Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Neutral opening paragraph

Okay, after working for the better part of last evening. I had people on both sides of the debate saying that the following is acceptable. I realize this is controversial topic, but we need to strive for something that perhaps is not 100% what you want, but something both sides can live with. For those of you who just can't bear it, I'd like to hear why.

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the efforts of some gay and lesbian leadership and their supporters to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture within society, or from another perspective, removing anti-homosexual bias from society. It also refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine family and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement.

Thanks. DavidBailey 11:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Stylistically, the attempt to incorporate both points-of-view in that first sentence is a little clumsy. However, the general thrust is okay apart from the word "some". Surely the term "homosexual agenda" is used as a synonym for the whole gay rights movement, not just "some"? If not, which gay activists, groups or leaders are the exceptions? "Some" seems to me to be an attempt to downplay how the term is actually used. David L Rattigan 13:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I would something like this would be acceptable:

"The homosexual agenda" (or "gay agenda") is a term used almost exclusively by opponents of gay rights to describe the efforts of gay activists and their supporters to advocate pro-homosexual policies, media and culture. The term usually has negative connotations and is generally considered offensive by gays and lesbians and their supporters.

The other details can be fleshed out in later paragraphs. I don't think there is any need for words such as "some" to downplay a) that it is used negatively, b) that its users are almost exclusively opponents of gay rights, c) that gays generally find it offensive. "Generally", "usually" and "almost exclusively" seem the most honest words in light of the discussion that's taken place here, where "some" could mean a mere handful, which is misleading. David L Rattigan 13:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, "homosexual agenda" is not synonymous with the entire "gay rights" movement. The term is a buzzword that cannot be proven in all cases, the entire point of pretty much every edit I've made, suggested or protested. Try again. CovenantD 14:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, which groups or leaders in the gay rights movement would those who use the term "homosexual agenda" claim are the exceptions? David L Rattigan 14:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

By removing any kind of limiting qualifier from in front of "opponents of "gay rights"" you have introduced the implication that it's used by all opponents. Another flaw is revealed further down, where the phrase "pro-homosexual" is used. POV phrase if ever there was one. And you can't say "generally considered offensive by gays and lesbians and their supporters" because it's an unsupportable assertion. Same with "usually has negative connotations." The best you could do is provide examples. The entire paragraph you propose is hopeless. CovenantD 16:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

David L Rattigan wrote: "the general thrust is okay apart from the word "some". Surely the term "homosexual agenda" is used as a synonym for the whole gay rights movement, not just "some"?"

Not all gay people are involved in, or even support, the gay rights movement. Therefore, the term relates to the activities of *some* gay people. "Gay" and "gay activist" are not synonyms. "Gay activists" might be a better term to to use (as it is really who the term "gay agenda" relates to), but we should be careful that we do not present an erroneously homogenous view of gay people. Martin 17:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

By removing any kind of limiting qualifier from in front of "opponents of "gay rights"" you have introduced the implication that it's used by all opponents. I don't see how it implies that at all - deducing from "used by all" from "used exclusively by" is just bad logic.

Not all gay people are involved in, or even support, the gay rights movement. I understood DavidBailey to be referring to "some" gay activists ("leaders and their supporters") rather than gays and lesbians as a whole; my objection was that "homosexual agenda" seems to include all gay rights activism in its scope.

I don't know how we're going to get past this impasse over whether "homosexual agenda" is ordinarily a negative term. "Usually has negative connotations" corresponds with all the evidence we've discussed so far, so I really don't understand why it's such a contentious issue.

The entire paragraph you propose is hopeless. CovenantD, when I've put a lot of effort into discussion and producing drafts, blanket dismissals like that are really not helpful. David L Rattigan 19:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Rattigan, I agree with your conclusions here. Al 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not dismiss it without thinking of ways to correct and improve it and not finding any that weren't reiterations of what I've said before and continue to say. When I've put a lot of time and effort into discussion and making suggestions on drafts, seeing yet another one that completely dismisses my concerns is not really helpful either. CovenantD 20:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is, that I think we're going to have to settle on an opening paragraph that none of us are completely happy with, but can live with. Frankly, although the term "homosexual agenda" or "gay agenda" can have negative connotations, I have often heard it used in the media and in conversation simply to refer those who are pushing a homosexual perspective on things. Usually, those using the term do oppose those views. They do not always use it in a derogatory fashion. To state such is a personal bias that doesn't belong in the article, in my opinion. If you really feel that my opening paragraph is "awkward", try to use the same neutral tone to suggest a new one. DavidBailey 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a commented-out note to editors who may mean well but cover familiar ground, similar to Football (soccer). It was not aimed at anyone but rather intended to negate future misunderstandings and edit wars. The other change was that italicizing gay rights and traditional morality both seem rather inappropriate to me, but perhaps others feel differently. To me it implies a bias in that the italics have the connotation that "this is what those people believe, not us" or something similar. Moulder 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that's helpful, and I'm fine with removing the italics if you think it forces a POV on the terms themselves. DavidBailey 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraph is a good compromise between the differing viewpoints being expressed here. It is factual, it does not describe the term as being good/bad (i.e. NPOV), and it notes the offence it can cause to some. David is right that it will be very difficult (if not impossible) to come up with one that everyone regards as being the best possible version; the current one is at least factual and concise, IMHO. Martin 23:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is pretty good. The only weakness being the "Pro-Homosexual" reference, but that is balanced by the "Anti-Homosexual" reference, so it works. In fact, I am impressed at how a quality statement came out of a discussion that I did not think was resolvable. I guess I should have more faith in people! Whatever version remains, I think that a revised hidden warning comment on the main paragraph would be in order -- suggesting to future editors that they review these discussions. (Which perhaps should be cleaned up and edited for brevity) I also think that the compromise or consensus version should be put to a vote so that a future editor might see that vote for reference. 64.178.145.150 02:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed at how a quality statement like the one you made came out of an anon user. ;) You should register or log in, if for no other reason, then so people will take you seriously (i.e. people are more likely to dismiss anon comments and revert anon edits than if it was a logged-in user - nothing to do with this suggestion).

Polling though tends to be last resorts for content disputes; at this point, if there are no ongoing objections, we'd just get a poll with everyone who has the page on their watchlist voting yes. Moulder 06:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been a user of Wikipedia for years and I am also a financial contributor. But I have not done editing. My experience on the Internet (nearing 2 decades) tells me that I should not commit to a name until I am comfortable with the rules and process and get to recognize some personality issues. But I want to sign on asap, so that I can build what is perceived as "credibility". (Long devotion to editing Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that one is a good editor or is an expert on the subjects that one posts towards or even that one agrees with Wikipedia Standards, but that is the implication that I gather from reading editing concepts.) As you can see, I am a novice: I thought polling was a good thing! Another reason I need a log-in is that my IP Address will change randomly over time. 64.178.145.150 12:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer DavidBailey's opening paragraph like this:

The homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the efforts of gay and lesbian activists and their supporters to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture, or from another perspective, to remove anti-homosexual bias from society. It also refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine family and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement.[1]

My major problem was with the tricky word "some", which I don't think can be supported by the way the term is used. Surely all gay activists fall within the "homosexual agenda"? The other change was grammatical "removing" to "to remove". Stylistically, the first sentence is still a bit of a mouthful (I removed "within society", which appeared redundant), and could be improved to be more succinct. Is there a neutral term that could dispense with the need for the two separate perspectives? David L Rattigan 10:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to using "gay and lesbian activists" if it will remove any confusion. As for the first sentence being a mouthful, I would be inclined to simply remove the "or from another perspective, to remove anti-homosexual bias from society" part altogether. Is removing anti-homosexual bias not a pro-homosexual thing to do? Or does "pro-homosexual" make it sound like there's some global gay conspiracy going on? Martin 12:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your last question in a word, yes. CovenantD 22:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your paragraph is fine. But in your comment is something interesting. We have presented an opening paragraph that lists what is perceived as being in this "Gay Agenda". Looks right to me, but is too much assumed? Since the article addresses this as a term used by opponents, I wonder if a paragraph clarifying the topics that are included within the notion of "Gay Agenda" might be useful. I do not mean a paragraph that lists everything every opponent ever said but rather the things that seem to be most often areas of conflict, criticism and concern.

I do think both "Pro-homosexual" and "Anti-homosexual" terms are needed in the first paragraph to maintain that sense of neutrality, or BOTH terms must go. I would not be in favor of removing only one. 64.178.145.150 12:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is we would be duplicating an awful lot of information, so the existing sections would need to be removed. For instance, we have a "Religion" section, but if we added a "Traditional morality" section, it would contain an awful lot of the same information as the "Religion" section. We could certainly try to expand on the already existing sections to incorporate topics mentioned in the introduction.

As for your second comment, I see no "anti-homosexual" terms being employed. Gay activists take a pro-homosexual stance on the matters relating to gay people. Are there any gay activists who are anti-homosexual? Martin 21:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The existing sections are in need of expansion and clarification anyway. :-)

As for the second comment, it's a matter of perspective. Many LGBT organizations phrase their efforts in terms of "equal rights" so that needs to be reflected as well, if only by not lumping them all under "pro-homosexual." I'm not saying either side is right, just that we need to acknowledge the reality of the situation and the claims. CovenantD 22:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK then, how about:

"Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the efforts of some gay and lesbian leadership and their supporters to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture within society. It also refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine family and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights."

....or something similar? Martin 22:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's... not bad. Suggestions are

1. insert "what they call" in front of "pro-homosexual" - it shifts it to the way it's used, and balances the last sentence in structure ("consider themselves")
2. wiki link gay rights and put it in italics, since it's another buzzword. It's a valid perspective, but still not undisputed.
3. wiki link morality. Personally I don't care if it reads biblical or traditional.
4. change the wiki link for "equal rights" to lead to, well, equal rights. Italics may be appropriate here also.

CovenantD 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with all of that except the "what they call". The policy changes are decidedly to advance a gay/homosexual objectives. I realize that there is an inate bias to the term, "pro-homosexual", but I've also had "homosexual-friendly" vetoed, and "what they call" is at least as stilted, if not more so, because it cannot be said to be factually correct, but instead is a particular perspective.

So here's my take, incorporating CovenantD's suggestions:

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the efforts of some gay and lesbian leadership and their supporters to increase public support for pro-homosexual, or against anti-homosexual, policies, media, and culture within society. It also refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine family and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights.

How's that? DavidBailey 00:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't like the italics personally, whether it's being applied to pro-homosexual, gay rights, or whatever. Outside that, I think you've about got it down - although I just realized we've been forgetting that marriage should be mentioned alongside family, since there's that idea that marriage is a sacred institution and whatnot. Moulder 00:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think our mysterious benefactor was right about cleaning up and archiving the discussion on this issue, "for the record", although as I said I don't think a poll is necessary since we don't have two separate versions floating around with support split between them or something similar. Moulder 00:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you still didn't change equal rights to point to equal rights. The first sentence still offers only a pro/anti-homosexual choice, still awkwardly worded. I don't feel comfortable with it being phrased only in those terms. The third sentence is about the perceptions of those within the gay rights movement, why can't the first be about the perceptions of opponents of gay rights? From that perspective, it is what they call gay rights.

I can go either way on the italics. CovenantD 00:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with the need to increase italicizing disputed terms. I personally don't feel that pro-homosexual and anti-homosexual need to be italicized because they are presented together and they are literally/factually true. I don't think non-italicizing gay rights will work for me. I think it is too disputed a term. Also, Moulder is right about marriage. Try this one on for size:

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the efforts of some gay and lesbian activists to increase public support for pro-homosexual, or against anti-homosexual, policies, media, and culture within society. It also refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights.

Comments? DavidBailey 00:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure abut the "against anti-homosexual" bit...it took me a few seconds to figure out what it means! lol Seems a bit awkward, and I think it scanned a bit better without it.
• There is no stigma attached to being "pro-homosexual". It is merely a statement of fact. As I said above, there are no anti-homosexual gay activists.
• The Social equality article is a very short article, the "see also" section of which contains a Gay rights link. This link redirects to LGBT social movements, so I just cut out the middle man and went straight there.
• Is there no way we could put quotes around some of these terms instead of using italics? We could always put a footnote saying "The quotes reflect that the terms are those used by the issue's protagonists, and are not intended to be scare quotes" or similar. Martin 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just splitting this up in an abitrary place to make it easier to follow/edit

I'm not sure I saw why italics were being used...? Their presence is confusing. I'm in favour of quotes - I'd never automatically perceive quotes as indicating a judgment, and in this context I don't see a problem. If you read Scare quotes and the accompanying link, the description of their legitimate usage seems quite appropriate here (ie to distance the article from either side). (Just a note about "scare quotes" - the term is just a label, perhaps a misnomer, for a type of punctuation that has several uses, not just pejorative. The Wiki article is quite clear on that.)

Obviously some of my earlier concerns are not finding favour, so I guess my only remaining problem with the paragraph now is stylistic. "Pro-homosexual or against anti-gay" is a horrendous mouthful! I suggest this:

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the efforts of some gay and lesbian leadership and their supporters to increase public support for [we've got to find a new term or phrase here!] policies, media and culture. It also refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine family and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights.

On second thoughts, "It also refers to" is ambiguous. It sounds like we're referring to two different concepts, which I don't think is what people are saying, is it? David L Rattigan 00:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "pro-homosexual or anti-gay", etc, etc. is awkward. But you'll notice that in your paragraph the "we've got to find a new term or phrase here" statement, while idealistically true, is stumping me and apparently everyone else. I just don't know how else to state it in a neutral fashion. Pro-homosexual is factually accurate, and to keep it neutral, anti-homosexual, seems to be required. Perhaps we could split it into another sentence along the lines of:

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the efforts of some gay and lesbian activists to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture. Gay rights activists would argue they are removing anti-homosexual bias. The term also refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights.

Here's another take. It probably needs some editing, but thrown out as an idea:

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the efforts of some gay and lesbian activists to increase public support for policies, media, and culture that legitimize, mainstream, or benefit homosexuals. The term also refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights.

I have seen many people edit out quotes around gay rights immediately, so I think that italics are less biased, perhaps? That's a style judgement, of course. If we don't use italics, I feel we should drop the statement "opponents of gay rights" altogether. I think it's unnecessary. DavidBailey 00:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see what is wrong with "pro-homosexual". It is simply a statement of fact. Also, we could use single quotes if double quotes are going to cause any confusion. Martin 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really either, as long as you understand that there is a connotation associated with the term that requires balance by also using anti-homosexual. This is a big point of contention for the equal rights proponents. DavidBailey 01:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely you mean "equal rights" proponents? ;) Martin 01:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed.  :) DavidBailey 01:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gay rights is just a redirect to LGBT social movements. Social equality, although short, is fundamentally different from LGBT social movements. Just saying there's a See also at the bottom of that page is not sufficient to show that. CovenantD 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I've added a split tag because there is (or was?) apparently an ongoing debate over the naming of that page and the fact that, somewhere along the line, someone lumped the LGBT "rights" with "movements" in general. I don't think that's necessary, but I don't know what we can do about it now without neglecting this or that. Moulder 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the content of David's last suggestion. The italics debate however, goes on......Martin 02:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not. To link "equal rights" to LGBT social movements is disingenuous. CovenantD 04:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly call it "disingenuous", but I'm not really bothered if it goes to Social equality. Martin 13:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Attempt #27 (grin)

Okay. Bhuck has chimed in his readability issues too, and these are valid. I think the current working paragraph is easier to read. Also, in my opinion, using a computer program to determine how valid a sentence or paragraph is not accurate, although probably more objective. Some of the structure is required by the fact that we are straddling the line between the two perspectives as well.

Here is the most recent paragraph with all of the suggested improvements, including some edits to try to improve readability.

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the goals of gay and lesbian activists to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture, and refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family and shift focus away from traditional morality. Gay rights activists would argue they are removing anti-homosexual bias. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights.

Please comment and make suggestions. If its acceptable, we will put it on the article! Thanks. DavidBailey 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a few minor changes would make it more acceptable:

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the goals of gay and lesbian activists with regards to increasing public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture. It refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights and the removal of anti-homosexual bias from society.

I think this version is slightly more succinct, but I can certainly live with your draft. I realise the linking of "Anti-homosexual" to "Heterosexism" might be problematic for some, but I thought it was less charged than homophobia (and more accurate). It doesn't have to be linked to anything I guess. Martin 21:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Martin and David's revision is the best we've had so far. It could still be more succinct, eg "to advocate" rather than "with regards to increasing public support for". However, I have no major problems with it. David L Rattigan 21:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh - except for the italics. I still don't understand them! David L Rattigan 21:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, then, this is my suggestion:

The homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the goals of gay and lesbian activists to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture. It refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, who consider themselves to be merely advocating equal rights and the removal of anti-homosexual bias from society.

I would have pared it down even more for stylistic reasons, but I'm sure someone would have objected that it introduced bias or changed the meaning somehow! David L Rattigan 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty good compromise; if DavidBailey agrees, and no one else has any objection, let's put it in the article! Martin 21:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that we need either quotes or italics in the places I have been putting them above, but am willing to concede this point assuming everyone else agrees with this edit. White I think we need to make it as succinct as possible without adding POV wording, I tried adding David Rattigan's recommended edit to replace "to advocate" rather than "with regards to increasing public support for", but we lost some meaning in that I think it is less the goal to introduce pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture, than it is to shift public opinion for them. Therefore, if everyone else is amenable, I am okay with David Rattigan's proposed paragraph. DavidBailey 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No one seems to have any objections, so I think we can agree that this paragraph is considered a consensus. I will move it to the article page. DavidBailey 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its a good paragraph. I congratulate you all. I am inspired by the great way this was resolved! I earnestly hope that no one feels that great violence was done to their position. --64.178.145.150 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes vs Italics vs None-of-the-above

Is anyone finding quotes confusing (apart from DavidBailey)? I find them instantly understandable, and find the italics very confusing. Single quotes would be confusing, too - wouldn't we be inventing an entirely new convention doing that? David L Rattigan 00:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Less confusing, than condescending or distancing. DavidBailey 00:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the quotation mark article says: "Single or double quotation marks are used to denote either speech or a quotation. Neither style is an absolute rule though double quotes are preferred in the USA, but a publisher's or even an author's style may take precedence. The important rule is that the style of opening and closing quotes must be matched."

'twas just an idea; I'd prefer double quotation marks personally. Someone did think they were scare quotes in the edit history, I think. Martin 00:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

From a traditional perspective, I agree with you. They are the appropriate punctuation. However, as has been pointed out, they have been "misused", so they can be misinterpreted. Here are some examples: scare quotes and irony. Of course, similar arguments could be made about italics, so we're really kind of hamstrung. Not using either italics or quotes lends credibility to specific, disputed terms and adds a POV perspective to the article. It's a sticky wicket, so to say. Being NPOV is tough on a controversial topic! DavidBailey 01:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How about my suggestion for an explanatory footnote? Martin 01:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be workable. Anyone else want to chime in? DavidBailey 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A footnote is doable, although I don't see it as necessary. I think you've pretty much covered the reasons I originally opposed the italicizing. :) Moulder 01:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"I" don't "think" it is usually a "good" "idea" to put "quotes" around individual "words" or even "short" phrases. It ought to be some sort of "exception". If you "know" what "I" "mean". 64.178.145.150 01:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

lol...we weren't planning on putting them in totally arbitrary positions....Martin 02:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Providence Mayor's "gay agenda"

This probably isn't directly relevant to the article, but for what it's worth:

David Cicilline remembers being at the headquarters for his Providence, R.I., mayoral campaign this fall when a prospective volunteer and voter walked in. "I was thinking of supporting your campaign," the man--a senior citizen and devout Catholic--told Cicilline. "But first, I want to know what your gay agenda is."

"That's easy," Cicilline responded. "My gay agenda is for government reform, improving neighborhoods, and strengthening schools."

--SarekOfVulcan

A fine example of a skillful politician fielding a stupid question. His point is clearly that he doesn't have a uniquely gay agenda. Rather, his agenda is to make Providence a better city for all. Al 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. At least he has a sense of humor. DavidBailey 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why assume he was joking? CovenantD 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't joking - just being ironic. David L Rattigan 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be joking to have a sense of humor. DavidBailey 23:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually know the person on the other side of the question, and was quite amused to come across this and recognize the flip side of the story I had been told. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 21:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing more, if you'd like to leave it on my talk page that would be great, so we don't take up more space here. CovenantD 22:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence in the article is a monstrosity! It goes on and on and on. "some gay and lesbian leadership and their supporters" is an extremely awkward phrasing. "to increase" and "removing" are not parallel constructions, even though they are compared in a way which would make one expect to find the same verb form in both places. And due to the warning tag, I am afraid to mess with the grammar for fear of disrupting some kind of compromise. Perhaps some of those who reached this compromise would be willing to phrase it better?--Bhuck 10:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

We are working on stylistic changes above. David L Rattigan 11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above seems more concerned with content than with form and does not address the concerns I have raised here.--Bhuck 11:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... I have brought up the stylistic issues a couple times, but I guess they are on the backburner while the content dispute is sorted. I did change "removing" to "to remove" in an earlier suggestion, but it seems to have reverted back for some reason.

For the opening sentence, I would be happiest with simply "the efforts of gay activists". David L Rattigan 11:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, when we've tried to introduce stylistic changes above, one side or the other has argued that it has changed the meaning or introduced a bias. David L Rattigan 12:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bhuck, I think we should reach some sort of a consensus regarding the content before we worry about stylistic changes. Please feel free to add your opinions to the above debate. Martin 13:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I ran the first paragraph through Microsoft Word's Grammar and Style Checker with every possible option turned on. I accepted Word's recommended changes. I then changed to "the efforts of some activists" (removed gay for readiblity) and here is the result:

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the efforts of some activists to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture within society, or from another perspective, removing anti-homosexual bias from society. It also refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine family and shift focus away from traditional morality. Some, particularly those within the gay rights movement, consider the term offensive.

Word only requests a possible change to "what is seen" in the second sentence.

Word gives the following a Flesch Reading Ease score of only 19.6 (vs what they say is the ideal of about 65 and a Flesh Kincade Level of 16.6 (supposedly College Graduate Level) The key to increasing the readability is smaller sentences and smaller words. I am unable to get the reading score above 37 or the level score to below 11th grade and that was by changing everything to this simplistic form: Homosexual Agenda (or Gay Agenda) is a term used to describe efforts to remove anti-gay bias from society. It also refers to attempts to redefine the family and to shift focus away from traditional morality. Some gay rights activists, consider the term offensive.

For comparison purposes I ran 3 New York Times articles through Word and got scores as follows:

• 30.6 / 16.4 - about abuse in Iraq
• 39.4 / 15.8 - Army builders accept blame over Flooding
• 60.7 / 9.4 - AP Report about 7 people slain in Indianapolis

The current version now posted in the article gets scores of 21.3 and 17.2.

64.178.145.150 13:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Right now, it appears the activists attempt to create support for policies and support for presenting. It could be, however, that the activists themselves do the presenting, instead of attempting to create support for others doing the presenting. Such questions arise when one tries to pack too many things into one sentence.--Bhuck 19:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bhuck, please discuss above in "Neutral opening paragraph". Thanks. DavidBailey 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that unrelated concerns in the previous discussion section have been resolved, I would like to return to the issue of the phrasing of the first sentence. This is certainly an improvement over previous versions, but leaves room for further improvement. The sentence states that the goals of GLBT activists are "to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture." Is it NPOV to refer to equal rights as a "pro-homosexual policy"? I think we need to find a different and more neutral term for this. If we cannot agree on a term (I would prefer "equal rights" or something like that), it might be necessary to include two phrasings, but then we would need to end the sentence there, before going on to media and culture.

Indeed, what is meant by "...media, and culture"? Activists' goals include increasing public support for pro-homosexual media? Does that mean that they want to conduct a subscription drive for the Washington Blade? Exactly which media are pro-homosexual, and how do the activists attempt to achieve the purported goal of increasing public support for these media? Does pro-homosexual culture differ from homosexual culture in general? Maybe we could drop the "pro-" prefix?--Bhuck 09:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never liked "pro-homosexual, but I also dislike "equal rights". In particular, I think this repeats the previous problem of this term being "offensive". Some folks see the issue as actively promoting a specific set of new (and thus not equal) rights that are "pro-homosexual". Others see the issue as simply and only letting homosexuals do the same things that other do and thus "equal rights" and not "pro" any one group. I have thought about this a lot and do not see any way around the problem. I think your comment about media is fair. Probably the term should be "messages in the media" or something like that. One of the problems with removing the "Pro" from Homosexual is that, to be fair you should also remove the "anti" from it as well, later in the sentence. Because both anti and pro are included in the opening paragraph I believe that this meets the standards for NPOV.--64.178.145.150 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I prefer this:

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the efforts of some gay and lesbian leadership and their supporters to increase public tolerance and/or acceptance of same-sex relationships within society, or from another perspective, removing anti-homosexual legislation and bias from society. It also refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine the nuclear family and change the traditional morality of countries where the Abrahamic religions have been or are dominant. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement.[1]

It is not certain who coined the term, but it is most often used by Christian fundamentalist groups and social conservatives in the United States.

Over this:

Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of gay rights to describe the efforts of some gay and lesbian leadership and their supporters to increase public support for pro-homosexual policies, media, and culture within society, or from another perspective, removing anti-homosexual bias from society. It also refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine family and shift focus away from traditional morality. The term is considered to be offensive by some, particularly those within the gay rights movement.[1]

It is not certain who coined the term, but it is most often used by Christian fundamentalist groups and social conservatives in the United States.

For the following reasons:

• Pro-homosexual is misleading since it can refer to many things. For example pro-homosexual sex for all people regardless of sexual orientation, etc. While same-sex relationships would be more concise.
• Traditional morality differs between regions, i.e. traditional Greek morality would be pagan and traditional Japanese morality would Buddhist both of which had no problems with homosexuality. Abrahamic is much more precise.

Globeism 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are different moral traditions, but "Abrahamic" would be misleading - there is no consensus that western morality is truly "Judeo-Christian". I think the context is clear that traditional western morality is in mind, but perhaps it just needs the addition of "western"?

By the way, the reason for the revert was not for because of any inherent problem with the edit; just that we have been discussing the opening paragraph for the best part of a week, so at the moment the consensus is there should be discussion before any major changes! David L Rattigan 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen by the discussion covering several pages, we are actively working towards a consensus. As I write, the current draft can be seen in the "Attempt #27 (grin)" section. Please feel free to add your thoughts above. Martin 23:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it problematic when people trying to contribute to a discussion are told where they have to write their comments. The above discussion is dreadfully tangled, and it is sometimes refreshing to try a fresh start in a new section. Generally, I think Globeism's approach is an improvement, though I would prefer not to use the problematic phrasing about "Abrahamic religions." I don't think we really want to open the discussion here about why Thailand doesn't recognize same-sex marriages.--Bhuck 13:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about you, but I can think of better uses for my time than having the same conversation four times (on this page alone). If everyone one who is contributing has to have their own section detailing their preferred changes, the "dreadfully tangled" section will seem like a model of clarity. If we are going to work towards consensus, we need to do so together. There is an ongoing discussion above, and the refusal to participate in it could be construed as a disregard for the efforts and work of the other editors who are trying to reach a consensus (although, I'm sure that's not the case here). Martin 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

Bhuck, rather than continuing to add the disputed tag, could you explain the parts of the article you think are disputable? I feel this tag is often used when someone disagrees with something in the article, which is probably not the best use of it. That's why the discussion page exists. Thanks. DavidBailey 17:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10