Talk:LGBT conservatism

Comments
Both the terms LGBT and the photo of the rainbow flag are symbols of the political Left and violate the Wikipedia terms of "Countering systemic bias" and should be removed from this article. I state this as a gay man.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CEAE:7740:E5AC:3A59:8F88:3931 (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Symbols of...
Anon: I'm sure that the terms LGBT and the photo of the rainbow flag are symbols of the political left to you but they may or may not be symbols something, or anything, political to others, including people in the LGBT community. It's a human right to define one's own politics, and more than a bit presumptuous for a political group to claim any demographic. -motorfingers- 18:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2016

 * The following is a closed 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. No explanation given and consensus against move. (non-admin closure)  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

LGBT conservatism → LGBT right – AHC300 (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "right" may mean "political right-wing" or as in "the rights of Man". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now -- there is no explanation on why you are proposing the request. CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as confusing – the suggested title seems to refer to the human rights of LGBT persons, which is a different topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No sources for the proposal are presented, no sources for the inadequacy of the current title are presented, and the proposed title is in any case potentially confusing as already noted. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per Anthony Appleyard. A "right" is singular for "rights" as in LGBT rights -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Procedural close no rationale provided -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2016 (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.

The 2013 graph
Attention should be taken to the construction of the poll chart. The numbers for 'left' and 'right' parties don't add up to 100%, nor to the parties in those sub-headings. It's difficult to understand what is even under the subheading to the point that the chart is somewhat useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3015:2B02:A700:8110:8F7A:E233:B59F (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

questionable reference for Argentina
The reference provided for this statement:

"In 1887, under National Autonomist Party President Miguel Ángel Juárez Celman, same-sex sexual intercourse was legalized thought Argentina."

does not actually support the implication that President Celman or the National Autonomist Party had anything to do with this change. In fact, it does not mention either of them.

Evidently, a new penal code was implemented in Argentina in 1887, but I have not had much luck finding this online.

The statement was added to the article on 22 August 2015 by (among dozens of other edits of this article on the same day by this user). This makes me wonder about the validity of other sources which this user has added.

In any case, any helpful pointers would be appreciatd. Fabrickator (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

What is Going On Here???
I'm seeing a lot of edits of the type conservative->right-wing and claiming all LGBT people as the property of the Progressive movement. If this comes to the attention of the non-political and conservative LGBT community, we could have a problem here. -motorfingers- 22:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorfingers (talk • contribs)

Anyone object to my changing all "right wing" phrases back to "conservative"? -motorfingers- 18:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I SEE what is Going On Here
We have had multiple edits by two or three users changing "conservative" to "right wing" and now we have an "alt-right" sidebar added. And I now see that this page has been listed under the Facism topic list. This page is being morphed from a reference on conservative LGBT people and groups to a demonization of them by presumptuously adding words and links to unsavory far-right and National Socialist topics and such.

I suggest we consider locking this page and reverting it to its state before the onslaught started a few weeks ago. -motorfingers- 01:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorfingers (talk • contribs)


 * There's no reason for page protection at this point. I haven't looked into this exhaustively, but clearly a whole bunch of edits were made that extensively altered the article in significant ways. I see no evidence of edit warring, however, or of extensive vandalism, sockpuppetry, or anything else that might warrant protection. I removed the link you added to Vandalism on Wikipedia. That isn't an article that usually gets linked to, even from articles that are experiencing vandalism. In any case, Vandalism has a very specific meaning here, and this appears to be a content dispute. I'm not sure it even rises to the level of a dispute per se, since no one seems to have really challenged the changes to the article by trying to change them back again.
 * As things stand now, the lead sentence is certainly a problem. The article is LGBT conservatism and the wording in the lead sentence should reflect that. Beyond that, it looks as though a lot of content was removed—for good or for bad, I'm not sure yet. Let's ping User:AHC300, who was responsible for many recent changes including the ones to the lede, and see what they say. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   17:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * User:AHC300 is the one that tried to rename/move the page "LGBT Right-Wing" and his first edits were to change "conservative" to "right-wing", then to add links and headings with titles like "alt-right" and even "fascism." Some of these changes were reverted or refused.  I do note that "LGBT right-wing" links to this page now, which is interesting because I'm not sure that there is any such thing out there.  My feeling is that people who think of themselves as LGBT conservative would be more than a bit put off by being referred to as "right-wing."  That's why I was thinking that these late changes are akin to vandalism, because the changes are toward demonizing conservatives.  User:AHC300 seems to be knowledgeable about some of his changes, so the problem is likely political polarization, and can be solved by avoiding pejorative terms like "right-wing", "alt-right" and such.  I put the link so that people would have a place to go if they were offended.  This does not seem to be a often-visited page, and the owner is not in evidence lately.  I don't know how I would alert anyone who would be here to help.  Another user that shared my feelings about a takeover of this page referred me to the VillagePump.  I thought that I would change all the "right-wing" references back to "conservative" and see what happened before I went there, but that seems like a huge task with the default editor, and a little senior editor attention is probably better.  -- motorfingers : Talk  23:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not discuss this in two places, so for the moment I'm just replying to what you posted on my talk page. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   05:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I just arrived at this article and I agree that changing "conservative" to "right-wing" is not the kind of change that should be made unilaterally, without consensus - and there does not appear to be a consensus about it at all. I have rewritten the lede to restore "conservative politics" instead of "right-wing" politics as the opening words, given that the article title is LGBT conservatism. I have also removed "alt-right" from the lede, because that would really need a source - it appears highly controversial to include it, and unless there are several reliable sources that identify an alt-right LGBT movement AND include it in LGBT conservatism, it should not be included here. I have also removed a couple of organisations that were mislabelled as "right-wing" (and are also not "conservative") from the Sweden section. I don't have time to look further into this right now, but I agree that most of the "right-wing" labels should be restored to "conservative" unless a strong consensus emerges in favour of the new wording.

There is no owner and no default editor of any Wikipedia page, though I certainly understand that it's daunting to come to a page that seems to be maintained by somebody, and disagree with them! But when somebody makes a unilateral change which you have policy based reasons to disagree with, it is allowable to change it back - the editor who made the change should then discuss it on the article's talk page. The information you need is at WP:OWN and WP:BRD. Note, however, that if the editor who made the first change changes it back (suppose for instance you make the perfectly reasonable reverts back to "conservative", and this is again reverted back to "right-wing") you should not revert war about it, because edit warring is never constructive and can lead to blocks for everybody involved. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

All right, I have looked carefully at the history of this article, and have boldly decided to revert to a version from early April. The "history" section had become difficult to read because sub-headings had been removed and for other reasons (for instance, a minor incident from 2015 had been added, with a POV comment, at the beginning of the history section with otherwise starts in the 19th century). Lots of references had been removed, and are now restored. A number of organisations without any Wikipedia articles (so no indication of notability) had been added with external links to their home pages. And there were other problematic additions, such as a poll among gay men in France concerning how they planned to vote in the presidential election - it had the heading "Right-wing LGBT polling in France" which was misleading, and the sources did not discuss the poll in terms of LGBT conservatism at all, so adding it here amounts to WP:SYN. These are just a few of the issues. I don't really like making this kind of large-scale revert, but the many removed sources alone made it necessary in my view. --bonadea contributions talk 11:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've had conversations with other editors about this page and have seen suggestions from others to revert this whole page back to about April. I think that picking up the normal editing process from the reverted page is a good idea. -- motorfingers : Talk  14:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I endorse the revert. This had dropped off my radar screen or I might have done more or less the same. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   21:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The opening paragraph may be short of references. I am not sure I can provide any, but I was reminded of the movie "Before Stonewall" (1984) which does mention some of what is discussed in the opening paragraph about the conservative and un-affirming character of some pre-Stonewall gay organizations. There must be some citable material that documents the opening paragraph and it should be cited. Milesnfowler (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with global "LGBT" -> "gay"
The edit of 08/10/2017 is a global change of "LGBT" to "gay" which seems unnecessary and changes the meaning of most or all of the text affected. The acronyms LGBT and LGBTQ refer to a wide range of identifications and activities that are not cisgender, where, to me, "gay" simply means homosexual, with the only other generalization that it may refer to either males or females - and some would say that "lesbian" should be applied to females and not "gay".

I haven't checked, but the global change seems likely to have broken a lot of links, too.

I decided not to revert the change until other voices are heard. -- motorfingers : Talk 18:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah a global change doesn't seem right to me. LGBT is not the same as 'gay', though it may be in some cases. —  InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here)  18:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Change already reverted. After I saw your reply, I went to revert the change and see that another editor has already done so.  His thumbnail reason is that the "g word" is hate speech, which is true enough for the new term LGBT or LGBTQ to be preferred lately.  -- motorfingers : Talk  18:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gay Republicans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"LGBT fascist politics" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect LGBT fascist politics. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. gnu 57 15:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

"LGBT fascist" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect LGBT fascist. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. gnu 57 15:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

"LGBT fascism" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect LGBT fascism. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. gnu 57 15:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Germany
In Germany the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) since 2020 and the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU) in Bavaria since 2023 support Same-sex marriages. In 2020, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) published a political video supporting same-sex marriage and families, and in 2023 the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU) adopted a party platform supporting same-sex marriage. As of 2023, the right wing party Alternative for Germany (AfD) remains the largest party opposed to same-sex marriage and supports only civil partnerships. The leader of the AfD Alice Weidel is open lesbian and lives in a same-sex marriage with two children.