping this as an independent article, I support the move. - Jadine (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm cool with that solution too. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If Ash agrees, can we take down the move proposal, substituting a merge proposal for Homosexual Recruitment->Homosexual Agenda, brush-up and move the content to a section in that article, and make this a link to Homosexual Agenda? Mish (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no issue with making the proposal in the way you suggest, dependent on no one else objecting. In general I happen to be against a merge but I do not want to prejudge any proposal you care to put forward. Ash (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, this is distinct from homosexual agenda and would be, IMHO, a bad merge proposal trying to find an umbrella catchall for these two concepts. There may be a better merge target although I'm not sure this needs to moved or renamed. As for this issues mentioned above they seem regular editing issues. For sources try these books, for instance. -- Banj e  b oi   17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect to the book sources, I haven't seen a source there that doesn't just use the term without defining it, and I have looked through what little I can see of the sources you've provided. Moreover, I suspect that most of the sources there would be considered POV by folks who believe homosexuality is immoral.   An article about a neologism as a term, as I read WP:NEO, requires an NPOV, secondary source that clearly undertakes the lexicographer's task from a NPOV of determining the meaning and connotation of a word.  To undertake that work from primary sources simply using the term or NPOV sources puts us in the position of synthesis (WP:SYNTH) and analysis, which isn't our job here at WP.   To make this point clear... such an analysis would answer questions such as "recuriting whom", "recruting them into what, precisely" and stating whether the term was pejorative, offensive, etc.  Find me a definition that answers those questions, then we can write an article about the term "homosexual recruitment".   (Again, none of this applies if this the article is about the "accusation" that the term implies rather than the term itself, but in this case, the possibly-pejorative nature of the term in combination with the fact (if you agree with me on this) that it's a neologism would force a rename according to WP:NEO.) --Joe Decker (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At any rate, looks like most people agree that the answer to my question is "it's about the term". Aweome.  So I'm cool with the move/merge not happening, but this gets to the question about whether the lead of the article is actually justified by sources.  Sorry to be so argumentative, I really am trying to act in good faith.  --Joe Decker (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO the lede does need work. I really can't get past the first sentence as needing help so yes, starting there would make sense. -- Banj e  b oi   23:05, 12 March 2010 (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: Not moved, consensus opposed to move, and nomination withdrawn. Taelus (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual recruitment → Claims of recruitment of children into homosexuality. — Joe Decker (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)) By that definition, intelligent design would be a neologism. The question has been sufficiently addressed above. If you want to enjoy debating it further I suggest you create a new section for that purpose. Ash (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article is not about recruitment of children, or especially about that form of characterization, so the move is not appropriate. In particular the article is about how the defamatory characterization of "Homosexual recruitment" is used against a number of gay related organizations and activities for people who may be coming to terms with their sexual identity (for adults of any age as well as young people). Ash (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If the article is aimed at the term itself, then yes, the move would be inappropriate, I agree. In that case, though, I'm still having trouble finding, and I quote "reliable secondary sources which discuss the meaning and usage of the term." In particular, the divided nature of the usage of this leads me to want to find dictionary entries, etc., which describe this term, and I just haven't found 'em. To be clear, I completely beleive that the term is defamatory, my issue is the lack of a Merriam-Webster citation stating that plainly. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would pick up the comments below, and suggest it is either moved for deletion (on basis of neologism), or re-worded in way that would make it more suited to be included as a section within Homosexual Agenda. Mish (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a neologism. Consider this Google Books search which shows common usage and a long history of appearing in print. Ash (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree, may we take a look at WP:NEO? That article begins "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities."  I believe that the term "does not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely within certain communities.", but am open to the presentation of counterexamples the word has been defined in a mainstream dictionary, it isn't in mine, and yes, I have looked.  With regard to the date of usage, I see references back into the 1970s but not earlier.  WP:NEO continues "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people.", and I believe that "clearly definable" is an actual issue here. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries are not a concordance of all possible descriptive phrases used in English. For example gay bathhouse is a commonly used descriptive phrase for bathhouses catering for gay clients, it is not a neologism and at the same time is not listed in the Oxford English Dictionary. You will however find the words "Homosexual" and "Recruitment" in your dictionary, putting them together in a phrase does not necessarily result in a neologism. Ash (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of the article (as I understand you to have described it) is that there is something to say about the two words together (I believe you used the term "defamatory") that isn't the simple sum of the two words. There have been (here and in other articles) arguments about whether claiming this term is defamatory is POV or not.  (I personally do believe the term is defamatory.)  The question is, can you stick a good (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, secondary) citation on the word defamatory in the lead?  If you can, we're done and in complete agreement.   --Joe Decker (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)  Clarifying parenthetical added --Joe Decker (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I do find this quote from a while back:  That a respected journal would describe anyone using the term as a homophobe makes it clear that the phrase is considered defamatory. Ash (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, in the light of this I must revise my comment. Use of the phrase in an academic journal suggests it is not a neologism per se, and I agree with your reading for the purposes of discussion.  However, I still feel it would be better to have this wrapped-up within Homosexual agenda as part of the general beliefs about homosexual conspiracy. Mish (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it's a neologism subject to WP:NEO is a question for interpreting WP:NEO, yes? A neologism, to quote that policy is a term which is "not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people."  Therefore, to say that it isn't a neologism suggests that it is well understood, clearly definable, and has an NPOV meaning.  If that's the case, we need a source that can answer the following questions.  "Who is (putatively) being recruited?"  "What are they being recruited for?" and possibly "Is the term offensive."  While I have very strong opinions on the answer to these questions, I don't believe that there are realiable secondary NPOV sources that answer the questions in a widely accepted way. And that is what I mean when I say the term is, for our purposes, a neologism. --Joe Decker (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "homosexual recruitment" is ambiguous: it could mean "some armed or other force or body, recruiting new members who are already homosexuals". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Which I realize might seem ironic since I suggested to move.  At the time I suggested the move, I felt like the move was only justified if the topic of the article was, the alleged of homesexual recruitment, or whether it specifically covered the term as an idiom.  I sense a general agreement that the article is intended to be in part about the term itself, e.g., there is a specific meaning to the term "homosexual recriutment" and that's a primary topic of the article.  Thank you!  Given that, I can move onto the question of whether we have sources that justify defining the term in an NPOV way.  Which is not relevant to the move proposal.  --Joe Decker (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recruitment and seduction
I wonder if I'm the only one who sees a difference between "recruiting" and "seduction". When I hear the term recruiting I think about enlisting someone in a movement, cause, company or army. That's not the same as persuading someone to have a personal relationship.

The term "recruitment" conjures up images of groups of people (perhaps the "homosexual movement") actively campaigning (or working in concert) to get large numbers of people to "join" their "side".

If the two terms really do describe distinct ideas and practices, what's the next step? A paragraph explaining the distinction? A whole section on homosexual seduction, or what (see also bi-curious)? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't actually heard "homosexual seduction" used idomatically, covered, etc., perhaps I've just missed it, whereas the first few ghits for "homosexual recruitment" are certainly idiomatic, that's not the case for seduction. I'd agree with you, certainly there's a difference in connotation--seduction is something that is done one-on-one for personal reasons, recruitment to my ear suggests an organized effort to add someone to a "population or subpopulation .  The military connotation of recruitment is also in play (in my opinion) with the (sourced) suggestions that the term is used with an eye towards inspiring fear. Anyway, to the question of whether "homosexual seduction" needs an article, the catch as near as I can tell is, with less sourcing, I doubt there's enough coverage to get us past WP:NEO.  I say "I doubt it" without having spent a lot of time doing the sourcing research, so I'm entirely open to additional data. --j &#9883; e deckertalk to me 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like "homosexual seduction" could simply be a part of seduction. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Village voice, referencing "homosexual recruitment", I don't see it.
AV3000, if you could point me at where that article includes the phrase "homosexual recruitment", a phrase put in quotes for Silber's mouth, in that article, but I can't see it, nor find a source for it elsewhere. Can you point me at it?

Of course, I had another motivation for removing the paragraph--I'm looking for ways to trim the examples section. In attempting to figure out what to trim without just following my internal biases, I've tried to focus on "does this quote get discussion elsewhere?", and "does it appear that this example is accurate?" This particular example appeared to fail both tests, with a mistaken quote which I couldn't verify in-article or out. More importantly, I think the article would be better served, where possible, via sources which discuss the topic, rather than simply sources which use the phrase, the latter comes down very close to original research.

I would very much like to hear your own feedback and opinions, on this, on the question of the appropriate size of the examples section, or any other concerns you have about my attempted improvements. Thanks! --joe deckertalk to me 06:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * PS: You were right about the AIM link, that now works for me. --joe deckertalk to me 06:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right that the existing source didn't contain that phrase - sorry about that - I read your edit summary too quickly during my watchlist scan. I've added a source for the notion, though. AV3000 (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, I made than my share of oopsies on that. Thanks!  Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 02:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

meaning and connotation section/ pov
I'm out the door for a few hours, but I'm not happy yet with the neutrality of the "meaning and connotation" section. I believe that having such a section is appropriate, and it should be (as would be the case in any article on a term) an early part of the article, but my current text doesn't provide, in my view, nearly enough in the way of discussion about what "recruitment" means to those who use the term. I do intend to add more material there to the extent possible, but I encourage contributions. --joe deckertalk to me 17:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh. Closer.  I am still bothered that I don't have a pithy quote for the supporter side, but there's a better balance of claims there now.  I'm pulling the tag, but of course input on achieving NPOV not only welcomed, but actively encouraged.  --joe deckertalk to me 02:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Scare quotation marks
Can we reduce the amount of these? They are biased and unnecessary. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm personally open to refactoring some of those sections, but I felt your proposed changes went to far. I feel that we need to be crystal-clear that we do not put such wide-scale generalizations into Wikipedia's voice, and particularly in the context of the Reisman section, I felt that line was crossed.  I'm somewhat more sympathetic to sentences in which the word in question was closely preceded by "alleged" or a synonym--but when we start discussing negative accusations about people, even groups of people, we have a duty towards clarity. Perhaps there are other ways of resolving the issue.  --j⚛e deckertalk 23:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that when "alleged" precedes it, there shouldn't be scare marks, however the edit I made kept some marks in and removed others. I think it was a balanced edit. At the moment the scare marks cheapen the article and it doesn't look very encyclopaedic, but rather careful tip towing of reporting the information. Crzyclarks (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are too many scare quotes in the article, some non-scare ones as well. If you'd like to put back the ones you did, save for Reisman, well, it's not my preference but in the wider view I don't have a real problem with it. (I do have an underlying problem with the neutrality of the article as it stands, but that's separate and deeper.)
 * For what it's worth, my issues with the Reisman example is that the quotes are farther from the context of who's saying it in part, and that Reisman's view (20-30% of people...) is science-sounding and non-mainstream, and therefore falls under WP:FRINGE and needs to be marked as such as a matter of policy.  But there may be more direct and neutral ways of accomplishing that, what's your thought there?   --j⚛e deckertalk 07:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that the Reisman quotes are actually quoting Reisman. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking back, I only took out one quote mark bit in the Reisman section, but that was a mistake. I think the others were justified though, they usually preceded the word "allegation". Alright, I'll have another go. Crzyclarks (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I did the edit, another editor undid it. Revert if you think it was correct. Crzyclarks (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not some kind of playing field. Until there is a clear & strong consensus for those quotation marks to be removed, they should not be. --Scientiom (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Removal of these quotation marks may lead to readers making an incorrect assumption that those things actually exist - the quotation marks make it clear that those are only words/phrases used by extreme right-wing anti-gay groups to push their falsehoods across. --Scientiom (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It makes the article heavily biased and taking a position on the issue. The word "allegation" preceding it means there doesn't need to be scare marks around the same word every time it is written. Crzyclarks (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not enough to ensure that a casual reader does get an incorrect impression - in several of the longer sentences it can prove to be ineffective. There is absolutely no reason to remove them - it in no way makes the article biased - those quotation marks only highlight and show clearly accusations and made up phrases, words, and terms used by extremist anti-gay groups to assist their agenda. --Scientiom (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It is enough. At the moment the article looks ridiculous with "allegation" preceding the same scare-marked words every time it is written. Crzyclarks (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion - until and unless there is a strong consensus here for removing those, they should stay. --Scientiom (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by strong consensus, as there isn't many editors watching this page. At current levels, those in favour of editing some scare marks out is double the opposition. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not what consensus constitutes. It is not a vote. --Scientiom (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BADEMPHASIS is clear about scare quotes: most of the scare quotes used in this article must be removed. – Lionel (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The scare quotes are over emphasized in this section. It appears it was the editor's intention to use them as well. The words bullying and gay in particular should not be in scare quotes. They should be removed.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  01:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"LGBT""
I understand that the term LGBT is more fashionable than the term gay; however. a literal substitution gives rise to absurdities: even if gay people could recruit straight people into their "lifestyle" by seduction, transexuals could not. Most transexual people believe that they were born into a body of the wrong sex, and seek to remedy the error surgically. Only those who are profoundly unhappy with the social gender roles assigned to their bodily shape are willing to make the drastic change of "sex-reassignment surgery"—nöone else would. Donfbreed2 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The people who make the "homosexual recruitment" claim typically see transgender as more extreme form of homosexuality, perceiving that being transgender is a "lifestyle choice" that is simply more extreme than homosexuality. There is also the fact that "gay" almost always refers specifically to homosexual men and excludes homosexual women and bisexuals; for this reason, "gay" is not sufficiently broad. I agree that the article could use a sentence or two to better explain these things: I will look for references. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 13:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The false accusation of homosexual recruitment.
I realize this is approaching WP:OSE, but based on my examination of the article on blood libel--a concept with as much factual support as that of homosexual recruitment--I believe it is appropriate to add the linked phrase false accusation to the first sentence of the article. I have easily located three reliable sources, one of which is the Southern Poverty Law Center, supporting the concept of homosexual recruitment as having no factual basis and as used exclusively as a tool for discrimination. I have also examined the web closely for a reliable source giving evidence to contradict this, and have found none whatsoever. Is there any valid objection to this addition? I have no desire to turn this article into an edit war. However, this topic seems less a matter of opinion (as some related issues could be) and more a matter of fact; it seems clear that the recruitment concept as illustrated in the article simply does not take place, and there are several reputable entities to be cited that have come forth and observed this.--Drasil (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done after over one month with no opposition. Please discuss any misgivings you may have about this change here before changing my edit and I will respond promptly. Next up: the first section of the article, which is extremely confusing and contains at least one misleading citation misrepresented as lending support to the validity of the accusation.--Drasil (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you are right and this is not a matter of opinion at all. I think you or whoever should take it the next step and try to rename the article to something along the lines of 'the concept of humosexual recruitment' or this article might should even be deleted and only mentioned as a controversy on other homosexual debate pages. I think the name and concept of this article are not notible enough as is to have a place on wiki, as only a small radical element of our society subscribes to this trash anyway.EzPz (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarification, I suggest renaming it to the 'the concept of ....' since homosexual recruitment is not a real thing, thus the article title should reflect thatEzPz (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good thoughts. However, the article already underwent a deletion discussion, and I concur with the results--particularly with JJay's comment in the center of that discussion. WP exists to document notable topics for encyclopedic explanation, and some of those topics are unfortunately falsehoods often used to defame others. As with blood libel, better we document notable fallacies objectively and truthfully here to help combat their less-than-truthful use elsewhere. As far as the title of the article goes, it's probably best kept as-is as well per WP:TITLE.--Drasil (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Homosexual recruitment → Homosexual recruitment concept – Since homosexual recruitment is not a real thing and only a theory/concept of fringe elements in society, the name should reflect the reality. The name as 'homosexual recruit' implies that such a thing exists. EzPz (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons stated above. According to WP:TITLE, the name of the concept is the appropriate title for its article regardless of the concept's validity, as in blood libel.--Drasil (talk) 06:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per cogent analysis by both here and above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even if a concept isn't real, we can still use that concept's name as the title - presuming we cover the topic neutrally in the body of the article. See also Loch Ness Monster, Fan death, and Orang Minyak. bobrayner (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia articles should reflect reality, not what we wish reality was. The concept of "homosexual recruitment" continues to get a lot of air time on national media from commentators of a particular slant who have very large followings. It is incorrect to say that the concept does not actually exist so many people keep claiming that it does. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 03:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

"Examples of the term's use" and "false accusation"
I am confused. After having read the linked article by Daniel Villarreal, Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?, I couldn't take any thing away from it but the suggestion that to "recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality" is a desired action. Doesn't this completely falsify the "false accusation" label in the lead sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.28.135 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I expect It would be clearer if you had actually read the article, anonymous user. Drasil (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Homosexual recruitment. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110618020032/http://www.onenewsnow.com:80/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1371064 to http://onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1371064

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Homosexual recruitment. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110201032313/http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/mE8jac21Q7 to http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/mE8jac21Q7
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.queerty.com/can-we-please-just-start-admitting-that-we-do-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homosexual recruitment. 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:
 * Added tag to http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/rep-steve-cookson-defends-dont-say-gay-legislation/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129083305/http://pridesouthflorida.org/about-us/history/ to http://pridesouthflorida.org/about-us/history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of categories
I think the category:urban myths category should be removed since even though this perception of homosexual recruitment is not disproved, not proven it should be left off as just a difference of opinion and perception. Same with Category:homophobia and Category:hate speech. As far as I see it, neither apply since that view is one anyone is free to have or not have and adding those categories catechizes those who feel like it is in their opinion a real warranted thing. To remove bias, those categories should not be there so that a reader can reflect, ponder and process it as either something that believe is real or not real without a set of tags trying to convince them one way or another. Every reader deserves an article free of fluff that tries to push the editor's corresponding viewpoint.Ilovejellybagels (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't see any point in removing the categories when it is so thoroughly covered in the body of the article. If Wikipedia was in the business of just letting everyone make up their own mind, there would be many, many less categories. Besides that, I also think it is well-documented as a myth. There's also a chance your recent changes are all about to be rolled back. Doctorhawkes (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacobkennedy/Archive
 * What about "belief" since it's already used twice in the lede, and doesn't seem to be objectionable to anyone based on a brief perusal of edit history? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (the original post was removed, but it was about changing "myth" to "idea" in the phrase "the myth of gay people being predators" in the lede). I am strongly opposed to changing "myth" to "belief", as that wording seems to hint that it is just a belief, simply something that some people think (and therefore potentially valid), when in fact it is a blatantly incorrect and harmful opinion held by a small number of people, not something that Wikipedia should lend even the semblance of possible legitimacy to. Where "belief" is used in the lede, it does not apply to the "gay predator" myth – I would be in favour of using "myth" or "misconception" rather than "belief" in those other two cases as well, though. WP:FRINGE would seem to apply here. --bonadea contributions talk 12:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)