Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 120 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 22 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jiayimeng.
- Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Which article are you evaluating? Anti-LGBT rhetoric
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate? The LGBT group are constantly under attacked by the social prejudice, their experiences sometimes are beyond others comprehensions. The LGBT group was never fully supported or accepted by the society, but this article may acknowledge others to consider things differently, and recognize that understanding others from their perspectives could make a difference on their life.
Evaluate the article (Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
This article has a good lead section on briefly explaining what the topic is focused on, but it is also slightly lacking details on providing backgrounds of the anti-LGBT group. Details could help guiding the readers' interests. The article also appears lending too many quotations in each section, readers may have difficulty reading the content. The word choice and paraphrasing of some sections are not consisted enough, which could transmit false information, or lead to false understandings. Articles that are being published should be cautious with the wording and tone as Wikipedia states to have a neutral point of view of all.
Overall, besides what has been discussed above, the article has given liberal quantity of details, and well organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiayimeng (talk • contribs) 17:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Split proposal
[edit]The content in "Anti-gay themes" should probably be separated. I have suggested Anti-LGBT trope as analogous to Antisemitic trope, but I don't know if this is the best article title. But the current article seems to have too much of a detailed list on specific anti-gay tropes/themes/rhetoric, rather than a broad overview of the topic, and I think would benefit from a split. I'll inform WP:LGBT of the proposal for further eyes on this article. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't like "trope" singular at all. These are multiple themes/tropes here. (I think the same mistake has been made with Antisemitic trope.) Splitting out that whole section would leave the article with little coverage of specific anti-gay rhetoric and would make the coverage of anti-trans rhetoric look disproportionate, which is isn't at all. For that reason I'm not keen on a split. It is not like the article is huge at the moment. What the article could do with is more coverage of anti-bi/pan rhetoric and possibly also sections on the hate that asexual and aromantic people get, which is truly a bizarre phenomenon. Maybe also the anti-gay stuff should do more to cover specific rhetoric aimed at lesbians and at gay men. We don't want to lose the common threads here but the rhetoric is adapted for each target group and that needs to be covered, preferably all in one place. DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am leaning agree with split, but it should be split into "Anti-gay rhetoric" or "Anti-gay arguments" or something similar. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Conflation with child abuse
[edit]What is the purpose of the span class anchor? Is it being used?
With regards to {{See above}}: "Neutral cross-references, e.g. (See also Cymric cat.), are permissible (and best done with the {{crossreference}} template), but are often best reworded (The Cymric cat is a recent breed developed from the Manx.).". Simply telling people to look above is a bad way of explaining the situation. Iterresise (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Section links are a useful way to direct readers to relevant information without unnecessary repetition on the same page, and serve to bind the project together into an interconnected whole. I'm unsure how we would tell whether the link were
being used
or not, but simply being being unused or unnecessary is not really an argument to omit the link. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)- And what about the span class anchor? Is it being used? It's better to remove it if it isn't. Iterresise (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can be confusing for new editors. Iterresise (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is designed to inform readers, not for the convenience of editors. Many sections in the article have hidden anchors using
<span>
tags as suggested per WP:ANCHOR: "Anchors are also used when renaming a section, yet still allowing links to the old name to function". - Since the section was only recently renamed, there may be links both on and off Wiki pointing to the old section title; omitting the anchor would break those links causing link rot. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Now there's a new problem: how long will it take until something is no longer recent and allowed to be removed? Iterresise (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Until no other links (including on archived pages) exist pointing to the old section title. If you are confused by the use of HTML in section markup you can refer to Template:Anchor, switch to VisualEditor, or ask for assistance at the help desk. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sdb, thanks for holding down the fort and being the good-faith responder here, patiently trying to answer their questions. In case you weren't aware of the backstory, they are now community banned; the ANI thread is here. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Until no other links (including on archived pages) exist pointing to the old section title. If you are confused by the use of HTML in section markup you can refer to Template:Anchor, switch to VisualEditor, or ask for assistance at the help desk. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Now there's a new problem: how long will it take until something is no longer recent and allowed to be removed? Iterresise (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is designed to inform readers, not for the convenience of editors. Many sections in the article have hidden anchors using
- I can be confusing for new editors. Iterresise (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- And what about the span class anchor? Is it being used? It's better to remove it if it isn't. Iterresise (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Legality and censorship section
[edit]This section just repeats what has already been said and is not expanded in a way that adds any usefulness to the article.
Its contents also doesn't seem to justify the use of the word censorship in the heading title. PitterPatter533 (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class LGBT articles
- WikiProject LGBT studies articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- High-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- C-Class Linguistics articles
- Low-importance Linguistics articles
- WikiProject Linguistics articles
- C-Class Gender studies articles
- Mid-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles