Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexual recruitment

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts ^talk 16:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexual recruitment

First let me say that I'm not trying to criticize earlier editors of this page; trying to make an acceptable Wikipedia article out of such an ill-defined topic is difficult by the very nature of the subject. Of course, this is exactly why I am putting this article AfD. The history of the road to AfD of this article is: I prodded it about a week ago, Monicasdude unprodded it, in the meantime Crawford went half-way towards putting it up AfD, so now I'm going "whole hog".

All in all, I would say that if I were going to write a parody of an article which egregiously violated WP:V and WP:WEASEL, I don't know if I could do better than this. Nowhere does this article even make an assertion. Consider, e.g. "it is supposed", "the notion ... is undocumented", etc. What is this article saying, really? Some people [we don't know who or how many] have a belief in a conspiracy theory [which we've sort of vaguely defined], presumably enough people believe this to make it notable [we guess], and finally this is not surprising [since we all know people think this way]. And if you don't believe us, here's an article from The Onion. C'mon. Deville (Talk) 14:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. If someone can come along later and write a sensible article (which isn't OR or POV), they can recreate it. In the meantime, this is helping no-one. CLW 14:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Nobody seriously argues that the subject isn't a commonly enough held belief, that it's not a staple among right-wing chatterati, or that it's undocumented. This is a bad article, so fix it. Wikipedia is not censored on behalf of politically correct sensibilities, and notable right-wing crackpot theories should be given the same coverage that notable (often marginally notable) left-wing crackpot theories get. Monicasdude 14:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There are significant google hits for this concept from the religious right such as [1] or [2]. This was the thinking behind controversies back in the 70s involving gay teachers in the public schools. Instead of denying that this was a controversial political issue, which I think cost people their jobs, the article should be expanded and improved. I also wonder why this nom, who seems to raise a number of editing related questions, did not start on the article talk page?-- JJay 14:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Delete per lack of WP:V sourcing. This is another case of "yeah I know this exists", but where is the sourcing in the article? I actually have a strong desire to keep this article on the basis of the subject, and I'm 100% willing to change to keep if someone takes the time to actually source this better. The AIM source is fine... but credibility is hurt by The Onion reference (though I love The Onion). Post at least one more reputable source.--Isotope23 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone expanded the article... I can't guarantee I'll get to going through it right away, so removing opinion until I have a chance to judge the new article on its merits.--Isotope23 18:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I did want to put this up for deletion, but I decided I needed some more time to think up exactly what's wrong with this article. The main problem with it is original research. There's no evidence to support the idea that "Homosexual recruitment" is the term actually in use by the vast, right-wing conspiracy. I'm a real stickler for correct terminology, and the fact that the term "Homosexual recruitment" isn't demonstrated to be in use by those that are supposed to engage in this activity makes me think this article ought to be deleted. Also, I'm aware of parents who are afraid of their children being around gay authority figures, not because they think the children will be turned gay, so to speak, but because they are afraid the children will be sexually assaulted or abused. Brian G. Crawford 15:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am with Brian on this one, but even more so. First, I have never heard this term. Second, with Onion, Christian and Schools removed from a google search on the term[3], the results fall to about 300. More notedly, just removing Onion pares away about 90% of the hits, which means this is basically an article about an Onion headline. I also love the Onion, (God Answers Boys Prayers: Says No), but this is not the place to substantiate Onion humour. Eusebeus 16:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• With all due respect, there is nothing humorous about this. Homosexual recruitment has been used as a catchphrase by the religious right to attack homosexual teachers since the 1970s. This has been reported by nearly every major newspaper in the United States. Furthermore, your google results are completely distorted by the removal of schools and Christian from the search. -- JJay 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• This seems a strange interpretation of my comment. Eusebeus 21:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Not sure what you mean or how I have misinterpreted you. You said: "this is basically an article about an Onion headline". I've tried to show that this has nothing to do with onion or any other humour magazine or comic book. I really don't think the religious right, or some of the other groups or politicians I've cited below, get their marching orders from Onion or Mad magazine. -- JJay 21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Choice and sexual orientation, unless editors there object. I posted a comment on their talk page asking for imput. This article required editors from Category:Sexual_orientation_and_science before it can hope for neutrality, if they won't participate in it, it should be deleted. JeffBurdges 17:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. A search for the term "homosexual recruitment" in Factiva over the last decade throws up ten articles. One of them is about the Onion story and reactions to it. Most of these are a group of stories from Viriginia in 1998 when the Christian Coalition launched ads that concern "homosexual recruitment in public schools" (the quotes are in the article, meaning that they are part of the CC's campaign). That seems to me to suggest that this particular rubric is not particularly widespread. It also seems to me that the term "homosexual recruitment" is irredeemably POV. With JeffBurdges, I think that a redirect to Choice and sexual orientation is best. Bucketsofg 18:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: No one denies that this is a POV concept, not unlike the many articles that can be found in Category:Pejorative political terms. However, it is far more widespread than you, or others are trying to claim. I get far more than 10 article hits. Here are 10 excerpts over a 20 year span:

1. ...Senate debates surrounding the bill, and a House committee deliberation of the similar HB393, sponsored by Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, focused on the merits of gay-straight alliances. Some called the alliances a safe place for homosexual students that foster tolerance in schools. Bill supporters called them homosexual recruitment tools inappropriate for public schools...Deseret News (Salt Lake City), 2006
2. ...Queer Action Network spokeswoman Lauren Mellor, an organiser of the rally, accused Mr Caltabiano of opposing funding to the gay youth service Open Doors last year while he was a Brisbane City councillor. He had said the Fortitude Valley organisation acted as a "homosexual recruitment cult" when he was allocating grants to youth services, Ms Mellor said. "We are opposed to Mr Caltabiano due to his record of homophobic remarks - it is well known he is outwardly homophobic... AAP News (Australia), 2005
3. ...But late last year public meetings with administrators exploded with complaints about the decals from small groups of parents. Biblical injunctions against homosexuality were cited, along with fears of homosexual recruitment of children. As the debate roared on, some parents related fears about a connection between gays and bestiality, or blamed the brouhaha on Internet pornography. A young woman who rose in defense of the decals was questioned by angry parents about her own sexuality.... Chicago Tribune, 2003
4. « Press ignoring real problem in church: homosexual recruitment », New Hampshire Union Leader (Manchester, NH), 2002
5. "It is my hope and insistence that the Senate heed the plea of Massachusetts families and families across America," Keyes said in a written statement. The failed presidential candidate also blasted Cellucci for "his promotion of the radical homosexual recruitment of our youth." Boston Herald, 2001
6. Another ad, published yesterday in USA Today, talks about ``the truth about the nongenetic roots of homosexuality and ``the truth about homosexual recruitment in public schools. If the ads succeed in stimulating open discussions about homosexuality, they can be applauded. But that is improbable. Miami Herald, 1998
7. Then she was disturbed to hear that he promised to hold hearings on alleged homosexual "recruitment" in public schools. If school districts are penalized for encouraging acceptance of homosexuality, she fears, young people who are coming to terms with their sexual orientation might be driven toward suicide. Washington Post, 1995
8. Porter, whose North Shore district has one of the nation's highest concentrations of public television viewers, wanted to open the hearings to all comers. He was rewarded with a daylong parade of witnesses whose complaints ranged from charges that taxpayers' money was funding homosexual recruitment programs in Akron to warnings that the popular "Masterpiece Theatre" could be dropped by many public television stations. Chicago Tribune, 1995
9. This argument is being advanced by such groups as the Anaheim-based Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). According to these groups, the numerous non-gay educators, health professionals and religious leaders who favor such a program must be either advocates for homosexual recruitment or else dupes of the gay and lesbian community. Press-Telegram (Long Beach, CA), 1991.
10. RealWomen distributed a pamphlet on "sexual orientation legislation" which says, falsely, that many people would be hurt - athletic associations, schools, daycare centres, boy clubs, parents of school-age children. The pamplet rouses fears by warning that because of AIDS, homosexuals have become a medical threat to the population at large; that homosexuality involves sadomasochism, bestiality "and other perversions"; and that the new legislation would make homosexual recruitment of the young permissable and acceptable. Toronto Star, 1986

-- JJay 18:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. JJay's examples demonstrate that the phrase "homosexual recruitment" is used, but the fact that the words are used together doesn't mean there is anything more to say about them than about any other adj. - noun comination. The article is dramatically POV, and the non-POV parts of it have nothing more to say than we learn from the words "homosexual recruitment" themselves. This is not a movement, or an organization, or a unified concept; it is a dicdef. I don't think there's anything that needs to be said about this. bikeable (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Concerns about sources don't make a case for deletion, nor do concerns about wording: what fixes that is editing. A decent article could be written about this; in fact, JJay's material is a start. This stub is not completely unhelpful. Besides, everybody knows it's the food. Smerdis of Tlön 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It does need some editing, but the concept, as well as the wording, is in common use. I see no reason to delete this. YellowPigNowNow 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong (but conditional) keep. Its a hard call. There is little material in the stub at present, but it is a term that's known, a concept that's probably encyclopedic in the end, and an assertation that it isn't just some authors invention is certainly capable of falsifiability and verifiability. It's also for me, more to the point, a notable subject (no matter if minor), might potentially be of broad interest, and "just generally worth a place". I'm not involved in that issue, yet it's a term I have heard in use. My concerns are mostly that as others have said, it's at present poorly documented and completely unsourced. But many articles start off that way. Conditional keep... let's keep it and see if it can be improved to standard before anything else, as it does have good potential to meet Wikipedia standards. FT2 (Talk) 21:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(Edit:5 minutes on Google and some editing later, I have tried to add something vaguely more useful than hearsay to the article FT2 (Talk) 21:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

• Redirect to Choice and sexual orientation, per JeffBurdges and Bucketsofg above. --DanielCD 21:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think this article can very easily be improved. I am very familiar with the TVC's claims of homosexual recruitment, and I think this theory is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I do feel that it is very POV right now, but it can be improved. Andrea Parton 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think it's a valid concept (aside from its truth or falsity) but not big enough for its own article. It's a side issue to the Choice and sexual orientation debate, and should be addressed there. --DanielCD 22:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Choice and sexual orientation, per JeffBurdges and Bucketsofg above. FloNight ^talk 22:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep/Rewrite - I think the concept itself is acknowledged as existing, but difficult to explore whilst maintaining NPOV. As the nom points out, the article could do with a lot of work - "it is supposed" etc. If it is rewritten to back-up these assertions with evidence, then I'd be more comfortable with it staying. Barneyboo (Talk) 22:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as described above. It could eventually become its own separate article, but only if there is actually a good reason to split it off from Choice and sexual orientation. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 @ 22:35 (UTC)
• Delete first ghit for this term is The Onion. 'Nuff said. Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This article is about a claim or argument, not a term. I have heard this argument many times. It was the main argument used in the late 70's, at the beginning of the anti-gay backlash, by Anyta Bryant in Florida, and it is till widely used by the Traditional Values Coalition. You can't judge notability of a topic or concept just by searching the two words of a phrase exactly. For example, Google gets 109,00 hits for "homosexuals recruit" excluding onion and wiki. "Gays recruit" gets 341,000 hits when onion and wiki are excluded. Excluding Christian and schools skews the results since the argument is usually made by Christians who say that homosexuals recuit in schools. Wuzzy 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep -- documents a notable right-wing fantasy. Haikupoet 01:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep please erasing this would not make any sense at all Yuckfoo 06:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Documents a real life ongoing Conspiracy --Ne0Freedom 06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unfortunately a real term. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as a real concept, perpetuated by people of homophobic persuasions. Kukini 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay; documents common objection to gay-inclusive educational programs and materials, as well as acceptance of homosexuality in general. Article is not perfect, but few are. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the term and concept needs to be documented. Haiduc 18:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be in accord with WP standards and precedents. Carlossuarez46 19:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and edit. As per above votes, this documents a concept important to LGBT history and political history in general and, there, should be kept. The article DOES need cleaning, but editing is what fixes that, not deletion. CaveatLector^Talk 21:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up big time per CaveatLector. the previous comment was made by Ziggurat, who forgot to sign in before voting
• Keep. It's a good page. --Julie-Anne Driver 13:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.