Talk:Pinkwashing (LGBT)

LGBTQ+ studies Start‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Marketing & Advertising Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing 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.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

It is only partially related to pinkwashing and probably belongs on Hasbarah page. Kigelim (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that it should be put on the Hasbarah page, possibly linking from this article to that one by a "see also" template. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk) 23:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nothing wrong with a bit of it here, linked to fuller coverage. I'll give it a try. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Israel section was trimmed too extensively. While the "Brand Israel" part was, IMHO, out of place, much of the rest is well deserved as beside cancer, Israel is probably mentioned the most as pinkwashing. Bmclaughlin9, what do you think? Kigelim (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm not quite done. I was interrupted. Some dead links in citations make it time-consuming. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done now. The earlier version was prolix/repetitive. In 2 cases I kept extra citations, like Wiesenfeld on CUNY, but he's not worth detailing (I don't think) in the context of this entry. Just one guy complaining and not much of a public figure. Keegan O'Brien is a grad student and his views are already represented, I think. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious to me. Similarly formed word used in a parallel fashion. Those who are looking at language issues rather than the politics of the topic would find it interesting. It could also be listed under "see also", I suppose. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hasbara in the section about Israeli pinkwashing is appalling. Since the pro-Israel view is not just given extensive coverage but also the last word, why is there not also equal skepticism in the treatment of the pro-Israel narratives which are presented as objective and valid counter-narratives. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]