Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 7

message: It is perhaps too easy to slap a disputed tag on an article because you disagree with something. I believe the only time it is appropriate is when you can show that there are factual errors in the article. If there are, please discuss them here, so we can fix them. If there are wording issues, which seem to more often be the case, be aware that we are working very hard to make this article neutral in voice and balanced in presenting the major perspectives. Thanks for your help with the writing of this article. DavidBailey 03:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of this tag constitutes vandalism and will be reverted as many times as needed (since 3RR doesn't apply). Al 03:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not see it a dispute about facts.  It is a dispute about tone perhaps. --64.178.145.150 06:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The debate seems to be more about neutrality than factual errors.  Shouldn't that tag be used instead? Fireplace 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, sorry, I've been at this too long today. CovenantD 06:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to the "neutrality" tag as we all seem to agree that this is the problem with the article.  Sophia 06:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is more appropriate while we work that out. Thanks. DavidBailey 11:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed tag

message: I understand that there are concerns about Neutrality, but what facts are disputed? --Anon 64 17:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added <citation needed> tags to the points that seem to be opinions presented as facts. CovenantD 14:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a citation and didn't see any more <citation needed> tags. I switched the article tag back to NPOV. Are you in agreement now CovenantD? DavidBailey 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything at the moment. thanks! CovenantD 03:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Disputes? 

message: I think that list is probably close to what people think is in the agenda, but the wording put up here seems to have a fairly strong POV.  I realize that this is describing the views of people with a POV but the volume of the entries within the article and the length sort of detach the list from that sense of describing the views of others and so the list needs better working.  For example I would not say Discrediting the Scriptures, but I would say something like "Disavowing the validity of religious teachings" or something like that.  And instead of "Muzzling the clergy", I would say "Reducing or eliminating the influence of religion in public policy". Maybe that goes for both of those lines.  And what exactly is "tapping" Corporate America? --Anon 64 18:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Just out of curiosity, why not leave the quote, which speaks for itself and requires no summary? Aren't we making it harder by trying to represent it in neutral terms? DavidBailey 00:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that approximating the content of the purported agenda is central to the article, and so more voices than Dobson's should be heard.  A bulletted list (1) allows for an inclusion of multiple views without giving direct quote after direct quote, and (2) allows for easy editting (which cannot be done with quotes), such as those Anon 64 suggested (Dobson is on the more extreme end of the political spectrum, and his views may be distortions of the more common view). Fireplace 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Maybe but I think that list needs a lot of editing work.  It just rings wrong for an encyclopedia the way it is.  --Anon 64 05:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would be better to just include the quotes of those other than Dr. Dobson. That way, there is no interpretation taking place, and the comments are seen in context, or at least a reference allows the comments to be read in context. DavidBailey 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we're trying to show that belief in this agenda is shared and that common elements are ascribed to it, I think that three brief quotes describing the alleged agenda would be a good representative sampling, with appropriate references per David of course. Maybe even a few additional references in an Other reading section to show a larger sampling without overloading the article. CovenantD 19:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterizing the Agenda 

message: It refers to what is seen as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality. I believe that it is better to use active voice. Instead of "is seen" we should write It refers to what XY see(s) as an attempt... Otherwise it sounds like everybody sees it as such an attempt, which is inaccurate. For the interim I would suggest the phrasing It refers to what certain people see as an attempt to redefine marriage and family, and shift focus away from traditional morality until we can reach a more precise agreement on who sees it this way.--Bhuck 10:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Fireplace 16:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree.  Sophia 19:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bhuck, please the entire paragraph with your proposed edits here so we can discuss them. Thanks. DavidBailey 03:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, using the version history function, you should be able to place my proposed edits in the context in which they were made. Currently, the article has a sentence in this place which is in the active voice, and is more specific than "certain people", as it instead uses the phrase "many opponents". I consider this to be an improvement over my suggested phrasing, and a big improvement over the previous phrasing. However, I think there is also room for further improvement. The term "opponents" appears twice in the first paragraph, but there is no explicit statement of what it is, exactly, that they are opposing. Are they opposing gay rights activists? Or are they opposing the homosexual agenda? I think this should be more clearly stated, and I think to say that "the homosexual agenda is a term used by people opposing the homosexual agenda" is a bit self-referential, so we should probably define the term "opponents" by something else.--Bhuck 10:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are certainly correct that I can do that, but it makes discussion unwieldy. I believe it is better to the complete text here in discussion so all can easily view and comment on it. You may want to terminate this discussion thread, and add your recommendations to the paragraph that is being discussed further down so we can keep this discussion together instead of having it in so many places. DavidBailey 19:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The complete text keeps changing, however.  You seem to be the only one having this problem; I get the feeling that you are attempting to delay discussion.  I'm not sure what you mean by "further down", but I feel it is premature to archive this discussion thread as you did.--Bhuck 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I meant further up in "Proposed First Paragraph". And I am not intending to delay anything. It takes time to form a consensus. DavidBailey 22:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The term "gay rights" is POV, and the use without attribution and/or qualification is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. So do you have another solution to the POV problem? -Other than just edit warring, that is... Pollinator 03:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Feel free to point me to where it says that allegedly POV terms should be given scare quotes or italics.  Thank you. Al 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I invited you first to propose a truly neutral solution. You are evading the question. Pollinator 04:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In that case, let's also remove the "what they see as", "what they believe is", "what they view as", as they are also not neutral. DavidBailey 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, in that case, you won't object to "The homosexual agenda (or the the gay agenda) is a term used by opponents of what activists call gay rights". DavidBailey 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more accurate to say "...opponents of what everyone else calls gay rights", since those who do not call gay rights gay rights oppose gay rights.  But I think that would serve neither your purpose nor the purpose of the rest of us editors.--Bhuck 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive Voice in the Second Sentence 

message: Since a lot of users seem to be active here, I'd like to invite you all to visit the Opposition_to_homosexuality and Talk:Opposition_to_homosexuality pages and help settle the dispute or improve the article. Thank you. --Facto 06:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Opposition to homosexuality]] dispute

message: I think this page violates the Neutral point of view guidelines for "Giving 'equal validity'". 
Basically the article quotes several sources which state (without proof) that there exists a "homosexual agenda" and then the article simply says that they homosexual community says that there is no agenda. To give a more specific example, the included quote "They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly" is in itself a violation of giving equal validity to POV vs fact. 
The only way to save this article from the POV dustbin would be 1) If the "homosexual agenda" exists, then include hard evidence, or 2) if it does not exists, then give a clear description of what the homosexual community views as its goals to make it clear that the notion of an "agenda" is a POV from outside of the community.
Hope this helps. 
ps In case I get flamed, please, show the facts?
Davidhc 21:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's tricky because I think you can argue that the article is about the term, not the actual purported agenda (that would clearly be NPOV, because it's existence is controversial) -- and the term clearly does exist in widespread usage.  Here are two proposals: change the title of the article to "Homosexual agenda theory", or (less drastically), just replace some/most/all instances of "homosexual agenda" with "purported homosexual agenda." Fireplace 21:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV - equal validity