Talk:Gay agenda

Blar/Merge

@Buidhe do you know if it could be blared like you did in gay Mafia? LIrala (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly could and probably should. (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead description

Current version is inaccurate. Describing the "Gay Agenda" as a "term used by sectors of the Christian religious right" is misleading. Otherwise the very next sentence wouldn't be showing how multiple secular govenments also use this language. "Critics" is a shorter and more accurate description. The use of the word "disparaging" is also unverifiable and overtly biased. Ozone742 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the reliable sources. You'd need to provide WP:RS that support your interpretation.

"Critics" is unusual word for this – critics of what? Peoples existence? The WP:LEAD is a summary of the body, and it is well sourced that "gay agenda" is derogatory, so "disparaging" in the lead is appropriate. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for the use of the subjective term "disparaging." There are none in the article, and so the burden of proof lies with anyone supporting its use.

"Critics" is far from unusal, and claiming that this means being critical of people's existence is disingenuous. The topic is of advocating for LGBT movements. Not for advocating for the existence of people.

The lead already includes the Christian origin of the term. Makkng the description that I removed redundant, and it obviously conflicts with the fact that the very next sentence shows that multiple secular goverments use the term. Ozone742 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I've made a copy edit shifting reference to the Christian right, as the term is not used solely by them. That's the one part I do agree with you on. The rephrased sentence makes your desired range about "critics of LGBT" redundant anyway. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Thanks, and sorry again for responding in two places. Ozone742 (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Side note, but apologies for responding in two places. I saw your response on here after I had already responded on your own page. Ozone742 (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't really follow this last response, but "disparage" seems pretty accurate to me based on the second source; I cannot access page 20 of the Routledge book. Denying that the term is "used by sectors of the Christian religious right"--I don't get it. It is used by sectors of the Christian religious right, possibly by all sectors. That it's also used by other speakers, including governments, is not relevant. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

"Disparaging" is a subjective term, and I haven't seen any sources that definitely show this to be true. Some at least used that language but not everything in a source is inherently reliable.

I never denied that the term is used by Christian groups. Instead, I was saying that the term isnt exclusive to them, and the previous description made it sound like it was even though the next sentence clearly says otherwise. So its clearly relevant. Ozone742 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

"Disparaging" and "pejorative" are synonymous. "Critics" is a weasel word. The most noteworthy critics of LGBTQ movements happen to be the Christian right. See Template:Sfnlink: Template:Tqqi —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC) edited 06:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The two share similar similarities but are not actually synonymous. "Pejorative" is a word that implies negative connotation. Whereas "disparage" is akin to insult, and is about the intent behind it. Which involves knowing what said critics are thinking, and is inherently speculative.

Speaking of which, saying that "critics" is a weasel word is... strange.

Again, I never claimed the Christian right don't use the term. Please read my comments. Ozone742 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Synonyms for pejorative, according to Merriam-Webster: insulting, slighting, derogatory, malicious, demeaning, disparaging, deprecatory, uncomplimentary, etc. This argument is silly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC) edited 00:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It's very silly to just copy and paste words from a dictionary and think it counts as a reasonable response. If you have nothing to add then don't comment. Ozone742 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has been quite patient with you and their edit was helpful. This isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND. You can use synonyms on Wikipedia because WP:COPYVIO explicitly requires users to rephrase text into their own words. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Insulting people isn't being patient. I also don't wish to have to explain what synonyms are to what I'm assuming are grown adults. Ozone742 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The didn't insult you, they insulted your argument. Template:Tq is different from Template:Tq. I would agree that it's best to avoid such comments but most users make them on occasion. It hasn't reached incivility or personality attacks.. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Debatable, but pointless in this talk page. Ozone742 (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I just quoted a reliable source to the effect that the Religious Right uses the term "gay agenda" to Template:Tqqi efforts to introduce LGBTQ issues into legislation. How exactly do you Template:Em something without Template:Em it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It is incredibly easy to condemn something without disparaging it. Disparaging involves deliberately belittling or insulting said thing. While condemning doesn't require that certain negative connotation to it.

Bottom line is you're trying to argue semantics over the use of a subjective word. Its pointless and harms the credibility of articles to include such language. Ozone742 (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The meaning of condemn is "to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil". Not sure how you do that without a negative connotation. There's arguing semantics, and then there's just denying the plain meaning of words. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

There's also failure to properly read my comments. I didn't say condemnation has no negative connotations, but that it doesn't have the specific element of insulting or belittling like disparaging does. This isn't complicated. If you have nothing else to add then this is the end of this conversation. Ozone742 (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Calling someone or something "evil" is not an insult. I'll keep that in mind, thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I see now that Zenomonoz tweaked the phrasing, probably in a way that suits you better. I still don't really see the problem: the term originates somewhere and then is used by others. That (quoting the edit summary) "Describing usage of the term as solely limited to Christian groups is inaccurate. As evidenced by the fact that secular govenments across the world use it " is not to the point. No one said it was "solely limited" etc., and "secular governments"--well, it's right-wing Christian governments and political groups using the term, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

If you prefer restoring to the original phrasing, I'm not opposed. Just thought there was a bit of repetition there. I'd also add there are examples of conservative muslims using the term, although that is not on this article, so I guess "christians" is a bit limiting. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read my previous comments. I never denied that the Christian right is where the term originates and that they still use the term. Only that the original wording was redundant and limiting. It conflicts with the literal next sentence.

I'm aware that nobody explicitly said it was "solely limited," but the wording originally implied that.

None of the countries mentioned are "right-wing Christian governments" so that point is irrelevant twice over. Ozone742 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:HrTemplate:Re you recently undid the addition of the following text to the lead section: Template:Tq2 Once again you asserted that the word "disparaging" is somehow biased, even though it is milder than the words "demonization" and "condemn" that Template:Sfnlink use to describe the Christian Right's rhetoric around homosexuality. In the place of "disparage" you added the term "describe", which does not actually convey the

1. REDIRECT Template:Strikethrough

Template:Redirect category shell usage of the term Template:Em. Frankly it reads like a whitewash. "Disparage" is in fact the more neutral term here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC) edited 21:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

One biased source using biased language isn't an excuse for Wikipedia's policy to go out the window.

Also "disparage" is objectively more negative than condemn. Ozone742 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Where do you find an objective comparison exactly? "Pejorative" and "disparaging" are literally synonymous, as I've already pointed out. If "disparaging" is somehow biased then should we also get rid of Category:Pejorative terms?Template:PbIt's also not just one source. Template:Sfnlink describes gay agenda as Template:Tqqi. Template:Sfnlink says of the Christian Right, Template:Tqqi. If that isn't disparagement, then what is?Template:PbThis is an obvious WP:1AM since at least three editors have supported the use of the term "disparage" in the lead section. Your semantic arguments have been heard and rejected. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC) edited 21:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay I guess I have to explain what synonyms are now. Synonyms are words that mean either the same thing, or ALMOST the same thing. "Disparage" and "pejorative" are indeed synonymous, but the two differ in nuance. Disparage has to do with the intent, whereas pejorative does not. Which is why it's difficult to use "disparage" in this case because it involves assuming the intent of the people involved. Which moves into speculative territory, and is inherently biased. It's not that hard to figure out.

As for an "objective comparison," feel free to use the same dictionary you quoted earlier. Disparage is described far more negatively than condemn. Again, the former is used insultingly, and implies intent to belittle. The latter does not, and is more broad in its meaning.

Beyond that, if we assume you're correct and the two mean exactly the same thing, then the lead becomes redundant. Why say "Gay Agenda" is a pejorative and then immediately afterwards say it's disparaging if they mean the same thing? So either way your version is poorer.

How exactly is this "one against many" when you're the only one (currently) arguing for your version? I didn't even make the previous version. That was decided after discussion. If anything this is the pot calling the kettle black.

I couldn't care less if you want to dismiss my legitimate arguments. Find another encyclopedia to vandalize then. Ozone742 (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Moreover, just finding more sources that assume intent only shows that they are also inherently unreliable. Ozone742 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, disparage means "to belittle the importance or value of (someone or something) : to speak slightingly about", while condemn means "to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil". Nothing there about intent, and no, I do not accept that Template:Em something is more negative than outright calling it Template:Em (i.e. the opposite of good).Template:Pb There's no meaningful redundancy with the description Template:Tq, which is given additional context with Template:Tq. The first sentence describes Template:Em the topic is; the second sentence explains Template:Em it is used, following MOS:FIRST. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You don't think there's a distinction between insulting (disparaging) and rejecting (condemning)? To imply that groups such as the Christian right are disparaging LGBT movements implies knowing their intent to insult. If, for example, the article used "condemn" that would give the same notion of rejection without assuming the critics' intention of insult.

Beyond that, you clearly missed the rest of the page on Merriam-Webster which includes other variations of "condemn." Notice how none are akin to insulting, and none of the definitions for "disparage" are akin to "condemnation."

According to you, "pejorative" and "disparage" mean exactly the same thing. So, that means the first sentence already gives the reader the explanation of what the term is, and then the next just does so again, but worded differently. Textbook redundancy. Of course, this is if we granted the two words mean the same thing. Which they don't. Ozone742 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure where this notion of Template:Tq comes from; it's certainly not in Merriam-Webster's definition of disparage. Yes, there is a difference between disparage and condemn – disparage is the milder term, as I already indicated. The other meanings of condemn relate to things like condemned property and condemned criminals. Those additional senses also create ambiguity, which is why (along with WP:PLAGIARISM concerns) disparage is the better word to use.Template:PbI already explained that giving additional context is not redundant. For instance, saying instead that Template:Tq would not sufficiently convey the manner in which the Christian Right uses the term "gay agenda" to attack LGBTQ movements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC) edited 00:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)