Talk:Homonationalism/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:16, 16 December 2021

This is an archive of past discussions about Homonationalism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

List of homonationalists?

The list of supposed "homonationalists" seems rather unnecessary. Rahn, Röhm, etc. never really incorporated their homosexuality into their politics, and hardly fit Puar or any other scholar's definition of the term. It doesn't seem very relevant when we already have a category for LGBT Nazis, which is much more appropriate a way to categorize such characters. I feel it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure-impure (talk • contribs) 22:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Done. (By the way I wonder what “LGBT Nazis” can mean – were there any documented transsexual Nazis ? Lesbian Nazis ? This acronym is already silly when used for current issues – as if all people identifying with either of those qualifiers had the same problems, the same interests, the same aims, and were speaking under the same voice –, but it makes absolutely no sense to use it in relation with a time period when those notions either did not exist or had a completely different meaning.)--Abolibibelot (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

NPOV concern

I have a very deep NPOV concern with this article. I think the introductory paragraph is balanced and fairly well-sourced, but the article body is riddled with really egregious examples of heavy POV-pushing. Here are some excerpts that demonstrate the problem (as of 03/26/19):

"The responses of the presidential frontrunners in the U.S. 2016 election are evidence of ... homonationalist sentiment" (no citation)
"Trump used the Orlando tragedy in his nomination acceptance speech in order to justify his antimuslim platform". This is a normative claim, and is an original interpretation of a primary source document
"Hillary Clinton pledged to fight the terrorist virus in its origins, and therefore justified her party’s platform of military intervention in the Middle East. She othered these Muslim majority countries"
"One of the most pungent discussions regarding homonationalism is how the State of Israel is proclaiming itself as a defender and advocate of gay rights as an excuse to justify the occupation of Palestine", another strongly normative and again unsourced claim

These are only a few of the POV-pushing examples. I claim that the article needs a dramatic overhaul. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 The list of supposed "homonationalists" seems rather unnecessary. Rahn, Röhm, etc. never really incorporated their homosexuality into their politics, and hardly fit Puar or any other scholar's definition of the term. It doesn't seem very relevant when we already have a category for LGBT Nazis, which is much more appropriate a way to categorize such characters. I feel it should be removed.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pure-impure|Pure-impure]] ([[User talk:Pure-impure#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pure-impure|contribs]]) 22:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 : Indeed. Done. (By the way I wonder what “LGBT Nazis” can mean – were there any documented transsexual Nazis ? Lesbian Nazis ? This acronym is already silly when used for current issues – as if all people identifying with either of those qualifiers had the same problems, the same interests, the same aims, and were speaking under the same voice –, but it makes absolutely no sense to use it in relation with a time period when those notions either did not exist or had a completely different meaning.)--[[User:Abolibibelot|Abolibibelot]] ([[User talk:Abolibibelot|talk]]) 03:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
+{{Clear}}
+== NPOV concern ==
+I have a very deep NPOV concern with this article. I think the introductory paragraph is balanced and fairly well-sourced, but the article body is riddled with really egregious examples of heavy POV-pushing. Here are some excerpts that demonstrate the problem (as of 03/26/19):
+* "The responses of the presidential frontrunners in the U.S. 2016 election are evidence of ... homonationalist sentiment" (no citation)
+* "Trump used the Orlando tragedy in his nomination acceptance speech in order to justify his antimuslim platform". This is a normative claim, and is an original interpretation of a primary source document
+* "Hillary Clinton pledged to fight the terrorist virus in its origins, and therefore justified her party’s platform of military intervention in the Middle East. She othered these Muslim majority countries"
+* "One of the most pungent discussions regarding homonationalism is how the State of Israel is proclaiming itself as a defender and advocate of gay rights as an excuse to justify the occupation of Palestine", another strongly normative and again unsourced claim
+These are only a few of the POV-pushing examples. I claim that the article needs a dramatic overhaul. - [[User:Astrophobe|Astrophobe]] ([[User talk:Astrophobe|talk]]) 20:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)