Talk:Homophobic propaganda

gay propaganda

How come "gay propaganda" article doesn't exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.99.107 (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Because being gay isn't a political agenda, but personal attraction. However, spreading rumours and lies against the specific group that is gay people, in order to induce popular dissent against them, is close enough to the dictionary definition of propaganda. Alwaysgonnaedit (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Restore title

It was a mistake to change the title. There are thousands of links to the old formulation, and only a couple of dozen to the present one. Also, "homophobic propaganda" is used in scholarly papers. Absolutely a valid term, despite what this or that editor may claim. Haiduc 15:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• I actually think either title is a mistake. 'Propaganda' implies that a statelike entity is behind a message distributed on a massive scale, when in fact this article seems to be describing hate speech in general, which is a horse of an entirely different color. -Toptomcat 17:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  You have a very narrow definition of propaganda, but according to Webster it is:

  pro·pa·gan·da: 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions; 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

  From this definition, it's absolutely obvious that propaganda includes organized hate speech as spreading negative stereotypes against LGBT people. Also, it should be renamed back to Homophobic propaganda, because the term is much more widely used than Antihomosexual propaganda (792 000 vs 31 500 search results).--Antanta 17:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Against rename. This title is more neutral. --Nikolay Kolpakov 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people think that Homophobia, the term itself is not neutral, but the article on this topic exists. So what? Let's immediately rename Homophobia to Anti-homosexualism.--Antanta 08:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Homophobia would be right. :) --Vovanium 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You should first write a scientific work proving that this term is more appropriate, then publish your work in a peer-reviewed journal and then convince a suffucient number of scientists that your term is more correct. Only after all that you can rename Homophobia. Hurry up, there's not much time left.--Antanta 05:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not rename this article without discussion. See also[1]--Nikolay Kolpakov 20:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Against rename. per Nikolay Kolpakov. Serebr 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Against rename Per Nikolay Kolpakov --Vovanium 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  Rename to Anti-gay propaganda. --85.141.85.199 12:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) - it's me --Vovanium 12:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  Against rename Per Nikolay Kolpakov Vlad2000Plus 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rename back per arguments of Haiduc. rombik 21:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

  Rename back per arguments of Haiduc. Oreo 30 December 2006

  Rename back per arguments of Haiduc. --Barnaul 12:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  Both "homophobic" and "anti-homosexual" are patently POV terms. For example, if a person is against abortion, does that make them "anti-choice" or "pro-life"? That depends on ones POV. Again, both "homophobic" and "anti-homosexual" are patently POV terms. Delete theis whole article and merge any pertinent cited info into Societal attitudes towards homosexuality where it can be presented more per NPOV. CyberAnth 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  Should we also delete the whole article Homophobia then, according to your point of view?.--Antanta 06:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  Rename back per WP:COMMONNAME. --AndyVolykhov 12:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  Rename to Anti-gay propaganda, according to Google search results: Anti-gay propaganda - 9700, Homophobic propaganda - 2440, Anti-homosexual propaganda - 262. --the wrong man 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  Google Scholar has different results: «homophobic propaganda» — 19, «anti-gay propaganda» — 15, «anti-homosexual propaganda» — 3.--Antanta 15:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, TWM. I am agree with Anti-gay propaganda. --Nikolay Kolpakov 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay in other languages (esp. Russian) means only "homosexual men", which does not include lesbians. It's a very narrow term, specific for English language and thus is not appropriate.--Antanta 08:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In English gay is also mostly (but not exclusively, unlike in, say, Russian) applied to homosexual men. So "anti-gay propaganda" is less appropriate in English too. rombik 09:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, not Russian, mr. Soularis. --the wrong man 16:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to Anti-gay propaganda, per the wrong man. Serebr 12:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  Rename back per Romik and Haiduc. Uuu87 21:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed from Category: Sexual and gender prejudices

I have removed this article from this category as it does not meet the category's explicit criteria for inclusion. The category description clearly says that articles relating to prejudice itself belong in the category, but that articles relating to overt expressions of those prejudices belong elsewhere. --7Kim (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-pederasty

Does anti-pederasty count as a form of homophobic propaganda ? I think that there are some people who are able to tolerate homosexuals but who are nevertheless intolerant of pederasty. ADM (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please present reliable sources to promote that viewpoint. -- Banjeboi 01:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Article title?

Not all cited sources actually use the term "homophobic propaganda". I don't think it meets GNG and is basically duplicative of anti-LGBT rhetoric. The article should be renamed to focus on what it covers, Anti-LGBT hate speech laws (t · c) buidhe 22:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

What sources in the article or otherwise support your proposed title? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is currently a mess. "Homophobic propaganda" is not a common name, it gets only 206 results on Google Scholar—many of which are just citations of the one paper by Stefan Micheler—compared to 733 for anti-LGBT "hate speech" and more than 2,000 for anti-gay "hate speech".

If the article is supposed to be about "propaganda" or "hate speech" against LGBT, we would first have to establish that it's a separate topic than anti-LGBT rhetoric, for it to have a separate article. (Based on the general principle that we have articles based on what something is, not what it is called). That seems unlikely since I cannot find any sources that make such a distinction.

However, the article is mostly about laws regulating speech on LGBT issues so it could be reporposed to reflect the actual contents, with an appropriate descriptive title according to WP:NDESC. (t · c) buidhe 00:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that reliable sources say that propaganda is a type of rhetoric [2] or, in this context, practically the same thing [3] (t · c) buidhe 00:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2017.04.15 -TaxMarch Washington, DC USA 02427 (34019252826).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Systemic oppression

This article talks about how homosexuals where not systemically persecuted by the Nazis, but then talks about over 50,000 men being prosecuted and fined and a large number sent to concentration camps, which certainly would qualify as "systemic". 2601:681:300:300:A0C0:4280:1338:B5C5 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)