![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The sources here are ridiculously bad. Someone please put up some WP:V sourcing.-- Isotope23 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
"Of course this represents a lack of critical thinking…" This is supposed to be neutral? - Jmabel | Talk 03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [ [1]] 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 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)
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.
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)
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 citation needed.
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)
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)
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 [4] 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)
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))
The "gay gene" also establishes a paternal link to collateral gay offspring who otherwise would have been brought into the family only by gay acculturation (or, as homophobes would claim, homosexual recruitment).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)
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)
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 decker talk to me 06:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
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 decker talk to me 17:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Can we reduce the amount of these? They are biased and unnecessary. Crzyclarks ( talk) 19:02, 13 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/rep-steve-cookson-defends-dont-say-gay-legislation/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The sources here are ridiculously bad. Someone please put up some WP:V sourcing.-- Isotope23 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
"Of course this represents a lack of critical thinking…" This is supposed to be neutral? - Jmabel | Talk 03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [ [1]] 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 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)
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.
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)
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 citation needed.
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)
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)
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 [4] 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)
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))
The "gay gene" also establishes a paternal link to collateral gay offspring who otherwise would have been brought into the family only by gay acculturation (or, as homophobes would claim, homosexual recruitment).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)
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)
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 decker talk to me 06:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
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 decker talk to me 17:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Can we reduce the amount of these? They are biased and unnecessary. Crzyclarks ( talk) 19:02, 13 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/rep-steve-cookson-defends-dont-say-gay-legislation/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
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)