Talk:Homosexual recruitment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on April 4 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here. |
Contents |
[edit] Sources
The sources here are ridiculously bad. Someone please put up some WP:V sourcing.--Isotope23 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Post-AfD comments
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)
- AFD is right for articles that have no chance to become notable or meet standards. But if they do, it's worth researching a bit to check, is all. I didn't know much about it except that I'd heard the term. One of the great things about wikipedia is you learn by having to reasearch yourself for edits !! :) Anyway the important thing is its now visibly not contentious what content it has so... yup, the AFD actually did well !! :) FT2 (Talk) 02:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Awfully POV
"Of course this represents a lack of critical thinking…" This is supposed to be neutral? - Jmabel | Talk 03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, clearly no, its not supposed to be neutral. -Seth Mahoney 04:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] psychologists
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)
- Valid verifiable information, not germane to topic. Its more relevant to other topics such as choice and homosexuality which are linked from here as backup and where it is mentioned. Psych view isnt relevant to actual homosexual recruitment. FT2 (Talk) 23:06, 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)
[edit] Fact tags
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)
[edit] Categories
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)
- Never mind, it's fixed ;) -- Longhair 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Read, Conservative"
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.
