Talk:Radical gay activism

Secion blanking

Entire section blanked, reason given: "are you joking? remove anti-gay synth. existence of article itself is highly questionable, but you will not pretend that there's some sort of violent gay activist movement"

Can you do a little better, Ros? If there was synth in there, clearly some editing was in order and it shouldn't be too difficult to extract it surgically. But trying to argue that there shouldn't be a section on Prop. 8 seems like sort of a non-starter. Belchfire-TALK 19:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The article topic, if it exists at all, does not encompass any act of violence by a gay or lesbian person. Which is why it's not surprising that the sources (news) don't link these crimes in any way to a movement or to a broader set of tactics. You really should be ashamed of yourself for such shoddy and obviously POV-motivated editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Existence of the topic is robustly supported. In gay-friendly literature, no less. You are checking sources as you make your edits, I trust? Belchfire-TALK 20:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. That is how I was able to make changes that more closely reflected the sources, rather than your POV-motivated misrepresentations and attempts to claim as often as possible that gay activists are violent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, not sure why this page even exist outside the originator editor, Belchfire, seems to have some hugh antigay stance and posting this plus other edits are also very much wp:npov issues. I think this page should be put up for deletion. Still-Jim (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I redirected to the parent topic. If the term "Radical gay activism" exists, then it should exist as a redirect. However, I don't really know if it is a real term with currency. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You were right to close down this blatant POV fork. The term is real only in that it's used by the far right as an insult.[1][2][3]. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

NB NB the article's present title is where I moved it from "Gay militants." Not ideal, but done after the "militant feminism" -> "radical feminism" model and certainly preferable to Belchfire's title and article version, which was intended to promote the idea that LGBT rights activists are violent. I agree, however, that this is not at all suitable as a stand-alone article; there is content that could be merged to gay liberation or LGBT right movement after careful scrutiny. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Blanking policies

If somebody wants to say this article is an inappropriate fork, the correct remedy is NOT page blanking, and it is unambiguous that actions taken on this article today were flagrant evasions of relevant policies concerning page and section blanking. See WP:NOBLANKING and WP:PAGEBLANKING.

Now, I am 100% in favor of collaborative editing, but I do not appreciate bulk reversions that ignore explicit policies. Naturally, I am certain this was a simple oversight. For educational purposes, I have copied some relevant text from the policies I just cited...

From WP:NOBLANKING:

Text should be preserved, as much as possible, according to WP policy WP:EDIT.

Please remember the use of unexplained or bad-faith blanking is often considered a form of vandalism.

Wikipedia text cannot be deleted even if many people find the text to be "objectionable" as offensive to their religion, ethics, or moral code.

A section cannot be deleted simply by claiming the wording is not "neutral" per NPOV policy.

A section cannot be deleted simply by claiming the wording is "original research" per policy WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

A section cannot be deleted (or totally rewritten) simply by claiming the wording cannot be verified per policy WP:VERIFY.

From WP:PAGEBLANKING:

If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion.

Pretty much every single one of these very clear policy directives was violated here today, despite the fact that Wikipedia processes offer alternatives. I'm going to allow a brief window for discussion in case anybody wants to offer a counter-argument based on these policies, and then I intend to revert this article back to the version just prior to the first policy violation, so that we can start over. Belchfire-TALK 02:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverting back to before the first policy violation would mean deleting the policy-violating article, and it would be a shame to lose your effort simply because you're not very good at adhering to core WP policies like NPOV and NOR. Better to let competent editors fix your mistakes, rather than hampering them out of ownership and spite. Sections and material were blanked because they were unrelated to the topic of the article insofar as it exists - eg. a radical feminist reproductive rights activism group that happened to be composed of gay women, isolated crimes attributed to gay people, or one lesbian separatist group chosen arbitrarily from among many because you were able to find a quote that made them sound violent. Even had your statements not indicated that your intent in creating this article was to promote the idea of the LGBT rights movement as a violent one, your cherrypicking and misrepresentation of quotes and sources, essentially creating a list of any time a gay group was linked to the word "militant" rather than an article as the term "article" is commonly used, would make it clear to everyone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please try a little harder to AGF. And please look carefully at my earlier comments. I am at a loss to understand why you would suggest I have an ownership issue here. Have I reverted any edits? Have I done anything other than try to engage you in discussion? All I have done from the very start is implore you to edit this article - improve it - instead of deleting it. For the record, I readily acknowledge that it is far, far from an exhaustive history on the subject matter, and I find it disappointing that your first impulse was wholesale deletion rather than expansion and improvement.

So you see OR and POV problems. If they exist, those problems should be fixed! But we have very clear, very precise policies that indicate the correct solution is not blanking. If you feel this article may be a POV fork, and if a sufficient number of others agree with you, then that should be addressed! But again, the correct solution is not unilateral blanking.

Can we agree on that much? It would be a good thing if you could acknowledge those two points: that the fate of this article isn't up to you alone (or even you and Viriditas together), and that blanking was very clearly the wrong way to address your concerns. I think I'm on pretty solid ground here, Ros.

Since you disagree with reverting to an earlier version to allow resumption of policy-based remedies to your concerns, what do you suggest as an alternative? If you have a better idea - one that doesn't involve outright censorship - I'm all ears. Belchfire-TALK 06:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are no sources connecting a section to the article topic, changes in wording, whether minor or extensive, will not solve the problem. Blanking to remove irreparable OR included in the service of an agenda is, in fact, the correct solution. Rather than complaining about censorship, try harder to follow policy the first time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My "agenda", was to create a historical overview. I do wish you would employ AGF here.

You keep bringing up OR, but you haven't shown us any specific examples or described your complaint in any but the most general terms. I think there are sources connecting all sections to the topic, but I'm willing to listen to reason. And I ask again, have you actually checked the sourcing provided? I'm beginning to have my doubts. Maybe we could see each other's points if we go over some specific examples.

Now, I've looked at the policy on blanking, and "irreparable OR" doesn't seem to be one of the allowable circumstances. My suggestion is that we roll back changes, put an AfD on it, and let a larger group of editors make the call. If the problems are as egregious as you say, then that really shouldn't be a problem, should it? Belchfire-TALK 07:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no good faith left to assume for a user who decided to create the article to support the idea that gay activists were violent, after a spray-painting incident by an individual, and to make a point about how eeeeeevil gays on Wikipedia censor poor oppressed Christians. Do you think that your comments were private?

I've already given you specific examples of places where you inserted material into the article without reliable sources linking it to the supposed topic. Here is a copy-paste of what I said: Sections and material were blanked because they were unrelated to the topic of the article insofar as it exists - eg. a radical feminist reproductive rights activism group that happened to be composed of gay women, isolated crimes attributed to gay people, or one lesbian separatist group chosen arbitrarily from among many because you were able to find a quote that made them sound violent....essentially creating a list of any time a gay group was linked to the word "militant". But frankly, the onus is not on me to prove that the material does not belong. Please produce sources that link these subjects to the supposed topic - the sources you have used are insufficient because they do not support a connection. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, I think it is safe to say that there is consensus you were (and still are) engaging in POV pushing and OR. If you weren't, then please point me to two definitive sources on the subject of "gay militancy", and I'll restore the article. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

From here in the peanut galleries, this sure does look like one big WP:POINT violation, eh? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We see a lot of users who mistakenly believe that NPOV means a balance among all views, rather than representing views in the proportion in which they exist in reliable sources. The same mentality that believes that the vast sourcing on anti-gay hate crimes and legal persecution must be countered with an article on sporadic violence and enthusiastic protesting (shock!) by gay people also believes that the vast sourcing on anti-abortion terrorism must be countered with an article that documents every time someone got mad at an anti-abortion protester harassing them. But this is of course faulty, because Wikipedia documents, it does not propagate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, I have already corrected this misconception of yours, so at this point I think the onus is on you to AGF. Your continued pursuit of this agenda, following me around and making these insinuations and accusations, is beginning to look a lot like simple harassment and character assassination, and will lead to a formal complaint sooner rather than later if you are not able to keep your discussion focused on article content.

It has already been pointed out to you that your page blanking yesterday was against explicit policy to the contrary. You should be self-reverting (and perhaps, apologizing), rather than making demands. Since it appears you are not willing to look at the references already provided, I fail to see how it would be productive to provide even more. Furthermore, it appears you are attempting to tie the provision of additional sources to some imaginary requirement that I prove something to you. I encourage you to have a look at WP:AOBF, and try to see how that might be applicable here. Belchfire-TALK 18:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I already looked at your sources and found nothing definitive. I'm not asking for additional sources, but if you could point me to two of the most definitive sources that you already used, then I'll consider restoring it. Otherwise, I'm seeing a hatchet job, involving your citing of the dictionary to make a point (OR), and the misuse of primary and secondary sources to push your POV. Please convince me otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, there is no such thing as "radical gay advocacy". The term exists only as a dysphemism for the LGBT rights movement. As such, it's a POV fork and does not deserve to exist. But this is obvious. What's less obvious is why you went to all the trouble to create this thing. Care to explain? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas, that steers us back towards the proper arena.

I thought the dictionary definitions useful as authors are not normally in the business of defining common words, and also to inform the reader as much what a "militant" is, as what a militant is not. I believe you will have to acknowledge that Etymology sections are fairly common on Wikipedia, and word origins are not without their usefulness, particularly in the area of politics where history always plays a role (and this is an historical article). In any case, the article doesn't attempt to make any leaps based on what Oxford or Merriam-Webster says. If anything, my use of the definitions is restrictive, not expansive. Perhaps the section is expendable, perhaps not, but you'll have to show me a little more explicitly where I've relied on it to draw conclusions elsewhere.

Carter clearly quotes Leo Laurence's own description of CHF as "militant," in his own words. We don't even take the word of the author here, we are quoting the historical figure himself.

The Newsweek piece speaks for itself, and you have a scan of the article to illustrate the tenor of the coverage. Likewise, the Life article is provided in it's entirety at the link. You can also check out the 1991 NYT article wherein an activist contrasts the "deep divisions" between lesbian and gay militants and moderates." in his own words.

Zimmerman's Encyclopedia might be taken as a definitive work, as implied by its title. That's a matter of opinion, I suppose, but I suspect you might see that work as somewhat authoritative on other matters.

Now I'll just point out that we could slog through all 38 cites but nothing would be proven other than your choice of obstinance over collaboration, and at the end of the day I will still be right that there has been a decidedly militant facet to the LGBT movement that has been recognized as such by journalists and commentators, using that language. You and Ros seem to be contesting the very existence of a militant movement, and that's a clear non-starter, just based on a cursory check of the sources.

Instead, what I see as the larger issue here is an attempt to subvert the established process for dealing with forks, and I will point out yet again that you and Ros get one vote apiece in an AfD. Not the first, last and only votes in a rush to blank pages that you don't care for. Now, I will the request one last time that you self-revert, then feel free to put an AfD nom on the article, if you so desire. Belchfire-TALK 21:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell us how your article topic is distinct from the gay liberation movement, a term used more often in the Newsweek article itself than "militant." You see, that's how articles work - they have to be about topics, not random collections of times a word was used. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure.

Most accounts seem to indicate Gay Liberation was a phase or segment of the larger historic movement. It began around Stonewall and ended sometime in the early- to mid-70s. It's a lot like "Women's Liberation," which was just a phase that feminism went through during the 60s and early 70s, and that was eventually superseded and absorbed by the wider feminist movement. (And note that both Women's Lib and radical feminism have their own articles.)

This is different from "militant" or "radical" advocacy for gay rights, which has been an historical current running through the wider gay rights movement since the 60s, starting around Frank Kameny's time (the "Annual Reminder"), running through the time of ACT-UP and Queer Nation, and continuing until today.

I think you're asking a good question here, since GL already has its own article, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. If you'll forgive a somewhat clumsy analogy, it's a little like asking how do apples differ from fruit trees. One is a discrete entity, the other is a broader category.

Make sense? Belchfire-TALK 03:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand the argument you're making, but it's not supported by the sources. They might describe aspects of the movement going on at different times (Kameny; ACT-UP) with the same adjective, but they don't link them together as a topic. Again, you are synthesizing by attempting to create an article out of a list of instances in which a word was used. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How does that argument not apply equally to this article, which is arguably the exact same thing? Both are, essentially, "a list of instances" connected by a common theme, along with some associated explanatory material. (I understand how the articles are different. I want you to explain why this argument you are making doesn't apply to it. And I'll bet I can use your own standards to find synth in it, too, but that would be straying into unproductive territory.) Belchfire-TALK 03:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It is different because there is extensive scholarly treatment of LGBT rights opposition as a topic, and because these sources in many cases identify trends that link instances to one another (eg. just going with Germany and America, Kaiser, a source you yourself selected, discusses the way in which American gay rights opponents cited Weimar's "decadence" and tolerance of homosexuality as a reason for the rise of the Nazis; Jensen, in Sexuality and German Fascism, discusses the way in which the memory of Nazi persecution shaped American responses to gay rights opposition there). In short, while the global scope of the article makes it difficult to avoid separating geographically and giving the impression of a list of stuff, there is a topic there, which you haven't demonstrated here (just instances of someone using the word "militant" to describe various things we already cover).

(Getting into deeper issues for the benefit of other editors - that article is kind of a mess and would probably benefit from at least one split or merge, such that we separated criminalization and persecution of LGBT people as it has occurred for centuries from movements that developed specifically in reaction to LGBT rights movements.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey you guys, why wasn't I invited to the party? Ros, V, Belch? I'm the reason this article redirect exists! My feelings are hurt--and can only be assuaged with Chick-fil-A sammies.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Ros, but are we really pretending you would have approved of a longer, more complete article? Am I supposed to buy that any amount of sourcing would have met with your approval, after your first reflex was to blank sections and then finally bury the whole thing? I think we're at an impasse here. It's time to roll back and put it up for AfD, if that's what you want. Belchfire-TALK 04:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this tendency of yours to divorce my edits of the article from its poor quality. The blanking, as I have repeatedly stated, removed material for which sources connecting it to the ostensible article topic could not be found. If the sources existed, WP:NOR policy would not have required the blanking. Viriditas's comments indicate similar thoughts as far as the existence of the "topic" goes, and I'm not inclined to disagree. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese, I'm on record agreeing that there is no real topic, except as a slur. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

All of this discussion is academic. There is no article. Speaking of the "article", it was blanked per "WP:NPOV" and "WP:OR". This is a blatant violation of WP:BLANK. The article must be restored per policy.– Lionel ^(talk) 04:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edits can't credibly be seen as a response to the quality of the article, Ros. It was censorship. Same goes for V's edits. WP:SPADE

Lionel is absolutely correct, the article should be restored. I haven't done so up to now as a courtesy to you, to allow ample opportunity for you to air your views. Belchfire-TALK 05:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It was redirected to the parent topic LGBT social movements. There is no such policy mandating article content. Belchfire was asked to point to two sources, and I'm in the process of looking at them now, but Roscelese isn't convinced. Belchfire, your statement about etymology is slightly off. When we write etymology sections (and I've written quite a lot of them) we use sources about the topic to compose the material. What we don't do is open up the dictionary and start selecting definitions based on our opinion. In any case, you pointed to Zimmerman as a definitive source. I wouldn't call a tertiary source definitive, but it is definitely a good place to start, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. First off, you cited the title of the work wrong, so you may want to pay closer attention to the work you're using. The correct title is Encyclopedia of Lesbian and Gay Histories and Cultures. Second, you've cited page 545. That page discusses the New Left, not "radical gay activism". In this instance, if you were to hypothetically use this tertiary encyclopedia entry as a definitive source (and we don't, we use secondary sources) the topic you are looking for is called New Left and the LGBT movement, not "radical gay activism". However, I would recommend working on this in your user space until you've fixed the sources and other issues. The New Left was not a radical movement but contained radical elements. I'm afraid your poor use of citations here needs further work in user space, not main space. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So you're relying on a flubbed citation to justify article blanking? Do I have that right? By the way, "radical gay activism" is a construct somebody else came up with, that wasn't the name of the article when it was created. But of course you know that. I'm sure you just forgot. This is exactly why I was hesitant to play this game with you - and it is a game - because in your imagination we have now artificially narrowed the sourcing for the entire article down to two sources. That isn't going to work. I haven't identified any source as dispositive, nor am I likely to do so under these circumstances. Belchfire-TALK 05:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misread me. What I've said is, unlike others, I think you might have a good argument for creating New Left and the LGBT movement and covering that topic. When we write articles, we need to get the topic right. Based on what you consider a definitive source, the topic you are trying to write about concerns the New Left and the LBGT movement, not "radical gay activism". There's a difference between writing about a topic and writing about a "construct". I'm willing to help you achieve your goals, but you're going to have to work with me. What some sources might call "radical gay activists" are a subset of the larger topic concerning the New Left and the LGBT movement. Are you following me? Viriditas (talk)

I appreciate the clarification, as well as the idea. But you've misread me, too. I'm not trying to say that Zimmerman's book defines this topic, that's just something you've seized on. I remind, "radical gay activism" is not the topic of this article. That's just a title somebody assigned to it for their own reasons. Belchfire-TALK 05:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you did say, "Zimmerman's Encyclopedia might be taken as a definitive work, as implied by its title". In any event, I would support writing an article about the New Left and the LGBT movement for several reasons. One, it is a legitimate and interesting topic that fills in several gaps in the history of both political movements. Two, any editor who makes an effort to fill in our knowledge gaps deserves support. Even though I am not a member of either WikiProject, I would like to propose for your consideration that the LBGT and Conservatism project work together on this. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)