This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
A fact from Communism and LGBT rights appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 July 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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.[1]
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)reply
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.[4][5][6] Another notable aspect of the association is that the claim has been referred to in venues outside of its original geographical area.[7][8]Perusteltu (
talk)
06:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.[9][10][11][12][13][14]Perusteltu (
talk)
06:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)
Roscelese, thank you again for your feedback. Let me paraphrase the objections you have made:
The proposed paragraph is not referenced with a source that verifies the claim.
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)reply
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)reply
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:
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
Sen. Joseph McCarthy associated homosexuality with Communism.
Sen. Kenneth Wherry associated homosexuality with anti-nationalism.
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)reply
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)reply
@
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.[15]Perusteltu (
talk)
03:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
^
Richert, Kevin (Posted: Wed, 01/16/2008 - 4:49pm, updated on Wed, 01/16/2008 - 4:55pm),
"Curtis Bowers: The saga continues", The Idaho Statesman{{
citation}}: Check |author-link= value (
help); Check date values in: |date= (
help); External link in |author-link= (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
^
Bowers, Curtis (Director, Writer) (2010). Agenda, Grinding America Down
[1] (Documentary). United States: Black Hat Films in association with Copybook Productions LLC. {{
cite AV media}}: External link in |title= (
help)
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)reply
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)reply
@
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)reply
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)reply
@
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)reply
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)reply
@
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
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.
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:
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.
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)reply
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:
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.
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:
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.
“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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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 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)reply
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)reply