Talk:Communism and LGBTQ rights

Terminology

Homosexuality is not something people do. It's the state of being a homosexual person. What homosexuals do is engage in homosexual activity, and that's what's been criminalised in some jurisdictions. We're trying to suggest here that homosexuality itself has been the subject of various laws in various countries, which is an absurd proposition. That would be like laws banning people from liking certain types of music - as distinct from banning them from actually performing that music in public or wherever. We have to fix the terminology. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous though it may be, being homosexual is precisely what anti-homosexual oppression has tried to put a stop to. Gassing them to death was not the Nazis trying merely to get them to stop engaging in homosexual activity.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply, Nuttyskin. I see what you mean. But in order to target someone as being homosexual, there must be some sort of evidence of that. Such as being found in a gay club or bar, or being seen to be engaging in gay sex, or kissing a member of the same sex, or admitting it in a letter or orally within the earshot of the authorities, etc etc. Gaydar aside, one cannot just look at a total stranger and "know" they have homosexual thoughts, and are therefore fit only for the gas chambers. They need not be engaging in homosexual activity per se to fall into the clutches of the authorities, but there must be something they do that compromises them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Association of Homosexuality with Communism by an Anti-Communist Who Attended a National Meeting of Communists

I would like to add the following association to the section because the cited newspaper is a reliable source of this association, which is also notable:

In 2008, a then Idaho state representative, Curtis Bowers, wrote an editorial in which he reported that homosexuality had been given as a means to "take America down" at a 1992 meeting at the University of California, Berkeley, of communists he had attended. He noted that they had planned to use the homosexual movement to undermine religion and morality to destroy America's culture.

It is notable because the association was reported in other articles. Perusteltu (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

These are all extremely local papers, only one of which is truly a secondary source in any way, reporting on or reprinting a piece by a local whackjob who claims he went to a Communist meeting where he claims they plotted to spread homosexuality and take over America. The amount of hedging you'd need to do in order to properly contextualize this in the article would make it way undue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Roscelese. Please understand that the section Association_of_communism_with_homosexuality_by_anti-communists does not necessarily need to verify what a person is claiming, but only needs to verify that a person has made a claim and that the claim is notable. Since you and I agree that the former state representative made the claim, let's discuss whether the claim is notable. It is notable because it sparked a protest. Another notable aspect of the association is that the claim has been referred to in venues outside of its original geographical area. Perusteltu (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The first additional source is a press release. The second is another painfully local piece that is WP:ROUTINE coverage of the whackjob's talk at a café. Compare the sources already in the article for the claim by anti-communists that communism is super gay: books, scholarly journals. The writing also does not attempt to claim that the statement is true, only that these public figures notably claimed it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, thank you again for your feedback. I apologize for asking to discuss whether the claim is notable. The main article of the section WP:ROUTINE seems to imply that notability in Wikipedia applies to articles, but not necessarily to individual paragraphs within the article. The guideline says, "Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. The topic of an article should be notable...." Thus, we should instead be discussing whether the proposed paragraph satisfies the Wikipedia:Core content policies: "neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research."

Per your feedback, Roscelese, I am adding the words he claimed to the proposed paragraph below. How else should we improve it?

In 2008, a then Idaho state representative, Curtis Bowers, wrote an editorial in which he reported that homosexuality had been given as a means to "take America down" at a 1992 meeting at the University of California, Berkeley, of communists he claimed he had attended. He noted that they had planned to use the homosexual movement to undermine religion and morality to destroy America's culture. Perusteltu (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

NPOV, as you may or may not know, includes DUE weight. As I've pointed out already, the sourcing is probably too poor to include this at all, and certainly too poor to include it with all the hedging that would be necessary in order to convey that this claim is not credible. There is no reason whatsoever to include it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, thank you again for the feedback. Please realize that if a secondary source confirms the claim that at the 1992 national meeting of communists homosexuality was presented as a tactic to weaken America, then that claim would be in a separate article with a title such as "Communist Strategies to Weaken America." Thus, although the claim is reasonable and consistent with other claims, you and I should not be discussing whether the claim is verifiable on this talk page. What we should be discussing here is whether or not an anti-communist has made the reasonable claim and how to describe that fact neutrally. Do you think that the proposed paragraph satisfies NPOV? If not, what improvements do you suggest? 05:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusteltu (talk • contribs)

You are not reading what I've already written. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, thank you again for your feedback. Let me paraphrase the objections you have made:

1. The proposed paragraph is not referenced with a source that verifies the claim.
2. The claim was covered by media outlets in one geographic area.

Objections 1 and 2 are not valid for the reasons stated above and here: If the claim were verified, then the claim would not merely be an association made by an anti-communist, but it would be a documented strategy. Whether or not the claim is valid is moot for the section Association_of_communism_with_homosexuality_by_anti-communists. This section is describing claims, not their validity. Since it seems that notability pertains only to articles and not to paragraphs, Objection 2 is also moot. What do you think that I am not understanding about your objections? Thank you, Perusteltu (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but here's what happened: A crazy elected guy said something crazy. A bunch of cynical local reporters wrote articles making fun of the crazy elected guy is in that underhanded way that reporters have. A few overly-earnest lefties had a protest about what the crazy guy said. More fun was made of everyone, no longer so covertly. 17 people signed a petition asking for the crazy elected guy to resign. The story faded away in 2008, more than 6 years ago. If this all was anything more than silly season stuff it would have been covered in real sources by now. Until that happens I don't believe it's possible to make a policy-based case for including anything about this in this article, which, hodge-podge that it is, seems to be about something moderately real.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alf, you seem to be confused about this section. The purpose this section is not to establish whether a claim is true, but that a claim has been made. Therefore, your ad hominem merely undermines your appearance of good faith. Instead of calling the source names, let's examine whether or not the proposed paragraph satisfies Wikipedia's core content policies:

# Verifiability

# No original research

# Neutral point of view (NPOV).

Roscelese's stated opinion in that inclusion would violate NPOV. However, the proposed paragraph achieves, or at least approximates, NPOV. Consider the requirements for NPOV:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. The proposed paragraph does not state Bowers' opinion as fact. It says that he claimed....
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. The proposed paragraph says that Bowers reported that.... It does not say in Wikipedia's voice that homosexuality was given as a tactic to weaken America.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. If anything, the paragraph leans toward being judgmental against Bowers because the quotes around "take America down" could be interpreted as scare quotes.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. No one is claiming that Bowers did not make the claim. This section is a list of claims. Is it not? Thus, why should not this claim be added to the claim list? Perusteltu (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, obviously. I'm sorry that that wasn't clear to you from what I said. I will make sure to be super-explicit. Your proposed edit violates WP:UNDUE, which is a part of WP:NPOV, because it describes a trivial remark made in a trivial context and was only the subject of trivial reporting. You see what I mean?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification of your objection. Your objection would be valid if you were objecting to the association's WP:NOTABILITY given the two citations. However, notability does not seem to apply to paragraphs, but to entire articles. Therefore, if I prove that the claim is notable, then it could be a candidate for its own article. Perusteltu (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand your words, but not your sentences. You're wrong. Given that you have 29 total edits to article space, the chances that you understand what you're talking about are pretty small. Perhaps you might try to understand what others who have more experience are telling you rather than repetitiously promoting exceedingly idiosyncratic views of policy. Or maybe you might not, I don't know. But unless someone in the world publishes some stuff about this guy's remark in 2008 that lends it any kind of weight at all, there's no reason to mention it. Contemporaneous newspaper stories making fun of the guy and reporting on minuscule protests against the guy are not enough coverage to justify including his views at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think somebody's spitting in your soup. MastCell ^Talk 19:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a new one for me (the essay, not the phenomenon). Good lord.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

MastCell is wrong. "[T]he aim of WP:SOUP is to win not by rational argument, but by making the discussion so labyrinthine that other participants are exhausted/bored to the point of giving up." My argument is purely rational. 1. The purpose of this section is document associations. 2. The documentation method seems to be a list. 3. If it is list, then notability of each association is not required. Perusteltu (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's possible to make rational arguments without having the purpose of winning by rational arguments. Just like it's possible to hit something with a hammer repeatedly without having the purpose of driving a nail.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you disagree with premise 2, then what do you think the documentation method of this section is? Perusteltu (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a category error. "List" is not a "documentation method."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. A documentation method is "listing." A document contains a list if the documentation method includes listing. Is that what you mean? Perusteltu (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your lips are moving, but the words aren't clear.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Suppose you were asked to document the Seven Seas. One method you could use is to list each sea. Your document would then contain a list: 1. Atlantic, 2. Pacific, etc. Perusteltu (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I still don't get it. Sorry to be dense. I do wonder, though, how did you decide that there were seven instead of eleventy-zillion?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your point about how to decide what is included in a list. A lister should use standard definitions. For this section, if it this section is a list, then we should use the standard definition of "association." If this section is not a list, then what is it? Perusteltu (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's super-hard to understand what you mean. The third sentence you wrote makes no sense to me at all. Your fourth sentence I think I understand. It's not a list. It's a little explanation of the subject delineated by the section heading, which should be written in prose to explain what it's all about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the third sentence. I replaced a pronoun in a failed attempt to make it clearer.

To analyze this section, let's abstract it into this list:

1. Sen. Joseph McCarthy associated homosexuality with Communism.
2. Sen. Kenneth Wherry associated homosexuality with anti-nationalism.
3. The Mattachine Society has been associated with Communism.

The section essentially lists associations. Therefore, editors should not invoke UNDUE about whether to add to the list. Editors should invoke UNDUE about views about associations. For example, the section includes only one view about an association, which happens to be uncited: "Some historians have argued that, in linking communism to homosexuality, McCarthy was playing off of prevalent anxieties about sexuality in order to gain support for his anti-communist campaign." Perusteltu (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you rewrite your comments after people have commented on them it makes it impossible to follow the conversation. See WP:REDACT and maybe learn to use strikethroughs for corrections. Anyway, you have the most novel wrong theory about undue weight I've ever seen. Should we list every person who's ever associated communism and homosexuality in the context of anticommunism? That's actually your position? Every single one?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Thank you for the direction about what I should do if I rewrite a comment. To answer your question about what we should include in a list, the policy Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists states that every non-notable member of a notable set is eligible. Therefore, every single non-notable association of communism with homosexuality by an anti-communist may be listed. WP:UNDUE must not prevent an editor from adding an item to the list. WP:UNDUE may prevent an editor from adding a view about the list.

For example, an editor might have given the following uncited view about the list undue weight: "Some historians have argued that, in linking communism to homosexuality, McCarthy was playing off of prevalent anxieties about sexuality in order to gain support for his anti-communist campaign." What have others argued? Perhaps they have argued that McCarthy linked communism to homosexuality because he thought that communists were using homosexuality to undermine Americans' health. If this latter view is in the extreme minority, then WP:UNDUE says that the latter view should not be added to this section. Likewise, if the former view is in the extreme minority, then WP:UNDUE says that the former view should not be in this section. WP:UNDUE does not say anything about whether McCarthy's association itself should be in this article.

Therefore, WP:UNDUE allows an editor to add Skousen's and Bowers' associations.

Alf, it seems that you would like for each listed item to be notable. Even though notability is required only for articles, Skousen's association is notable. His association is in the Congressional Record. His gained the attention of an elected official. Also, Bowers' association is notable. His association prompted him to make an award-winning film, in which he also happens to cite Skousen's association. Perusteltu (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating. But there's no list involved here, so WP:LISTN is irrelevant. I can't follow the logic, if there is any, in the rest of what you say.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:LISTN is relevant because it helps editors understand Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_articleWikipedia:LISTN#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article. The prose in this section describes associations. The prose states three associations. About one association, the prose states a view. WP:UNDUE cannot apply to the three associations. Otherwise, WP:UNDUE would be enforcing a notability guideline. Let me restate the logic here:

1. Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_articleWikipedia:LISTN#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article

2. WP:UNDUE applies to content in a manner consistent with Premiss 1.

3. Assume that WP:UNDUE requires all content to be important (i.e., notable).

4. Thus, Assumption 3 contradicts Premiss 1.

5. Thus, Assumption 3 contradicts Premiss 2.

6. Hence, WP:UNDUE does not require all content to be important.

By 6, we know that WP:UNDUE does not require all content to be important. Thus, we ask, What content does not need to be important? Here is where WP:LISTN helps us. Non-important content is permitted to be content that is isomorphic to a list. What does that mean? It means that if an editor re-wrote the prose as a list, then all content that the editor chose to be list items may be non-important. Let me restate the logic here:

6. WP:UNDUE does not require all content to be important.

7. Some prose can be re-written as a list.

8. Lists have list items.

9. WP:LISTN allows non-important list items.

10. Thus, concepts in the prose that became list items are not required by WP:UNDUE to be important.

Which, if any, of the logical steps above do you not follow?

Now, it is clear that if this section's prose and proposed prose were re-written as a list, the list items would be these items:

A. Sen. Joseph McCarthy associated homosexuality with Communism.

B. Sen. Kenneth Wherry associated homosexuality with anti-nationalism.

C. The Mattachine Society has been associated with Communism. (This item is questionable because it is unknown whether the association was made by an anti-communist.)

D. Former FBI Agent and Police Chief Skousen associated homosexuality with Communism.

E. Former Representative Curtis Bowers associated homosexuality with Communism.

Thus, by Conclusion 10, WP:UNDUE allows an editor to add Skousen's and Bowers' to the prose.

What logical error, if any, exists above?

To be extra-cautious, for the sake of argument, let's ignore Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_articleWikipedia:LISTN#Notability_guidelines_do_not_apply_to_content_within_an_article. Let's pretend that all content must be important (i.e, notable). Skousen's association is notable because it is referenced in the Congressional Record and continues to be referenced. For example, it is referenced in an award-winning documentary. Skousen's list, "45 communist goals," which contains the association, generates over 20,000 results in a web search. Do you agree that Skousen's association is notable? Perusteltu (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, but it's not a list. Why don't you start a new article that is a list? Your arguments work just fine in that scenario. You could call it List of Associations of Communism and Homosexuality by Anti-Communists. If you want to turn a nonlist section of an article into a list, you should gain consensus for that change before making tortured arguments about how list guidelines apply to non-list article sections.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Reflist-talk

References

The Naked Communist

I removed this:

The 1958 book ''[[The Naked Communist]]'' by conservative United States author and [[faith-based]] political theorist [[Cleon Skousen]] states that a [[Communist]] goal has been to "[p]resent homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, and healthy'" for this end: “soften America for the final takeover.”<ref> {{Cite book | last = Skousen | first = W Cleon | title = The Naked Communist | origyear = 1958 | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=qeLNHGleHQ4C | edition = | year = 2007 | publisher = C&J Investments | language = English | pages = 161-2 }}</ref>{{Primary source-inline|date=January 2014}}

As I'm unable to find reliable secondary sources that assert that this book is important in relation to communism and homosexuality. All the discussion of the book I can find seems to ignore whatever he says about homosexuality. He wrote an essay about "How to raise boys" or some such thing that was quite anti-homosexual, but not so much about communism in there. Anyway, without some reason to think this book's theories on homosexuality are important I don't think we need it. Plus "faith-based political theorist" seems unfixable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I added a secondary reliable source. Perusteltu (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

After I added a secondary reliable source, someone reversed it saying that I need to get consensus first. However, you asked for a reliable secondary source. It had reliable secondary source when it was reversed. Thus, was not the version with consensus reversed? Perusteltu (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Perusteltu: You should add your RS here, with the suggested edit. The request for consensus was in edit summaries here and others. Consensus is needed for your source. You might WP:PING the requesters to bring them into the discussion. Jim1138 (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC) @Jim1138: Thank you for the clarification. Please note that request of consensus was for a different paragraph. However, thank you for the general help. Perusteltu (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

‎Perusteltu, the Congressional Record is not a reliable source. Any member of Congress can read anything whatsoever they want into the Congressional Record. Secondly, we need to establish that Skousen's theories about communism and homosexuality had some kind of impact in the world. The way we do that is by finding a reliable source, independent of the subject, that discusses Skousen's theories about communism and homosexuality. I couldn't find one, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Perhaps you'll come up with one, or maybe someone else will, but it's really necessary to have one or more before we put the material in.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: the Congressional Record is a reliable source of the fact that Skousen wrote a book that contains an association of Communism with homosexuality. There is no question that Skousen made the association. When you asked for the secondary source, is that not what you wanted to verify, that Skosen made the association?

Your second point seems to address the question of WP:NOTABILITY. Because the policy on notability has the word article in italics, the policy seems to apply only to articles, not to an individual paragraph in the article. Am I not correct? Perusteltu (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The book is obviously a source for its own existence and subject matter. It's not a source for its relevance to anything. There may be thousands of books that associate communism with homosexuality. Their mere existence is not an argument for mentioning them here. In order to be included they must represent a significant point of view. The way we judge the significance of a point of view is by seeing that it's discussed by reliable sources that are independent of the work itself. The CR is not such a source. We are not talking about notability, we are talking about undue weight.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Undue weight has to do with this question, What are the majority view and the minority view in this case? The majority view is that Skousen made the association. The minority view is that he did not. Perusteltu (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We've got a WP:COMPETENCE problem here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The majority view is that Skousen's views on homosexuality and communism are completely and utterly irrelevant. The minority view is that they're only mostly irrelevant. The majority view, as evinced by the fact that no one in the world seems to care enough about Skousen's views on homosexuality and communism to talk about them at all, is that his views don't matter. In fact, they don't matter so much that there are no reliable independent sources that even discuss them. We should therefore give due weight to the unanimous view of secondary sources that Skousen's views aren't worth talking about by reflecting that silence in our article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that I, Alf, and Roscelese are interpreting the purpose the section Association_of_communism_with_homosexuality_by_anti-communists differently from each other. I am interpreting it as a list of associations. It seems that you and Alf are interpreting this section as Communist Strategies to Undermine America.

If "Communist Strategies to Undermine America" were the title of this section, then your UNDUE-objection might apply. The majority view might be that homosexuality is not part of a communist strategy. If that were the majority view, then, as the UNDUE policy states, secondary sources would be needed to establish significance of that view and the minority views. (The fact Skousen's view is part of the Congressional Record is arguably significant.)

However, since the title of this section is Association_of_communism_with_homosexuality_by_anti-communists, then it is a list of associations of communism with homosexuality by anti-communists. Thus, if there were one thousand books written by one thousand anti-communists, each would qualify for the list. That huge body of work would be notable.

Which interpretation is correct and why? Perusteltu (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you don't understand WP:UNDUE if you think there's anything plausible about this claim: Thus, if there were one thousand books written by one thousand anti-communists, each would qualify for the list. The other problem is that you don't understand WP:RS if you think there's anything plausible about this claim: The fact Skousen's view is part of the Congressional Record is arguably significant.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you invoked WP:RS implies that you are interpreting this section as "Communist Strategies to Undermine America." You're interpretation could be correct. Please explain why? Currently, I think that your interpretation is incorrect because this section seems to be designed to be a list of claims. A claim, whether true or not, that is mentioned in the Congressional Record is in fact notable. But for lists, notability is not required; the Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists policy states: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable...." Perusteltu (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What part of "stand-alone" do you not understand?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If a stand-alone list does not require that each of its items is notable, then an embedded list or section-level list does not either. Section-level lists are less significant than stand-alone article-level lists. Perusteltu (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Why?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If a section-level list were as significant as article-level lists, then it could be argued that the section-level list should be its own article. Perusteltu (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC) (I am taking a break from Wikipedia for today. It's been good collaborating with you.)

Why shouldn't it be?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Now that we both have had some time to think about the purpose of this section, let's revisit this question: What is the purpose of this section? Perusteltu (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, you start, since you obviously have an answer in mind.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that its purpose is to document associations. Perusteltu (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hard to argue with that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you agree with premise 1, let's discuss premise 2: The documentation method of this section is a list or, at least, list-like. Do you agree with premise 2? If not, why not? Perusteltu (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither "list" nor "list-like" are "documentation method[s]." Thus I have no idea what you're talking about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Was Wherry a demagogue?

Wherry says: "You can't hardly separate homosexuals from subversives." A demagogue "is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives." I don't think it's off the mark to call Wherry's statement demagoguery. On the other hand, I'm not sure why Wherry's even in this section, since he's not especially well-known for this idiocy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Current status

first sentence in Communism_and_homosexuality#Current_status needs work.

None of the four self-identified socialist states as of 2013 recognized same-sex marriages, civil unions, or registered partnerships.

i'm assuming that the four states are these 4 here, but the source for this information is a slide show from about.com. ≈Sensorsweep (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the section, I think it would be much better to put this information under "Status by country", with more reliable sources. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming article?

Shouldn't renaming this article "Communism and LGBT rights" (or something similar) be more appropriate? Because the article (even before I edited it) was going to-and-fro with references to homosexuality and LGBT rights, and these two are not the same thing. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Communism and homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120825050543/http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/39993 to http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/39993

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Communism and homosexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121019010435/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31308114_ITM to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31308114_ITM

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Stalin's motives

I'm by no means a Stalinist, and I hope I don't come across as an apologist.

But thing is, I knew a very well read Marxist scholar who told me about homophobia in Stalin's USSR, and how he was actually reluctant to criminalise homosexuality and caved to public pressure. Mostly due to how a lot of sectors of the public were Tsarist generation Bolsheviks with poor education and strong religious values.

I have no research, or reliable sources. This is mostly a small proposal to someone who does have the means of research, to perhaps look into this for the sake of objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.83.117 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on LGBT rights in communism. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150223070331/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/mccarthyism.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/mccarthyism.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202224833/http://lgbt-prava.ba/o-lgbtpovijest-lgbtiq-aktivizma-u-hrvatskoj/ to http://lgbt-prava.ba/o-lgbtpovijest-lgbtiq-aktivizma-u-hrvatskoj/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103151209/http://www.overa.rs/krivicni-zakonik-1951.html to http://www.overa.rs/krivicni-zakonik-1951.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on LGBT rights under communism. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816143523/http://politicalaffairs.net/the-communist-movement-and-gay-rights-the-hidden-history to http://www.politicalaffairs.net/the-communist-movement-and-gay-rights-the-hidden-history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305025853/https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_06_22.htm to https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_06_22.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090701195402/http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/54160.html to http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/54160.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816143523/http://politicalaffairs.net/the-communist-movement-and-gay-rights-the-hidden-history to http://www.politicalaffairs.net/the-communist-movement-and-gay-rights-the-hidden-history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301042652/http://themoscownews.com/politics/20140129/192192050-print/Russian-State-Duma-Possessed-printer-or-executor-of-the-peoples.html to http://themoscownews.com/politics/20140129/192192050-print/Russian-State-Duma-Possessed-printer-or-executor-of-the-peoples.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611181908/http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2012.pdf to http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009023720/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USCIS,,AZE,4562d8b62,3df0d87d4,0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USCIS,,AZE,4562d8b62,3df0d87d4,0.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://libertyandsocialism.org/2011/07/19/soviet-homophobia/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414120423/http://www.ageofconsent.com/slovenia.htm to http://www.ageofconsent.com/slovenia.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304100051/http://legacy.montevallo.edu/SafeZone/PDF/LGBTQ%20Timeline%202011%20PDF.pdf to http://legacy.montevallo.edu/SafeZone/PDF/LGBTQ%20Timeline%202011%20PDF.pdf

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

“Exterminate all homosexuals and fascism will vanish.” Quote attributed to Gorky

You will find this quote in the newspaper Pravda, 1934, number 140 on May 23rd in an article written by Gorky, but he calls it a “sarcastic saying.” I wish somebody who understands Russian better could go in and find out what exactly he is trying to say, but the page currently implies that Gorky called for the extermination of homosexuals, which is a complete misrepresentation. I have removed the quote for now. Jazznuts1 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Jazznuts1, please provide a link to that Pravda issue if you have one, so that others can read the entire text, and see the quotation in context. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter, care to comment? Jazznuts1 is talking about this (diff). Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why you pinged me, I do not think I ever edited the article, nor am I an expert on Gorky. If a specific translation is needed I can provide it though.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Using the link below, Gorky clearly does not call for extermination of homosexuals, but says that homosexuality corrupts young people.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rubenoath and DarDar:, any comment on Gorky's intent here? Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Here you go: http://gorkiy-lit.ru/gorkiy/articles/article-361.htm This version is slightly edited from what was originally published in Pravda. Here is a google translate link: https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://gorkiy-lit.ru/gorkiy/articles/article-361.htm&xid=17259,15700023,15700186,15700190,15700256,15700259&usg=ALkJrhhe0EQQ_3x3APDTHx5i6VuE64bErg Jazznuts1 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move the page as requested, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

---

LGBT rights under Communism --> Communism and LGBT rights

Per consistency with Socialism and LGBT rights. LGBT rights under communism also seems misleading; perhaps LGBT rights under communist regimes (per consistency with Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and Mass killings under communist regimes)? However, does the article actually refers to communism and LGBT rights, or merely to LGBT rights under communist regimes (maybe both)?--Davide King (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support for consistency. BD2412 T 04:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support for consistency. Dimadick (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

homosexuality beyond LGBT rights

I see that page Communism_and_homosexuality also redirects to this page and also that this page covers a bit more then just LGBT rights. As LGBT+ realities in relation to communism go beyond just specific LGBT rights, I would suggest that either it is decoupled (new page would needed to be created covering lived realities and representation) or that the page has more general title like Communism,_homosexuality_and_LGBT_rights... Ideally page would be even better named: Relations_of_communism,_homosexuality_and_LGBT_rights (as there is no single context of communism but obviously many), but I am aware that it would be maybe too wordy. What others think of this? --Zblace (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

+1 the two formulations seem satisfying for me Nattes à chat (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Will add the same comment to Talk:Socialism and LGBT rights! --Zblace (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Marx - homophobic?

This page currently says

Communist leaders and intellectuals took many different positions on LGBT-rights issues. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels said very little on the subject in their published works and what they did say was contemptuous. Marx in particular commented rarely on sexuality in general. The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality volume two is unequivocal on Marx and Engels view of homosexuality, stating: "There can be little doubt that, as far as they thought of the matter at all, Marx and Engels were personally homophobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letter on Jean Baptista von Schweitzer, a German socialist rival. Schweitzer had been arrested in a park on a morals charge and not only did Marx and Engels refuse to join a committee defending him, they resorted to the cheapest form of bathroom humor in their private comments about the affair'

This has two citations. The first links to an opinion piece which simply flatly claims this without backing it up, and the second is the Encyclopedia named in the text.

The first seems unreliable to me, given anyone can claim anything in an opinion piece without elaboration. As for the second this blog post seems to suggest it merely comes from a misreading (whether mistaken or wilfull I cannot say) of one sentence in a letter written much later. However I recognise a blog is not a reliable source, so instead I ask; do we actually have evidence he DID say this? Like, OK he was a 19th Century man who said the N word, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were PRIVATELY homophobic, but does anyone have sources backing up (that's BACKING UP, not merely claiming) that he actually said this? If not, this should be removed. For now, I have tagged both sources as possibly unrealiable. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Confusion over timeline

The article is confusing with its timeline. It says

"The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, volume two, is unequivocal on Marx and Engels view of homosexuality, stating: "There can be little doubt that, as far as they thought of the matter at all, Marx and Engels were personally homophobic, as shown by an acerbic 1869 exchange of letter on Jean Baptista von Schweitzer, a German socialist rival[...] However, by 1868, Marx and Engels had eventually resolved their rivalry with Schweitzer"

What does it mean "by 1868"? Are the dates mistaken or is this just poor wording. My guess is that it's mistaken dating since von Schweizer was arrested on charges of pedophilia back in 1862, which is what I'm assuming is being referenced by "arrested in a park on a morals charge" and Marx's insults towards Schweizer mainly seem to have occurred in an 1865 latter, which is also the only one I saw to be referenced in the article by Kennedy, though it's possible I missed a reference. I would change this myself, but I'm not confident in my editing skills. 2601:600:9281:6CC0:53A:B339:C263:DC4D (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)