Jump to content

Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Note: This talk page was originally at Talk:Anti-gay slogan. Pieces of it were copied to become the subpages of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AKFD.

In many European states, Incitement to Hatred legislation prohibits the use of a term that by its usage or reportage can be conscrued, however unintentionally, as encouraging the expression and reinforcing the opinion of hatred, based on gender, orientation, disability, race or belief. In this context,

  • the use of the headline was unnecessarily provocative, in so far as other means could be used to convey the information;
  • it breaks general publishing ettiquete of usage regarding offensive slogans in encyclopædiæ and source-books, in which such slogans feature within the text of the article but not as the primary definitionary title; (such a title would never be used in any mainstream encyclopædia, for example because it would see seen as unnecessary provocative, POV and giving credence by usage to the term, even if that had not been the intention of the author or publisher, indeed they may have intended the exact opposite.)
  • As Jimbo Wales confirmed, it also ran contrary to Wikipedia's own rules and if it had not been renamed, would probably have been removed as a violation of Wikipedia's own mandate, principles and ethos.

While the US has established the freedom of the press under the 5th Amendment, no such 'absolute' right exists in almost any other jurisdiction. In covering issues like that espoused in the words of the slogan, most publishing organs (whether the media or sourcebooks), both as a matter of principle and also because of legal considerations, would not contemplate using such a phrase in a headline or title. Putting it in quotations in itself is no defence if the fact that it is in quotations is not clearly shown to be an unambiguous disclaimer. Even on a printed page, that is difficult, unless you use a bolded large font for the quotations than for the quote. On a computer screen, it is almost impossible to visually draw instantaneous attention to the quotes before the quotation. That is why such a quote is by definition not used in a title, certainly not when the title consists almost solely of those words. Similarly, phrases that are used like 'kill the infidel', etc are not used in titles, but given a neutral NPOV definition in the title which they leads to the article explaining the quote, its meaning and context. Saying that you are simply reporting or explaining facts is no defence if you had the option of conveying the information in a less provocative manner and chose not to do so. Equally saying the content of the article showed the article was not intended to incite hatred would be no defence, for the issue would be the title, especially as anyone looking through Wiki would see the article title but only a small number would go so far as to read it, especially as some would interpret the title as suggesting that the article was at best validating, even if not agreeing with the phrase.

While the odds on Wiki running into legal problems were slim, the biggest danger was that some journalist doing a goggle search or having come into Wiki would have found the article title, contacted a body like in Ireland the Equality Authority or the Director of Public Prosecutions' office asked for a comment, got a condemnation, and then ran a major story - US WEBSITE ACCUSED OF ATTACKING GAYS, ENCYCLOPÆDIA ACCUSED OF GAY ATTACK, etc and calls from politicians, the media and gay rights groups, for criminal prosecution under the Incitement to Hatred Act, promoting a lot of very negative publiciity for Wikipedia and damaging its reputation, all for the sake of a badly worded title that broke wiki's own rules in the first place and for which, as Svevertigo has shown, there was a clear, less offensive and provocative alternative. JtdIrL 03:06 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Heh, with all the US-bashing of late (and mind you, I'm no fan of Bush), it's ironic that it's the US where something this difficult doesn't have to be hidden away. I guess this is a foretaste of what the wikipedia will have to be like for that 3-billionth reader... Stan 03:33 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

I've just run into an edit conflict with my last edit, and with all this bloody page moving, I can't tell if anything got lost. Somebody should check it out if they added anything. --Camembert

Turns out that my edit got lost. I don't know why I bothered, to be honest. I'll come back tomorrow when you might have all grown up a bit. --Camembert
OK, it wasn't "lost", but "reverted" and then put back at homophobic hate speech (which is where it was when I first made the edit). OK, I'm reasonably happy now. I'm not getting sucked into an argument on this one, by the way. --Camembert

Alright, forget all that I wrote above. I'm going back to the music pages until the morrow. They're quieter. --Camembert (to be clear, the version of this article that I put at homophobic hate speech before it ended up here in an edit conflict is this one

Im curious, JT, Mav, Zoe, other reasonable people... is the term "homophobic" itself too much of an adjective for a NPOV article? (Can't one be anti-gay in beliefs without necessarily being "homophobic")
With any subject there is a heirarchy and these are the articles I see as relevant by their order:

Thats about all that I can see thats relevant... theres about 200K worth of text to fill before having to get into specifics, and even then the "AKFD" slogan is... unwarranted. - Put politely. -&#35918&#30505 -&#35918&#30505

On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Axel Boldt wrote on the wikien-l mailing list:

The title "homophobic hate speech" had been suggested as "better" by Oliver Pereira, and Tannin agreed.

It seems that I've been misunderstood again... Hopefully now that Jimbo has said the article is okay, the issue will be settled quickly, but just in case it isn't, I think I'd better clarify my position.

My words were, "perhaps a more general article on homophobic hate speech would be better". This was in a list summarising the arguments (as I perceived them) against there being an article specifically about the phrase "AIDS Kills Fags Dead".

Just to make sure it's clear, my summarising the arguments didn't mean that I agreed with them. However, in this case, I did agree with the statement, although I did point out at the end of the post that I wasn't convinced by it as an argument. That is, I agreed that a more general article would be better, but pointed out that no such article had at that time been written. I apologise if my meaning was not clear, but I meant that in the absence of a wide-ranging article which could comfortably absorb the information from the "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" article, the mere fact that such an article would be better if it existed was not a convincing argument for the removal of the "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" article.

I'm still not convinced by any of the arguments against the presence of the article (now thankfully renamed), and have now decided that the information is probably too specific to be comfortably absorbed into any more general article. I have therefore now decided that I support the existence of the article. (I'm still not entirely sure about the name, though. I think the slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' would be less startling. The current title might look at first glance as if we're making a statement, and requires reading to the end of the title to see that it's about a slogan.) -- Oliver P. 13:38 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

This article seems to be informative, what is the objection to it? . Susan Mason

The title, Susan, the title. JtdIrL 02:50 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Well, there is a slogan that 'Aids Kills Fags Dead' which apparently has gotten some publicity. What else shall we call this? We can't have it in hate speech because its too limited and it needs its own page, certainly deleting this page is not the proper way to argue about this. Granted, the title is a bit bad but what else would u like? HEck we have an article on felching, that's gotta be worse then this. Susan Mason

Euggh! I hate it when Susan makes points like this :| &#35918&#30505 ps: Is "Felcher" to be an offensive username?

You can be a Felcher if you want, It's none of my business... Susan Mason

I think you might need it for another Wiki reincarnation, considering the way you're going, Susan...-&#35918&#30505

This new title ("anti-gay slogans") doesn't follow Wikipedia naming practices. --The Cunctator

It's an article about anti-gay slogans. It's called "Anti-gay slogans". Am I missing something? --Camembert

It is a logical article title. There is a TV ad on British and Irish television where a product is advertised by saying 'it does exactly as it says on the tin'. When this is an article that is about exactly what the article title says. It is unoffensive (unlike the earlier attempt), it is accurate and its sums up exactly what the article is about. It follows Wikipedia naming practices exactly. JtdIrL 20:01 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't it be at the singular? anti-gay slogan? Tuf-Kat
I hope so, because that's where I've just moved it! -- Oliver P. 03:26 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, Stevertigo, the Sebastian Bach link made sense back in this article's original incarnation. -- Zoe

Since the one example given took up much more space than the rest of the material here, I moved it to its own page. That way, linking becomes more precise: people who want to read specifically about the phrase end up where they want to be and don't have to read general discussion of anti-gay slogans. AxelBoldt 02:55 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

HOW many times do we have to keep redeciding this before Axel stops trying to ignore the consensus view and put back his own pet page? STÓD/ÉÍRE 02:59 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Please provide specific reference to the "at least three" decisions that "we" have made regarding this issue, as you claimed in your latest edit summary. You probably do not want to mention this one. Then stop referring to "consensus" where there is none. Then answer my arguments above. AxelBoldt 03:38 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. It has been here and accepted by readers, users & contributors. That IS a decision. If people wanted it moved, there would have been (yet) another debate. But yet again you have decided unilaterally that you are doing to put it where you want. If you think it should be moved, begin a debate here again with people and let them discuss it. Whatever decision they take is fine by me. Don't simply treat this like your prize possession that whenever the mood takes you you can simply move around. It isn't. If you want to move it, talk to people first. Or put on a summary message saying you think it should be moved and get some response, not wait until you think no-one is looking and do what you want. STÓD/ÉÍRE

STÓD/ÉÍRE, please don't accuse everyone who disagrees with you of making "unilateral decisions" and ignoring "consensus". There was originally an article specifically about the slogan, and there was no consensus to remove it in the first place; putting it back is just restoring things to the way things were. Several people said that there shouldn't be a separate article, but several people said there should. Witness the following:-

  1. Jimbo said on the mailing list that he thought an article on the slogan was okay: "Is the topic important enough to deserve it's own article? I think yes, it is, especially in conjunction with a more general article on homophobic hate speech."
  2. Susan Mason said, "We can't have it in hate speech because its too limited and it needs its own page".
  3. I said above, "the information is probably too specific to be comfortably absorbed into any more general article". I stand by this, since the article on anti-gay slogans looks very unbalanced with such a large proportion of it devoted to just one single slogan.
  4. AxelBoldt still thinks the slogan should have its own article.

So where's the consensus of which you speak, STÓD/ÉÍRE...? -- Oliver P. 10:46 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

So discuss moving it, how it would be restructed, etc. Axel yet again did one of his 'unilateral' moves without seeking agreement or telling anyone. Sv and I reverted it and if he tries unilaterally changing it without giving prior notice and asking opinions it will be reverted again. Jimbo didn't say there should be an article, he said there was no problem with an article. As for Susan, well . . . typical Susan. STÓD/ÉÍRE 10:51 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't answer my challenge from above, so I will repeat it here for reference.

Please provide specific reference to the "at least three" decisions that "we" have made regarding this issue, as you claimed in your latest edit summary. Then stop referring to "consensus" where there is none. Then answer my arguments above.

You keep repeating that there was some decision by "readers, users & contributors"; the only consensus I can discern here is the one among you and Stevertigo. I will note too that the article was moved from 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan to Anti-gay slogan by Stevertigo without any discussion or justification, except "(Removed text.. this just doesnt belong here.... sorry Homophobes....)" in the edit summary. As you rightly point out, Jimbo saw nothing wrong with the original article title, so Stevertigo's action required more justification than this, while my restoring the status quo did not; nevertheless I did justify it here.

Regarding the "discussion to death" you mention, I cannot find any cogent argument from Stevertigo, and the two arguments you have presented are

Regarding the first: I am admittedly a poor judge, since I don't know the feeling of being offended. However, I don't see how the quoted phrase can be offensive in the title but not in the article body. I would even argue that quotes cannot be offensive at all.

Regarding the second: Hate speech is legal in the U.S., and reporting about hate speech in a neutral way is legal everywhere.

So discuss moving it, how it would be restructed, etc.

I don't understand what you want here, but I'll give it a shot anyway. The article is to be returned to its original title which presicely describes its contents, so that links to the phrase, of which there are now 5 all over Wikipedia, only link to the phrase and not to material only marginally related, like a general discussion of homophobic hate speech or anti-gay slogans. There is not going to be any restructuring; the article that was under 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan is to be restored, the material from anti-gay slogan is to be removed and replaced with a link.

Having said all that, I also think now that it would be good to completely delete AIDS Kills Fags Dead since it shows up whenever someone searches for AIDS. AxelBoldt 18:41 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

The math-man comes around! Living proof that one is never too old to learn, nor too grand to admit a small mistake. -&#35918&#30505sv

Please see the following articles. I wrote the first three, then renamed the last to conform to my proposed naming convention of Slogan:XYZ.

--Uncle Ed 20:00 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Not everyone would agree with both:

  1. Homosexuality is wrong is an "anti-gay slogan", and
  2. Every anti-gay slogan is hate speech

There is a small, but significant contingent of "love the sinner, hate the sin" folks who merely object to homosexual behavior on religious grounds and who believe themselves to be free of "hate" towards homosexual persons.

The article should reflect this, rather than endorse the idea that all opposition to homosexuality is an expression of hate. --Uncle Ed 20:16 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... How about... Homosexuality is wrong is an "anti-gayness slogan"? If you hate homosexual behaviour, and express opposition to it as a result, could that not still be considered hate speech, albeit directed towards a behaviour rather than a person? Incidentally, I think we should be more careful to distinguish between homosexual orientation (not all homosexuals engage in homosexual behaviour) and homosexual behaviour (not all homosexual behaviour is acted out by homosexuals). So in fact, there is a distinction to be made not only between the people and the activity, but also between thoughts and actions. From what you write, it's not always entirely clear (to me, at least) what you are referring to.
Oh, and I've moved all your slogan articles to Slogan '...', as it was pointed out on the mailing list that the colon looks like the designation of a separate article space. I hope you don't mind. -- Oliver P. 13:39 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)
I don't mind at all; I'm glad someone saved me the trouble of doing it myself, and I hope that a "standard" has been created thereby. As for being unclear, I am still working on that; give me more time, please ^_^ --Uncle Ed 16:12 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

I think "Homosexuality is wrong" is not an anti-gay slogan since it isn't even a slogan; it is just an expression of opinion. AxelBoldt 19:14 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-LGBTQ_rhetoric/Archive_1&oldid=1260759430"