Talk:Gay Mafia

Homintern

Why not integrate the Homintern entry under "Origin of the Term"? The Homintern entry explains a great deal more historically (Comintern, etc.), including the etymology of 'lavender', which seems a logical segue into subsequent usages. As it currently stands, the expression's "origin" emerges from the ether in a random playboy article from the late 60s that fails to capture the essence of the pejorative's etymology. Also, the tacit historical/cultural stigma between communism and homosexuality could be further elaborated by integrating aspects of the 'Pinko' entry (ostensibly a politically 'lighter' version of communist red, but as the term evolved suggestive also of sexuality). Understanding the history of a pejorative term seems a primary function of this entry; missing the mark thus far with material that reads like the typical wikipedia pop-culture laundry list of tv and film references. Wintertanager (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Purple hand

Possible source of etymology or it could be intertwined coincidence. Benjiboi 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Lavender mafia

I think MishMich has hit the right tone with what's currently drafted. Earlier suggestions seemed repetitive and I was unclear by the use of "orthodox" - presumably meant to signify traditionalism but in my view confused the reader with Greek Orthodoxy. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues

Virtually all links are dead/unverifiable. The only working links relate to a single 2002 article regarding Michael Ovitz - this includes external links, etc. The reference is worthy of inclusion, but the weight given to this specific event is alarmingly disproportionate to the article topic, hence WP:UNDUE WP:WEIGHT WP:ATTACK

“discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements

WP:NPOV "...inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized.”

WP:BLPSTYLE "...especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintertanager (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The pejorative/offensive aspect of his remarks only underscore the vital importance of reporting neutrality. Wintertanager (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

One source did not work, so I removed it, and took the text associated with it (which was used with the ref as WP:OR.

One source was inaccurate - the title of Dowd's NYT piece was wrong, nothing to do with the topic, and included a quote not in the article - as she is alive, this could be defamatory, and as per BLP policy, I have deleted the dubious content. Genuine source is here: [1]

I could find no record of the Tynan letter on-line, so unless somebody else knows how to access this, I guess we either take it on trust or remove it.

All the other references now have WP:RS.

There is still material that has no sources. I tagged one section, but the section above is nearly as poor. I'm pondering whether to tag that section as in need of sources, or simply tag the whole article that way. Some of this seems like it could be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, but I don't have the energy to do much more at the moment.Mish (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked it again after writing the above, and realised there were lots of BLP violations in attribution of statements to living people, statements which made assertions (albeit some humorous) about living people. Where possible I removed names, but when this left the text meaningless I removed the relevant statement. BLP policy is quite clear - violations have to be removed without discussion. It is the responsibility of the editor who adds material to verify the insertion using WP:RS. Any attempt to reinsert this material without sources will result in its immediately being reported to WP:BLP/N, as edit wars on points of policy are pointless. Unless sources for the dead individuals are forthcoming in the two tagged sections, these will be removed as well. The rest of the unsourced material is pretty trivial, but it should be sourced really. Mish (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at this because I was perusing urban legends and this is linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Urban_legends. It seems to be more of a conspiracy theory, fringe political belief or prejudice than an urban legend. The article needs something to justify the link. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Eric

Popular Culture

Entourage, season 3 episode 12, loyd on the cellphone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.96.85 (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

There is no sourcing which describe this term as a conspiracy theory. Likewise, discussion of the term as a conspiracy theory is absent from the article. No clue why anyone would want to classify it as such. aprock (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you not regard it as a conspiracy theory then? Do you think it is grounded in fact? Contaldo80 (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion doesn't matter. It's what reliable sources say that matters. aprock (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. Are you saying therefore that it could well be a conspiracy theory but until we find an independent source that states that categorically, then we should not include any text in the article to suggest it as a conspiracy theory? I'm sure there must be something as it evidently isn't true. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is correct. Note that the article itself spends quite a bit of time discussing how the characterization is not true. But instead of discussing it in terms of conspiracy theories, it describes the term as a pejorative. aprock (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok - thanks for clarifying. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge suggestion from Homintern

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge Homintern to Gay Mafia as a historical synonym which adds historical context to the modern use. Klbrain (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Essentially the same subject, a conspiracy about the alleged "gay cabal", if I am not mistaken. In any case, both articles are heavy on original research and example farming, and the subject will benefit from cleanup. For example, the only ref in the lede of "Homintern" is actually about "homosexual mafia". We already have three synonyms here.

One more will be right in. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we need a "Gay political movements" article, with a "Derogatory terms" section, to cover Homosexual agenda, Homintern, Gay mafia, homosexual mafia, gay agenda, and anything else that comes up. Wikipedia has Jewish political movements and Black Power, for those groups. John Nagle (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

May be we need one, but these therms are actually conspiracy theories rather than derogatory terms for real movements. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you Staskzek Lem. These are terms used by anti-LGBT proponents to discredit the LGBT rights movement. They have no substance beyond that. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

oppose - this article has plenty of independent reliable sources referring to a gay mafia, but none of them seem to link it to the "homintern" idea. While I see in good faith how they seem related, it's OR and a merge isn't prudent. 70.190.34.29 (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how tyhis isd a valid objection to merge. If there are little sources for the term "homintern", then the text must be cleaned in accordance with WP:NOR/WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The two should stay separate, but the article on "Hominterm" needs to be rewritten. As it stands now, the article has things backwards. The term is meant as a smear against communism, by imperialists who were attempting to discredit communism by associating it with homosexuality (not the other way around). In reality, Marxist-Leninism held the line against homosexuality, from the Soviet Union to China to Albania... even to this day North Korea is still resisting it while America is, well, America. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The article says nothing about "the other way around". Still, it is quite possible you are right, because it seems that the definition in the first sentence was actually unreferenced (wrong ref). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. A rewrote the lede of "Homintern", to match the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments says nothing why not to merge. Both terms are homophobic concepts which basically say that gays act in concert subversively against "normal" society. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree. I'm strongly for merge. Incidentally Claíomh Solais can you stop using wikipedia for some personal political crusade. The Soviet Government of the Russian Soviet Republic decriminalised homosexuality in December 1917, following the October Revolution and the discarding of the Legal Code of Tzarist Russia which puts your silly remark about "Marxist-Leninism held the line against homosexuality" firmly to bed. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

<Sigh> It was not so simple with Marxism-Leninism. Eventually homosexuality was criminalized in the Soviet Union, see LGBT history in Russia. Unless you want to split hairs with Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Staszek, in regards to your earlier comment, I think the two are related but ultimately different concepts. The term gay mafia, like gay lobby or homosexual agenda are all just terms used in criticisms of homosexual political activism (or what advocates prefer to call "LGBT rights activism"). The "Homintern" idea is a specifically 1950s Americanism which falsely tried to tie communism to homosexuals, which is a non-existent phenomenon. Especially since, as you noted, homosexuality was a criminal offense in Marxist-Leninist societies and almost all homosexual activism is tied to bourgeois politics. Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

They are all related, gay mafia, gay lobby or homosexual agenda are all conspiracy theories no better than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They are not legitimate criticism of fundamental human rights for people that are LGBT, they simply represent a paranoid response based on unwarranted fears and ignorance. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Illuminati

A book about the illuminati controlling everything is not a credible source. Please don't reinstate it. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

Someone is persistently posting spam on this article - probably pornographic. Can an administrator intervene please. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The offending IP is blocked. Not only this page was victim. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry--This belongs in the MERGE suggestion.

I think it should not be merged because W.H.Auden coined the term and he was and remains, needless to say, an important gay poet and thinker. This term is mentioned in a description of a book, Andre and Oscar, ..."The book also provides an often surprising insight into what W. H. Auden would much later call the Homintern - an international network of gay men and their young companions - as well as the moral hypocrisy of the 1890s.." This quote comes from a 1997 online article: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/just-wilde-about-the-boys-1263513.html This term reflects a period of history when sex involving underage youth was not completely rejected by the mainstream queer community. It is today as shown recently by the Kevin Spacey incident. I haven't read the book and don't know the ages of the network Auden describes, but the term is unique and shouldn't be buried in a different article. Lmlmss44 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"Homophobic slurs" category

So, folks who want to challenge what they see as a disproportionate LGBT influence within sections of society, are simply to be dismissed as having an unreasoned hatred for gay people, and ignored? That's clearly the implication here. Instantly shutting down conversation, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "homophobic", is twisting free speech into hate speech. There's a predictable answer to this comment, but since I've lived 19 of my 32 years as openly gay, you can save it. 113.29.230.217 (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't really a forum for general debate so suggest you be more specific with regards to the article. But as a general observation from me if you think that there are sections of society that see "disproportionate LGBT influence" then you've already bought into the gay mafia conspiracy. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so you've framed me as a conspiracy theorist, and my concerns as somehow off-topic (while restoring the "homophobic" stuff, of course). Clearly, discussion is not being allowed here. Will you offer an actual comment, besides trying to insult me and completely swerving the matter at hand? 113.29.230.215 (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

What was the matter at hand? You weren't particularly clear. Struck me that you just wanted to argue that gays (and jews?) are running the world? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

So you've now elected to make a passive-aggressive implication that I'm anti-Semitic. Classy. I clearly stated my problem with the "homophobic slurs" category, and I see that someone else removed it as well. The WP:OWNER has spoken, though. 113.29.230.217 (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Am I the owner? Gosh, there's a conspiracy everywhere! I'd pleased that even I've managed to find my way into the heart of one without knowing it. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If you refuse to admit the possibility of homosexual influence being disproportionate,are you not basically validating the charge of conspiracy?12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. Stick to improving the article rather than banging away on your personal prejudices. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

One improves the article by deleting biased categorization as intrinsically a slur.If I need to explain further here...you are saying that any claim that there is "disproportionate LGBT influence" is conspiracy theory.This could only be true if there were no way "LGBT influence" could possibly be disproportionate,which is an expression of belief that "LGBT influence" should be as great as possible,which is essentially a statement that those alleging there to be persons determined to maximize that influence are entirely correct.12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry. I still don't understand the point you are making. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Brandmuller etc

I removed the quote attributed to Brandmuller and Burke as it doesn't actually reference the "Lavender Mafia". These two cardinals are particularly conservative figures who may be right or wrong about the scale and influence of gay men in the Catholic priesthood, but I would argue there is a whole article that deals with that issue and this material is better of there if anywhere. This article should deal with instances where the terms mafia etc are explicitly used otherwise it will turn into a broad piece about everything and nothing. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)