Category talk:Homophobia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This category is POV as applied

I was and remain satisfied with the resolution reached in the section above. However, time has passed and the resolution as applied is POV. Why? Because nearly all organizations listed are viewed (as in OR, POV) as opposing homosexuality when they may instead be opposing something else. There are none (unless I missed one) that favor homosexuality. If this category were true to its wording, organizations that oppose those already listed here would also be listed in this category.

I suggest many more organizations be added, or the existing organizations be removed. For example, I would add the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center, just for the very tip of the iceberg, else I would remove MassResistance and the like. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. From WP:CAT: "If the composition of a category is likely to be controversial, a list (which can be annotated) may be more appropriate." I think the category should be renamed to fit its description if it's to remain (though that's difficult to do tersely), else simply deleted. Until then, it's clear it should be applied to all organizations concerned with homophobia. —EqualRights (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should add more articles to the category. Balance would make it a more useful resource for anyone studying the phenomena of homophobia. Regarding renaming or deleting... you may want to find a bowl for those worms, EqualRights, unless you're planning on keeping them in the can :) Orpheus (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we give each other barnstars or wikilove for agreeing so quickly? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest cat name change

I suggest changing the title of this category. Obviously the category makes people think bad things of whomever it gets applied to, as the above section shows. There is mollifying language that was agreed to, but that's only seen when you finally look at the cat page. So I suggest changing the name of the cat to one that would encourage evenhandedness.

Suggestions, the first being the one I like the most, are these:

• Same Sex Issue Participant - could we get more neutral? Organizations and people on all sides fit this in a non-controversial fashion. This gets away from the "homo" label completely.
• Same Sex Issue Advocacy - but "Advocacy" implies only support for the issue
• Same Sex Issue Advocate - ditto
• Same Sex Advocacy - this leaves out "Issue" which is intended to be more inclusive of related issues
• Homosexual Issue Participant - not great for reasons stated above
• Homosexual Issue Advocacy - ditto
• Homosexual Advocacy - ditto
• Same Sex Participant - April Fools a day late?

So who here thinks changing the cat from Homophobia to Same Sex Issue Participate or another name of your suggestion is a good idea? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would think that organizations and efforts combatting homophobia would be under Category:LGBT rights. Homophobia describes the efforts that promote antipathy, exclusion, discrimination, harassment, violence, etc. You know, opposition of categories of human beings. There used to be a category Category:LGBT rights opposition but it was deleted a long time ago in a VFD. Category:Homophobia has been VFDed and failed. I mean, "homophobia" can to some people and in some circumstances a very loaded, charged, incendiary word that they feel smears them. But consensus thus far has kept the term. The issue really isn't over whether or not homophobia is a nice word. It's been an orthodox term for some time, and the issue is over whether it applies. And subjects that have been described as homophobic have varied over reaction to the term. For instance, in all the repeated controversies over institutional homophobia in Lithuanian society and establishments, eventually the Lithuanian Foreign Minister made a comment about it.[1] From 365 Gay News:

“This is true: Lithuania is one of the most homophobic countries in the EU. This has to be viewed as a fact,” Vaitiekunas said. “The situation cannot be changed by any one party or minister.”

He then told Parliament that it likely would take a “change of generations” to develop a more tolerant attitude toward homosexuality.

Some don't like the word homophobia because they feel it smears them. And there are plenty of other examples of people accepting the term, and even heads of state accepting it as a badge of honor. The difference seems to be how much someone feels they have to lose by it. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Category:LGBT rights opposition was not VFDed. I don't know what happened to it. I honestly don't care what the category's name is, as long as it survives consensus and is properly descriptive. "homophobia" and "LGBT rights opposition" are practically interchangeable in meaning, as both have the same effect on LGBT people. One has to balance the POV of a term that can be considered loaded with the POV of a term that can be considered inappropriately sugarcoated. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on what you said, which confirms most of what I said and what was consensed above, it seems plausible that Homophobia should be a category separate and apart from Same Sex Issue Participant. Someone could be on either side as a same sex issue participant and still not be homophobic. My response to your +cat edit on the Alliance Defense Fund page would have been obviated by such precision. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But "Same Sex Issue Participant" is very vague, and for the better part of the a minute I didn't even know what you were talking about. In a category about opposition to LGBT people, "homophobia" is clear and fits this to a T. To be honest I don't know much about exactly how and why those classified as homophobic object to the term. I honestly don't understand the subtle distinctions between the one who says "Yes, I am homophobic. I oppose homosexuals." and the one who says "I oppose homosexuals in every possible way but I'm insulted by being called a homophobe". I could conjecture, but that would be truly original research on my part. I don't come from the kind of background to oppose LGBT people (especially in such broad discriminatory sweeps), so "homophobia" remains empirically descriptive as I understand it. We document the scope, and we document the effects (both real and desired), and we balance the motives with the empirical facts and evidence, and homophobia is self-evident where it is. Afterall, opposition to entire categories of human beings for who and what they are is a fundamental cornerstone of bigotry, and when those people are LGBT people, it's homophobia. We also have categories for racism, opposition to religious and ethnic groups, sexual and gender prejudices, etc. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Gilgamesh, what you said makes perfect sense. However, in light of the very wording at the top of the main category page, what you have said is unproductive.

For example, you said, "In a category about opposition to LGBT people, 'homophobia' is clear and fits this to a T." But that is precisely what the page is attempting to avoid. Here is the wording currently at the top of the cat page, emphasis in original:

This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia. It does not imply that the subjects of any biographical articles are homophobic.

This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia. It is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not considered widely known for their homophobic stances.

I can understand why people might want a homophobic cat. I can understand why you are saying the things you are. I totally understand. But this current homophobic cat ought to be renamed, as at least one other editor has suggested, and I suggest it could be renamed to Same Sex Issue Participant.

Frankly, Gilgamesh, your comments here evidence the very confusion sought to be eliminated by changing this cat name then creating another cat for the people you described. Or doing something substantially similar to what I just said. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, true. But the articles can still be about homophobic topics, so far as they also discuss the homophobic issue. I categorized the Alliance Defense Fund primarily because of the Day of Truth. If that existed as an article on its own, I would have categorized that instead. - Gilgamesh (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's right, redirect pages can be categorized too. I just added it.[2] It should appear in the category page italicized instead of in plain typeface. I mean, because of Alliance Defense Fund's heavy-handed involvement in filing lawsuits and legal appeals against LGBT rights and protections issues, I would say it's still a valid topic of homophobia study. Family Research Council is also so-categorized largely for the same kind of reason. But whatever. - Gilgamesh (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

When reading, "But whatever," one can infer you mean that you think it is acceptable to change the title of this cat and create another as described above or do something substantially similar as described above or as yet may be worked out here on this Talk page. Would that be a correct inference? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What it means is that I'm not heavily personally invested in this. Take it through the consensus process. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger, wilco. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I am going to change the name of this cat. Consideration has been given to balancing out the groups assigned to the cat, but I believe that is not enough based on this new information:

Alameda, CA - The Alameda Board of Education will consider supplemental curriculum tonight which seeks to eradicate "homophobia" from students barely old enough to write their names.

The curriculum is being touted by officials in the Alameda Unified School District as necessary to "create safe schools for all children," but it focuses almost exclusively on sexual orientation and gender identity. In a recent question and answer memo defending the proposed curriculum, the District lamented that "homophobia is still very much present in many of our schools and communities" and insisted that "students of all ages must be given an opportunity to learn that the words 'gay' and 'lesbian' are adjectives that should be used with respect to describe people in their community, not words used in a negative way..." The District further claimed that "using anti-gay slurs starts as early as kindergarten," and therefore all students must be drilled with positive portrayals of gays, lesbians and transgender people.

So the Alameda Board of Education wants to "eradicate" the very category name being assigned to various groups. I do not think any group no matter the political orientation wants to be labeled something that schools are eradicating. I do not think Wikipedia policies support labeling groups with names others are eradicating. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what? Gilamesh has an excellent idea. Use the pre-exiting Category:LGBT rights. What do you all think of that? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Woah, hold on there. I see no consensus to change the category name, and none of the suggestions given at the top of this section is appropriate at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, I am suggesting switching all pages now in the homophobia cat to the LGBT rights cat. So in reality the homophobia cat will not be renamed, it will just disappear. It's just a suggestion so don't explode, Exploding Boy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me add something. Rather correct something. I do not mean to get rid of homophobia, just to have it applied to those who are provably homophobic. Those who oppose LGBT rights are not necessarily homophobic. So I am saying the homophobia cat should be limited to those who are homophobic. Those who are not homophobic but still oppose certain LGBT rights should go into another category, existing or new. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I look in the section below at -Zeus-'s comment: "I have some worries that this category is being applied too broadly." That is exactly the problem as I just stated, only in a different way. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia is not an LGBT right, so shifting every article in the "homophobia" category to the "LGBT rights" category makes as little sense as shifting every article categorized under "racism" to a category called "racial equality."

Opposition to LGBT rights is by definition homophobia. Please consult dictionary.com, where you will find a collection of definitions from reliable sources saying exactly that (I'm not going to add them here as they've already been C&Pd to other talk pages).

I think a move like this is likely to be highly contentious and should not be undertaken lightly and without broad support. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Opposition to LGBT rights is by definition homophobia." No. That is POV. Anyone can oppose a particular LGBT right and not be homophobic. For example, some LGBTs themselves oppose LGBT marriage. They are not homophobic--they just oppose LGBT marriage.

To make the statement "opposition to LGBT rights is by definition homophobia" is to attempt to redefine the language to suit a political purpose. It's inherently POV. Dictionary.com or other reliable sources that say exactly that, as you claim, are not necessarily right just because they all agree with each other and with you.

Some view LGBT rights as an attempt to obtain special rights over and above everyone else. For example, "hate crimes" legislation is all the rage now. Yet "hate crimes" findings necessarily require mind reading and essentially cloak certain people with special rights over and above others. People who oppose special rights for only certain classes of people do so in the belief that all people are equal, and not because they are homophobic. It is a clever political tactic to label such people as homophobic then refer to all the reliable sources who do the same, but that has nothing to do with the truth. Wikipedia is for presenting the truth, not for presenting the current politically correct zeitgeist.

Yes, correcting the mislabeling of people properly exercising their rights as Americans as homophobics will "be highly contentious," but only to those interested in perpetuating certain political points of view that may be perfectly fine generally, but not on Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that's what I said... I mean, I said maybe "LGBT rights opposition", but not merely "LGBT rights". That said, LGBT rights opposition is still a practical synonym for homophobia because it broadly denies equal rights to other categories of human beings with a detrimental, denigrating and undignifying effect. My conciliatory support for usage of the term "LGBT rights opposition" is quite borderline at best, because it borders on euphemism. "Homophobia" may not be the prettiest of words to whom it is applied, and it may be denied loudly, but it's defined by "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men" (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). One could claim it has to be reasonable, but even if so, it effectively means saying "I don't want LGBT people to have equals rights as me because they shouldn't deserve them" is essentially elevating oneself as somehow better than and superior to LGBT people. And where's the reason in that? In that they don't have children? In that cultural folk tradition tells you it's wrong? These things are points of view. Scientifically, there is nothing inherently more wrong with LGBT people than there is with straight people, and they make just as capable parents. This is fact. Want to disagree? A person has every right to do that. But it's still an opinion; a point of view based on sentiment rather than empiricism free of confirmation bias. Even I as a gay person am not immune from bias. That's part of why accredited fact helps everyone. Now, unless someone who opposed LGBT people and their rights finds a hard accredited peer-reviewed scientific basis to do so, it's a point of view, which is everyone's individual right, but it is Wikipedia's policy to assume non-neutral points of view are empirically unstable. So if someone fears or contempts LGBT people, unless that fear has a NPOV reason, it's homophobia, and that's still under definitions that require homophobia to be irrational (which is not even the universal definition in dictionaries). - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Why must we go through this over and over again?

The statement that "reliable sources that say exactly that . . . are not necessarily right just because they all agree with each other and with you" is rather mind boggling. Either the sources are reliable, in which case they're right, or they're not. It's rather a brazen attempt at pushing your POV to claim that you can decide that reliable sources are somehow wrong because they disagree with your view. And it's also a brazen bit of double-speak to claim that gay people are after special rights and that those who oppose them are actually defending their equal rights.

It's interesting that you would evoke "truth" in your argument, when you're denying the objective truth--here widely accepted and recorded definitions from reliable sources. Just because some people don't like the word "homophobia," or find it politically expedient to deny that it applies to them or their activities, doesn't mean we can't, or shouldn't, use it to describe them. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to express my opinion on this subject.

When I first saw the category name "homophobia", I was confused. "Homo" means "man", as a species, like in "homo sapiens", so "homophobia" must be "fear of man". That seemed a little strange to me for a Wikipedia category. Even after I understood what is meant, the word "homophobia" does sound distinctly negative to me.

I think Category:LGBT rights opposition is very good. Or even Category:Anti-LGBT activist or Category:Anti-LGBT rights activist. I'd support any of these. :) Debresser (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Homophobia" is to ambiguous, I would strongly support a category fork, particularly when it comes to politics and legislation. I think a good number of articles currently residing in this category would be better off in something like "Category:Same-sex marriage opponents". - Schrandit (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep homophobia and stick it under discrimination, it is by definition a subjective term defined by the people who feel subjected to it. No point discussing that, it exists, live with it rather than trying to redefine it and pretend it doesn't exist. If people don't want issues associated with the word - shift them out to a new category that will cover things like the sanitary LGBT rights opposition, and keep this category for stuff concerning homophobia Mish (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The way I just read things, it appears Gilgamesh, Debresser, Schrandit, MishMich, and myself are loosely in general agreement with each other.

Gilgamesh, I am happy to hear you are gay so we have your insight. I am definitely not saying, as you said some people say, "I don't want LGBT people to have equals rights as me because they shouldn't deserve them." I say LGBT people should have the same rights as everyone else, and personally, I treat them the exact same as everyone else--actually I don't even care about ascertaining someone's LGBT status. However, some LGBT people are seeking additional rights over and above all others. One such right is language. Anyone who opposes an LGBT requested right whether deserved or extraordinary is instantly cast as homophobic whether that is actually true or not. In other words, language is being redefined to make even the slightest opposition to any claimed LGBT right an opposition that is homophobic. It's a clever semantic game, but Wikipedia should not be playing that game. We should be honest and make the distinction between true homophobia and legitimate LGBT rights opposition.

Right, everyone? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Born Gay appears to agree generally as well. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue here, as I see it, is that the term homophobia can be defined in different ways, and the category, as it is being used at the moment, probably doesn't distinguish between them carefully enough. We don't have to worry about whether it's right or wrong in general to use the word "homophobia" to mean any and all negative views about homosexuality (which might exist in a spectrum ranging from being respectful and supportive of gay people as individuals while opposing gay marriage for religious reasons at one end to screaming hysterically about "fags" and insisting they should all be brutally killed right away at the other) so long as we can agree that the category, as it is used on Wikipedia, should usually apply only to the stuff at the extreme end of the spectrum. The other stuff, anti-gay in principle but more moderate, requires a different category. Born Gay (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I agree wholeheartedly. I think that something like "Same-sex marriage opponents" might be appropriate for those cases - Schrandit (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But we don't agree on that, and we can't make that decision under our own policies, which prohibit original research. There is no provision in any reliable source that indicates the claim that "homophobia" relates only to the more extreme end of the spectrum of anti-gay sentiment is true. Indeed, our sources indicate the exact opposite: that homophobia can refer to a range of anti-gay sentiment. Arbitrarily designating an existing term with accepted definitions to refer to only a narrowly interpreted meaning or set of behaviours is original research. It's akin to designating the word "hue" to refer only to primary colours, and placing only red, green and blue in that category, with all the others under "colours," or claiming that since many people don't realize that tomatoes are a fruit, and most think of them and use them as vegetables, that they should be classified under "vegetables." All the sources clearly say that both discrimination against and aversion to gay people or homosexuality is homophobia. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"All the sources clearly say that both discrimination against and aversion to gay people or homosexuality is homophobia." Perhaps. But all efforts to oppose certain LGBT rights are not all based on "discrimination against and aversion to gay people or homosexuality." Consider, e.g., gay people who oppose gay marriage. They are not homophobic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Efforts to oppose rights for gay people are most certainly discrimination. Where are these all gay people who oppose same-sex marriage that keep being brought up? Are they opposing same-sex marriage because they oppose all forms of marriage? Or perhaps they're just suffering from Internalized homophobia. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, I think the argument you're making above is beside the point. I never said that "homophobia" relates only to the most extreme spectrum - obviously the word has been used in many different ways. The fact that it can be used in these different ways does not mean that it is reasonable to use the category in a way that implies that all these different things are variations or degrees of the same entity. The only way in which this could be reasonable is if sources unequivocally show that homophobia primarily means any kind of opposition to homosexuality, rather than pathological levels of hatred. Please provide such sources - otherwise the discussion could continue a hundred years and we'd get nowhere. Born Gay (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Replying to LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's "all efforts to oppose certain LGBT rights are not all based on 'discrimination against and aversion to gay people or homosexuality.' Consider, e.g., gay people who oppose gay marriage. They are not homophobic." Actually, some of them are. Members of various minority groups may consciously or subconsciously adopt mindsets that serve to devalue their own worth as human beings, and gay people are no exception; they certainly can be homophobic. Some gay people who oppose the widespread legalization of same-sex marriage are not homophobic, of course; they may oppose the concept of marriage in general or they may dislike marriage being a civil institution, preferring that marital status be determined by institutions other than government, such as religious bodies. Still others may adamantly oppose current campaigns to legalize same-sex marriage because they believe there are more pressing concerns facing the gay population. To determine which is the case with a given group or individual, one would have to ask very specific questions (and get very specific answers). But precious few among the people I just mentioned are actively working to prevent same-sex couples from attaining equal rights under the law, and that is precisely what many of the groups and individuals in this category are doing.

I strongly oppose changing the name of the category. It is descriptive and widely understood, both in academic usage and in the vernacular, and the alternatives proposed are euphemistic or obfuscatory or both. Placing Pat Robertson or Heterosexism in a category called "Same Sex Issue Participant" makes about as much sense as placing David Duke or Racial segregation in a category called "Skin Color Issue Participant". Rivertorch (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Born Gay, I'm pretty sure somebody said that or suggested it. I think that there are several issues going on here. (1) Some people dislike the word homophobia because they feel it's pejorative. To those people, I say too bad. Our job is not to make a value judgement, but only to report the facts. If anti-gay organizations prefer to term themselves "pro-family" or "pro-marriage," that's up to them; we can and must still call them what they are. (2) Some people are attempting to create novel definitions of the word "homophobia" or novel interpretations of how we should use sources. To those people I say, we do not do that kind of research at Wikipedia. Our role is only to report the facts, not to interpret them. Related to this, some people clearly have issues with the word itself, due to its unfortunate etymology. However, we have reliable source after reliable source giving up to date definitions of the word; we must use them. We cannot engage in the kind of primary (original) research that is being suggested here. Perhaps some contributors here may be inspired to go off and do a PhD thesis on homophobia; power to them. And when it's peer reviewed and published then we can use it. (3) Some people clearly have a political motive for removing this category, likely related to (1) above. To those people I say, that is unacceptable. What we do here must be neutral. We list all the Christian denominations under "Christianity," regardless of what they think of each other.

This category has survived a deletion attempt in the past, and this conversation is really getting stale. I suggest that if people are adamant they still want to change the category name, that much wider input is sought, possibly another CFD. This is far too major a change to be effected by a small group of editors. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Worries about category application?

I have some worries that this category is being applied too broadly. dictionary.com defines homophobia as unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Many pages with this category tag do not fall under this characterization are still tagged as such. Many groups refer to themselves as 'family groups', and this is how we should refer them. Homophobia has an unnecessary negative connotation. -Zeus-^u|c 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the solution was to include a balance of organizations. Or the solution may have been to rename the category. I forget now. But I know exactly what you mean, and so do others, and I think there was a solution, but it just has not yet been implemented. Go check, please. Now may be the time to implement that solution. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is regarding the discussion at Talk:National Organization for Marriage which came about due to Zeus' removal of this cat from that article. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you were referring to me, I was not even aware of that one. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If they call themselves "family" or "pro-family" groups but their mission is anti-gay, then we should still label them accurately no matter what euphemism they've chosen. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That depends. If they are anti-gay in reality and reliable sources prove it, then we can say they are anti-gay (to use your word). If they are not anti-gay, but reliable sources say they are, then we can say they are anti-gay but provide language accordingly. If they say they are not anti-gay, and no reliable sources say they are, then we cannot say they are anti-gay.

There is also the problem with the definition of anti-gay. Are they really against gays, or are they really against political issues that are promoted on behalf of gays? If they are against gays, then they are anti-gay. If they oppose certain issues politically, then they are not anti-gay. For example, many may oppose gay marriage, but they are not anti-gay. Indeed, even some gays oppose gay marriage. Are those gays anti-gay? Of course not.

Then again, you still need reliable sources for all this. From your language, you are clearly biased. That's okay, just be sure you have the required reliable sources to make the statements you ultimately add to the article, else someone will remove your additions and call them "original research." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a minefield. Regardless of what a person might tell themselves their intent is, you have to measure the effects and impressions. And to the vast majority of consciously LGBT people, homophobic and LGBT rights opposition are synonymous, in that they are both very damaging to rights to fundamental human dignity. You need only read the many articles on mainstream reputable LGBT news sources like Pink News (U.K.) and 365gay News (U.S.). If you were to tell them all that they simply don't know what they're talking about, it would be denying the effects so widely reported, and assuming bad faith on their part. To cite source reports isn't original research—it's a source. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"And to the vast majority of consciously LGBT people, homophobic and LGBT rights opposition are synonymous, in that they are both very damaging to rights to fundamental human dignity." What you are saying is that no one can ever make any arguments opposing LGBT rights else that will automatically be considered homophobic by the "vast majority of consciously LGBT people." In other words, legitimate debate is impossible. For people who want certain rights, it appears, at least as you describe it, that the rights of others to free speech to debate those certain rights are subordinate. Is this what you meant to say? No one can talk anymore, the one side wins by default every time? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't jump to conclusions. I mean one should consider the collateral effects and of course accredited scientific consensus (which should go almost without saying). - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"To cite source reports isn't original research—it's a source." Oh, I see. You misinterpreted what I said. I never said citing a source is original research. Quite the contrary, I encouraged him to find reliable sources. As I said, "just be sure you have the required reliable sources to make the statements you ultimately add to the article, else someone will remove your additions and call them "'original research.'" That is excellent advice to give. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'm saying, sources like Pink News and 365gay are reputable. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think we can use non-neutral sources on a matter without representing the other sources (eg, anti-gay-marriage groups). -Zeus-^u|c 16:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agreed they were reputable. And I agree with what -Zeus- says, although I think "non-neutral sources" can only be used for limited purposes, balance or no. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think news sourced with a self-admitted political agenda can only be used to document what that source thinks, not objectively describe the situation. - Schrandit (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is a view among editors that "homophobic" means the same thing as "opposed to homosexuality", then there may be a case for renaming the "Homophobia" category "opposition to homosexuality", or something similar. The truth is that "homophobia" may be an unworkable and loaded category unless it is defined very strictly. The way it is currently used, it seems to all but imply that opposition to homosexuality is a mental disorder. Opposition to homosexuality may well be wrong, but it's necessary to maintain some kind of balance here and not imply that all our opponents have mental problems. I understand why people might want to do that, but it's not necessary to refute them. Born Gay (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not the view among editors, it's the definition found in dictionaries. Wikipedia is not bowlederized: there's no reason to substitute a more pleasant euphemism when a perfectly serviceable word exists. For instance, we don't say people "passed away," we say they "died." We have a category called "murderers," not "takers of human life." We have categories called "racism," "antisemitism," "sexism," "ageism," "ethnocentrism," "ableism," "white supremacism," and many more. Their subjects might claim that these labels don't apply to them, or that the labels are inaccurate, just as they often do with "homophobia." That doesn't mean it's true. We must go by reliable definitions, whether people like them or not. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Which dictionaries? Some may define it as broadly as you would prefer, but often the term is used to indicate a level of hatred or fear of homosexuality that rises to irrational or even pathological levels, not simply to opposition to homosexuality as such. It doesn't help Wikipedia to use a category in a way that cannot distinguish between these phenomena. And note that it makes little sense to simply refer to dictionaries - how the term is used in published, professional literature is a more relevant consideration. Born Gay (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. But that doesn't mean ditching a homophobia category, it means creating a different category for opposition to homosexuality, and then some things will belong to that category, some things to homophobia, (and some things to both categories even, if that is possible). For example, skinhead queerbashing might be a form of opposition to homosexuality, but it certainly fits homophobia. Some types of opposition, such as that of the Evangelical Alliance, might be thought to have homophobic undertones, but would be better positioned under opposition to homosexuality - where Phelps (for e.g.) wouldn't. I don't think it helpful to apply a homophobic category to a group that is opposed, even though some individuals within that group may have homophobic motivations, but it just as unhelpful to apply a category of oppositional to a group that is homophobic. Groups that call for the death of homosexuals might be locatable in an oppositional category, but they also belong in homophobia, and may be best placed there only. Discussing the suitability of a term like 'homophobia', drawing on etymology, is pointless within Wikipedia, as it is part of the linguistic currency. It is not the job of Wikipedia to redefine public discourse, but to reflect it. The term homophobia is used to describe something, however inadequate it might be, it is substantive through sourcing in ways that no other term is, and we just have to get on with it regardless of whether some people see it as perjorative. Some people see homosexual as perjorative, but it still gets used. There are lots of words with unfortunate associations that do not accurately describe their subject. Paedophile, for example, has nothing to with loving children, yet it has become associated with child molesters. You don't hear many child molesters insisting on a different word, not people who do actually love children in the right way either. So, let's keep clear that homophobia has a specific meaning, and not apply it to the wrong sorts of situations. Then the discussion is about whether something fits the category or not, not whether the category should be renamed because some people don't like the word. The root of the term is fear of homosexuals, or homosexuality, where homo means the same (not man) that is why lesbians were categorised as such as well. Homophobic acts stem from fear, including acts of violence and discrimination, and often fear generated by internalised homophobia (fear of the queer within). Clearly there is more to it than this, because some people oppose homosexuality out of fear, but not in ways we associate with homophobia, and others act in homophobic ways simply because they can get away with that - people with psychopathic tendencies who like to hurt people and pick on queers because they see them as more vulnerable and involving less risk. I am not going to reference this with sources, as this is not for an article, but it is in all the books on the subject, should people feel they ever need to try reading one or two.

Dictionaries tend to give pretty good definitions for words, so the Oxford says "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals". The term homosexual was derived through translation of Krafft-Ebbing in his "Psychopathia Sexualis" over a hundred years ago, the etymology being from homo- form of Gk. homos meaning the "same" + Latin-based sexual. Havelock Ellis considered it a barbaric word, although his 'sexual inversion' is little better, and homosexual stuck. Ditto for homophobia, but within the last 40 years; etymologically it is crap, but as happens so often when crap gets tossed around, crap tends to stick. We are stuck with it, because we are an encyclopedia and reflect the usage, not change it. Mish (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I more or less agree. It may be better to have two different categories than to relabel this one. If there are going to be different categories, then I've got no problem whatever with the homophobia category being used where it really does apply, although that does need to be considered very carefully. Born Gay (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, while I have no problem keeping folks like Mr. Phelps in the category homophobia I don't think folks like our president fit in there. - Schrandit (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "homophobia"

I'm getting pretty weary of having to do this, but here goes (again).

Dictionary.com gives definitions of the term from 3 dictionaries. They are as follows:

• unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Source: Random House Dictionary
• Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. Behavior based on such a feeling. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
• irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (same definition can be found in Merriam Webster)

Princeton's WordNet defines it as:

• prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

The Fondation Émergence, founder of the International Day Against Homophobia gives the following definition:

• a negative attitude or feeling, an aversion towards gays and lesbians or towards homosexuality in general. It is also the rejection of people considered gay or lesbian and of all things associated with them, for example, gender non-conformity.

Our own article on homophobia gives the following definition, with 4 sources cited:

• an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality, homosexuals,or individuals perceived as homosexual. Some definitions lack the "irrational" component.

The article also points out that the construction of the word is comparable to xenophobia, a term referring to individual or cultural hostility to foreigners or outsiders.

All the definitions are remarkably consistent. It's not up to us to make a value judgement on whose hatred of or discrimination against gay people is better or worse, only to apply the term that describes their attitudes and behaviours. "Opposition to homosexuality" is a whitewash; to use that term would beg the question why it was chosen rather than the more succinct and more common "homophobia," and the logical answer would be that it was done in acquiescence to those who are motivated to present certain organizations or people in a more flattering light. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see my point above about dictionary definitions. They simply aren't the main consideration here. To the extent that they are relevant at all, they show that the term "homophobia" is used in a number of different ways. This is exactly what makes the "homophobia" category problematic unless it's defined very carefully. There's no reason why this category (or any category) has to include all the different things that a dictionary might define the term as meaning. Still less should it be used in a way that implies that they are all actually the same thing and there is no relevant difference between them (and note that the dictionaries do not say this - making judgments about such issues is not their purpose). Born Gay (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with what you say here and what you say above. See for instance the given definitions of "racism." A racist can be a kindly grandmother who thinks black people are a bit scary and might steal her handbag, or a raging skinhead who'd like to see everyone whose skin colour differs from his own wiped out. "Racism" can refer to a state policy or a doctrine; hatred or intolerance; discrimination based on race; or belief that one's own race is superior to others. Making judgements is not our purpose either: we don't make value judgements by dividing these various aspects of the term up into categories like "believers in the theory that race accounts for differences in human character or ability" and "opposition to racial equality." It should be clear from the article content where on the spectrum a given subject falls. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll re-state what I think is wrong with the position you are taking. I could be wrong, but you appear to be arguing that because dictionaries state that numerous different things may be described as "homophobia", those dictionaries have established that all those different things actually are a single entity called "homophobia." In my view, that's a mistaken position. Dictionaries aren't meant to settle issues like this. Their purpose is to say how words are used, not to make judgments about the things the words describe. Stating that a given word may cover different things definitely does not mean saying that those things are one and the same, or degrees or variations of a single entity, as opposed to their being quite different things that just happen to be sometimes described using the same word. Born Gay (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In this instance it's pretty clear that that is precisely the case: like racism, there are different degrees or variations of homophobia (to torture an example: from the kindly grandmother who thinks that "the gays" are a bit light in the loafers and might want to steal her handbag, to the rabid skinhead who would murder any man who looked at him too long). Our job at Wikipedia is not to make judgements or to decide on the basis of a few editors' opinions that the term "homophobia" can't be used to describe various attitudes and degrees of hatred/discrimination. This would be novel syntheses of disparate material, original research, and non-neutral, since that view is not supported by the available sources. All we do is take information from reliable sources and report it. Here we have umpteen reliable sources defining homophobia. It is not up to us to decide who or what is more or less homophobic and to apply more or less euphemistic labels to those articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Since most of the articles tagged with the Category:Homophobia do not meet all of these definitions - because of the widely varying interpretations of the concept - we at the Wikipedia encyclopedia are obliged to find something more suitable. See above for suggestions. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

They don't have to meet them all. That's a ridiculously narrow interpretation of the standard, and one which every category would fail: most words have more than one definition. See "racism," for an example. And they're not "widely varying" either. See the definitions above. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from using words like "ridiculous". Thank you.

Apart from that, I disagree with everything you said:

1. We do have an obligation to our goals to find a name that is applicable to all of these articles (or - alternatively - make more than one category). But we must not apply a category that might lead to a person being categorised untruthfully by the reader of an article about him. This, is am sure, is an unnegotiable rule in Wikipedia.
2. Most articles in Wikipedia fit very well the categories they are added to, which is not the case here.
3. Words may have more than one definitions, but all have to be the same in essence, which is not the case here. A pear tree will be a tree under all definitions, but I am a homophobe under some and am not under others. Which shows that the word "homophobia" has no one definition. So these definitions are even more than "wildly varying", they are "contradictory". In short, they are unfit for use in an encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

On item 3, categories do include different things, and some might argue some ought not to fall within them and others disagree. Examples from science don't really help - trees have a very specific taxonomy, although in common usage some might argue whether a Yukka or a Cabbage Tree is a tree or not, while a biologist would know by what a tree is defined as. Christian for example, there are different sorts of Christians, and most would agree they are different, but still Christians. However, some might argue that some people referred to as Christians are not Christian, and others disagree. Some would exclude homosexual Christians, arguing that a practicing homosexual cannot be a Christian, or somebody like David Jenkins, or Mormons, or Jehova's Witnesses and so on. That is because that is about social phenomena. You cannot define social categories in the way you do plants. If you want to understand social categories, you need to turn to sociological references, specifically works that deal with sexuality, sexology and discrimination - not some subjective feeling about whether your own views place you in that category or not. Of the terms rendered under definition, I can see nothing contradictory about any of them, simply that they do not all have to be relevant in location within the category. Disapprobation, aversion, fear and discrimination are not contradictory, but they can be complimentary. The term exists within common discourse and the media, as well as within academic sociology and psychology, so it is the best relevant term, individuals not happening to like it is not really an issue. That is because Wikipedia reflects what is, an does not engage in redefinitions in a ways that would affect wider discourse and vocabulary. That would be a bit like WP:Original research. If society at large stops using 'homophobia', in the way words like 'gender bender' or 'sex-swap' used to be, and now only tend to be used in transphobic contexts, that would be the point at which Wikipedia would need to stop using it. Mish (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with you that there is a clear distinction between the exact and humanistic sciences. When I said that the definitions above are "contradictary", I meant that they might lead to a contradiction in the description of any specific person, as I gave the example of my humble self.

Your say "Wikipedia reflects what is". But in this case there is no consensus as to "what is", because according to different definitions we get different results. Thus we can not use this as a category. Argument is simple and conclusive. Other names like the ones mentioned above do no have this critical shortcomming.

I'd say that whether people like a term or not is definitely an important factor to consider. I'd sue Wikipedia for being categorised a homophobe, possibly.

In conclusion, we absolutely MUST rename this category ASAP. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I tend to go by the most reliable source for definition, in my situation, the OED, rather than something on that only exists in cyberspace. It is true that they don't have to meet all the defined criteria, they simply have to meet one of the defining features, and that is easily established by referring to our own article on the subject, Homophobia where it is defined in the lede as 'an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality, homosexuals, or individuals perceived as homosexual'. (etc.), and the issues with the term discussed in the body text. That is because 'or' is a disjunction, not a conjunction, and while it can mean 'and/or' as well as 'or', it never means 'and'. So, if an article is about discrimination of people who look queer, or identify as queer, or do queer sex, or wished they could do queer sex - or is about an aversion to that lot, or fear of that lot, or fear or aversion to or of doing any of that stuff oneself, then it falls under homophobia. In the same way that being homosexual doesn't mean a gay man has to be a lesbian as well, or have to have sex with people of the same sex, or identify as gay or lesbian. Mish (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out here that the category "racism" is populated only with people/organizations that self-identify as racists or that are dead and which historians overwhelmingly classify as racists. I think the same care should be given with this term, lest it lose its meaning. - Schrandit (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Some excellent and important points, Mish. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is the main meaning of the word "homophobia." There's no doubt it can be and is used sometimes to refer to all opposition to homosexuality. I wouldn't say it was reasonable to use the category here that way unless reliable sources show that this is the main meaning, rather than a secondary meaning or only one of several - otherwise we would be creating confusion. And I would hope that it was clear that we need to be referring to published books and articles in journals of psychology and the social sciences that actually discuss homophobia, not to dictionaries. Born Gay (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Important distinction, Debresser, the category 'homophobia' uses a noun which describes what homophobia is. What you are talking about is an inference that having a view that described as 'homophobic' and located under 'homophobia' is the same using a different noun to describe someone as a 'homophobe'. That is a construction where you are confusing two terms, and discussing one as if it were the other. Homophobia describes ideology and/or praxis, homophobe describes the person. If we had a category 'homophobes', then you might be corrects, but we don't, we have a category 'homophobia'. It is like the Christian adage 'love the sinner but hate the sin' - we can describe the phenomenon of homophobia dispassionately, without referring to people as homophobes - in the same people as people refer to homosexuality, but do not need to refer to gay people as 'homosexuals' (although I do forget this myself at times in the latter case). Homophobia is not a pejorative term, while homophobe can be, homophobia is a technical term, and just because somebody doesn't like their views described that way doesn't change anything. I may have views that could be described as heterophibia, and particularly androphobia, but that does not mean I am a heterophobe or an androphobe in the way a lesbian separatist might be accused of being; I certainly wouldn't have a problem with my views being categorised alongside more extreme types of heterophobia and androphobia, as long as my own views were represented accurately. Mish (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Born Gay wrote: The issue is themain meaning of the word "homophobia." -- You keep saying this, yet you offer no evidence that there is one "main meaning" that is somehow different from the others. This isn't the case. As has been repeated ad nauseam, "homophobia" refers to a range of behaviours and feelings. Your theory isn't supported by any of the sources. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposals?

I'm concerned that discussions here are turning into an exchange of views about homophobia generally, the phenomenon and the word. I'd prefer to keep things focused on how the category should be defined and used. There are two issues: does the category need redefining, and if it does, how? I think that the description of the category ("This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia") does need to be changed, or at least clarified.

A category that includes anything that might be deemed homophobic according to any definition is too broad, and "being involved in the subject of homophobia" is a vague and awkward expression even if there is no question about what we mean by "homophobia". It does not distinguish between being involved in homophobia itself and being involved in discussion of or argument about homophobia. Everyone involved needs to at least summarise their positions, and preferrably come up with proposals. Then we can try to determine where consensus lies. Born Gay (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This works as far as people like Peter Tatchell, a UK human rights campaigner, and activist groups like OutRage are concerned, as they are involved in discussion/argument about the subject of homophobia. It would also include academics. It could include people or groups who advocate or promote homophobia as well, possibly who practice it, but it is a bit vague. Perhaps it should be tightened up to cover work, groups and individuals involved in studying, writing about, discussing, promoting, campaigning against, or practicing what is understood as 'homophobia'. The best definition I have found for assessing homophobia is in the context of homophobic hate-crime, and that is that the crime is regarded as homophobic by the victim, and by extension when the violator themselves gives clear indications of homophobic intentions on the part of the perpretrator (e.g., 'faggot' smeared in blood on the wall, shouting 'faggot' while kicking somebody's head in, etc.). If we extend this understanding to the category, then the definition has to be determined by those who are the subject of homophobia, LGBT people themselves, and the same for what can be classed under that category. Even in texts that discuss homophobia, the term itself does not seem to be interrogated, merely accepted. In one paper an interviewee is recorded as saying "In my usage, 'lesbiphobia,' fear and hatred towards lesbians, is expressed in attitudes and actions based on prejudice. Widespread prejudice translates into social/political/economic discrimination, whereby dominate (sic) group's benefit at the expense of minority groups, which is institutionalized prejudice" (Out in Psychology, ed Clarke & Peel, 2007, p.222). Sorry to belabor the point, but by definition this is a subjective term and tying it down is not going to straightforward, because homophobia subsists not only amongst individuals and groups, but can be social and institutional, and can be practiced by people who themselves are not necessarily homophobic. Thinking this through, and going going back to the analogy earlier about 'racism', maybe it would be better to take a step back, think about the broader concept of a framework of 'heteronormativity' within which homophobia subsists, and come back down to 'heterosexism'. Whilst this is a less familiar term to some maybe, it lacks some of the locutionary force of 'homophobia', and is able to include aspects of discrimination at both individual, group, organisational, institutional and national levels. In the same way as 'racism' can incorporate a granny as well as white supremacists, so 'heterosexism' can include the the way courting couples are free to walk down the road hand in hand as well as a mob beating somebody to death. Would using 'heterosexism' work better for a broad category, and homophobia a narrower category for dealing with certain manifestations in 'homophobia'? Church responses, for example, could be more easily located in the context of 'heterosexism' than 'homophobia'. If you did do this, however, you would need to sort out heterosexism properly first. Mish (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather okay with that. In my personal opinion, heteronormativity is just as irritating (as it is often based in ignorance, innocent or not), and heterosexism is just as vile (as it is completely dismissive and denigrating). And it's difficult to think of examples of homophobia that aren't heterosexist. I'm afraid that, as a six kinseyan, I can't really be any more objective than that. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I still propose renaming to Category:LGBT rights opposition (or should that be Category:LGBT-rights opposition?). If nothing will change soon, I think we have to take this to an official "category for deletion" discussion, as a category name that is a potential source of legal action against Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not submit to legal threats, WP:THREAT, and such threats are taken very seriously, and can lead to people being being blocked from editing Wikipedia, I quote "Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator. Legal threats are not to be used by one editor to override a consensus view that they disagree with. Mish (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reported the incident: [[3]] Mish (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replied there that there is no truth to your words, and provided the diffs involved. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at ANI at this point is that this does not constitute a legal threat. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion closed as:

Debresser expressed a good faith concern that the term 'homophobia' might cause Wikipedia legal difficulties. This was interpreted, again in good faith, as a legal threat. The consensus here is that it was not. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Back to the proposal. I think we should play this like Category:Racism and Category:Communists and only include people that self-identify as homophobic or folks that reliable sources generally refer to as homophobic. If someone opposes same-sex marriage put them in a category like "same-sex marriage opponents", if they oppose gays in the military make some category for that. There is no point in being vague when we can be specific. I feel this point needs to be made - right now, the label is being applied to easy targets - unpopular politicians who oppose same sex marriage, various Church groups, the boy scouts but Barrack Obama opposes gay marriage, so does Islam. Who among those arguing for the broadest use of this category will be bold enough to label them as homophobic? - Schrandit (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not about applying the term 'homophobic' to anybody, it is about the category 'homophobia'

I have done a search, and it looks like the only place terms like 'LGBT rights opposition' exist are in on-line encyclopedias and essay-generators, so to use them here is unjustified. It is not Wikipedia policy to rely on other encyclopedias or itself as original sources. I suggest we need to start working our way through all articles that use this novel terminology in their title as WP:Original research and begin removing them from Wikipedia. Mish (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In relation to BLP's, that is quite straightforward, if the individual should not be categorised under 'homophobia', then they should not be. Having the category is irrelevant to that - it is a hypothetical problem, in same the way that it has been agreed that any legal threat is purely hypothetical. Mish (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This has not been agreed upon. In the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Debresser_using_legal_threats_to_bypass_consensus one editor said "I can't see how using an English word that's in common usage could possibly be a matter for legal action". That was one opinion, and it was not further discussed (apart from my reply to it there). We'll leave this for CfD. Debresser (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion was that you did not make legal threats, which makes them hypothetical, but that it was understandable how they might be perceived as legal threats. Are you now saying they aren't hypothetical. Mish (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we get back to the proposal please? This proposal requires a novel interpretation of primary sources. What is being said here, if I may summarize other editor's statements, is that a category that includes anything that might be deemed homophobic is too broad, and the suggestion is that we splinter the category into a myriad of very small categories like "same-sex marriage opposition" and "military opposition to homosexuality" and "anti-gay sentiment" and who knows what else, and reserve the category "homophobia," if we keep it at all, strictly for those who (a) self-identify as homophobes, (b) those who self-identify as fighters against homophobia, and (c) those whose work deals specifically with homophobia, such as academics and psychologists.

This is exceedingly problematic. First, perpetrators of anti-gay violence, for instance, often deny that they are homophobes or that their crimes are homophobically motivated. This proposal would tie our hands with respect to categorizing the subjects of Wikipedia articles. In a hypothetical murder case where a gay man is murdered amid shouts of "faggot," we would be restricted from classifying the article under "homophobia" unless the killer self-identified as a homophobe. A logical next step would be to prohibit the use of any language in a Wikipedia article that contradicted a subject's own self-description ("I'm not a criminal, I'm a law resister"). This violates existing precedent, by the way. See Category:Rapists, for instance.

Second, the entire proposal is based on novel interpretation of primary sources, which is original research. We have reliable source after reliable source that tell us exactly what "homophobia" means. This proposal would restrict us from using the term as it is defined in our reliable sources, and would further require us to use euphemistic neologisms in its place.

This creates a third problem, namely lack of neutrality. When we create policies that preclude us from calling a spade a spade (based on reliable sources) we lose all claims to neutrality. In a real case where an organization that openly opposes gay rights and is widely reported as "anti-gay," we are currently engaged in a long debate about whether it is acceptable to categorize them under "homophobia" because (a) they don't self-identify as such and (b) people are quibbling about interpreting definitions found in reliable dictionaries. The group in question, like many similar groups, has a vested interest in not being described as "homophobic." Visit the KKK's official website: they deny that they hate minorities, are anti-Catholic, and are racist. Everybody knows that's utter crap, of course, but it is politically expedient for them to appear moderate and to deflect negative attention. On Wikipedia, however, we classify them under the following categories: "Anti-Catholicism in the United States," "Antisemitism ," "Christian terrorism," "Hate crimes," "Hate groups," "History of racism in the United States," "Racism," "Racially motivated violence against African Americans." Exploding Boy (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fully agreed, Exploding Boy. Every word. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, you're absolutely right. And I retract my suggestion to use "LGBT rights opposition" instead. It's an unacceptably neologistic euphemism. The application of "homophobia" may not be any less potentially incendiary than "antisemitic", but that may not make it applicably any less true and factual. And when "culture wars" are declared, words like these become surrounded with politics, and there seems to be no shortage of fundamental disagreements, and even seem to constantly repeat on the same topics over and over again. Isn't this why we have a {{controversial}} template? Anyway, politics get in the way here. We ought to try to be empirical without confirmation bias. ...which means I can't do it alone. :P - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed here, too. WP should not be reduced to employing euphemisms because some individuals or groups might be upset about being placed in Category:Homophobia. Placement in the category isn't the same as calling them homophobic, anyway, even if many of them are. Rivertorch (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Exploding Boy on most of this, particularly about not deconstructing homophobia into constituencies of prejudice and means of discrimination. But, relating to item 1. I am speaking from a UK context, but as I have made clear elsewhere, and alluded to here, the Crown Prosecution Service is quite clear when it comes to crime:

• There is no statutory definition of an incident with a homophobic or transphobic element. The definition adopted by The CPS is “Any incident which is perceived to be homophobic or transphobic by the victim or by any other person”. This definition adopts the approach generally accepted for defining other types of hate incidents, such as racist incidents.

So, in this context, homophobia is felt to be that which is perceived to be such by the victim and/or witnesses - such as shouting 'faggot', etc. In relation to BLPs, I think we need to take the advice from one contributor, that we need to be very careful about applying such a category. However, this is more than adequately covered in BLPs, and to assuage such concerns we might want to consider a guideline for this category that we never place such a tag on a BLP unless it is an individual who is involved in human rights work for LGBT people, with the caveat that if homophobia appears in the text in relation to the individual with appropriate reliable sourcing, then that is the only way the category can feature within a BLP. That way, rigorous enforcement of BLP policies will protect such individuals. I have today received a translation of 'The Dictionary of Homophobia' by French Canadian Louis-Georges Tin, originally published in 2003, and it appears pretty comprehensive.

• The actual use hesitates between two very different definitions. The first emphasizes the phobia in homophobia: it is the rejection of homosexuals and of homosexuality. We are at the level of individual psychology. The second sees a certain heterosexism in homophobia. It is the inequality between sexualities. The hierarchy between heterosexuality and homosexuality returns us to the collective level of ideology. (Eric Fassin, sociologist, p.12).

This shows what is at the heart of the problem, an ideology which regards heterosexuality as normative, and homosexuality as abnormal will regard an issue such as this as being about NPOV, without regard to its own POV, because that POV appears 'normal' to the one occupying the normative position. It can only appear so as an ideological view, and one in which heterosexuality is seen as 'superior' to homosexuality. This view itself, then, is one that falls under the category 'homophobia' itself, and thus is not itself one that can be considered NPOV in this context. I will be looking through this further to see what it says over the next week or so. Mish (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with two things mentioned before:

• Wikipedia has no reason and no need to use euphemisms, and should not do so.
• The name "LGBT rights oposition" is not found in any significant sources and can therefore not be used.

This still leaves us with a problem, because "homophobia" also can't be used, for one simple reason: it is not a clearly defined term and allows for ambiguity in the classification of people. (In addition, I fear, such ambiguity might be a source of potential legal problems for Wikipedia.) Debresser (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, when homophobia is felt on the part of the LGBT person, there are still plenty of sources that document this. Reputable LGBT news sources like Pink News and 365gay can be used as sources. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct. This reminds me of a certain good idea of mine. We could keep the category for those cases that fit all definitions, like the example you mentioned of people suffering from hate crimes connected with homophobia or people like say Hitler, who clearly suffered from irrational hatred. All cases that don't fit all definitions, should be removed from the category and might be added instead to just old 'n plain Category:Discrimination for example, which, after all, is Category:Homophobia's parent category. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That won't work. Institutional homophobia, for example, is recognised concept, by governments and police forces and academics, etc. Needs to be in there. Homophobic comments. Needs to be in there. Homophobic discrimination. Needs to be in there. All legally accommodated. There is nothing in any definition that says they need to tick all the boxes, only one or more of them. Good try.

Maybe look at the first definition from the UK CPS I gave? The second definition is not unclear, it is clear that there are two meta-senses, and these cover a range of phenomena. We do not have to choose which one, because all are covered under the term, and thereby the category. It is not that we can 'not use it', the reality is we can not 'not use it' because it is what is it, and apart from 'heterosexism' there is no other term, and we are not in a position to make something up because a few people don't like it. There are over 3 1/2 million items online that feature this word, where "Homosexuality and Christianity" yields 14,000 items. Given that many gay people don't like being described as 'homosexuals', there would be more ground to argue that the 'Category:Homosexuality and Christianity' be expunged from here than 'Category:Homophobia'.

In the highly unlikely event it might be a legal issue (as being in a category is not saying anything specific about anybody)... as I said, in the case of a BLP, we establish a guideline that goes with the tag that it should not be used as a tag on a BLP, but only if it appears in the text accompanied by reliable source - that way it will be subject to the same criteria as anything else said in a BLP, which can be dealt with quite rigorously. If such a reference were inserted within a BLP, and challenged, it can be removed immediately, because that is the policy for any unsourced material - and the only way to put it in would be to show a significant source that warrants the insertion of the term. There is no such problem with 'Category:Racism', nobody has sued Wikipedia yet have they? If they have, has Wikipedia stopped using it? Is there an alternative term? Is it particularly clearer than homophobia? Go and have a read of Racism, it is little clearer. In the UK the legal definition of criminal homophobia is lifted directly from criminal racism.

There's nothing to stop anybody trying to do something relevant ('Religious opposition to homosexual rights', for example). Mish (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll just say that there's a reason we don't have Category:Homophobes but do have Category:Homophobia. This addresses any BLP or POV issues. This category has withstood several deletion attempts and I'm confident in its reason for existence. If anyone's counting votes consensus, consider this mine to leave this category alone. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Mish (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(replying to Debresser, two posts ago). Homophobia is most certainly a clearly defined term; it just has multiple definitions. So do many terms, and that doesn't prevent their use as WP categories. The topic of an article need not fit every published definition to be appropriate for the category. (If there's a policy contradicting what I just wrote, please cite it.)

Your vague references to "potential legal problems" are, though surely well-meant, completely irrelevant. First of all, it's not clear what sort of legal problems you're referring to; if it's libel, that doesn't make sense, since placement of a noted person in this category does not suggest they're homophobic, only that their life or work is in some way relevant to the topic of homophobia. More importantly, WP has policies in place to protect itself from legal problems, and it is not up to editors to anticipate new ones, only to follow the policies. Rivertorch (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• No "vague references". I explained clearly what and why. Do your homework.
• On Wikipedia, policy is made by editors, so saying "it is not up to editors to anticipate new ones, only to follow the policies" shows little understanding of the way Wikipedia works. Do your homework. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - there are already subcategories for the nastier cases. These were made to keep this category more neutral. In particular, see Category:Homophobic violence and Category:Hate groups. Orpheus (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Various arguments since my last post, but most notably the argument that this category is not the same as Category:Homophobes, have put my worries about the risk of potential legal consequences of this category to rest. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the critical difference between the various definitions as far as this discussion is concerned is the "irrational"/"unreasoning" element. The problem being in my point of view, that this allows for the following ambiguity. A certain person might be connected with homophobia because of any variety of reasons, principles and beliefs. This would be considered homophobia only if the "irrational"/"unreasoning" element were omitted from the definition, while according to definitions with the "irrational"/"unreasoning" element this would not qualify as homophobia.

I have to admit that I too have not found a guideline in Wikipedia that states that categories must be completely unambiguous. Nevertheless, in my opinion this is a more than minor distinction. On the other hand, both types of definitions (with and without the "irrational"/"unreasoning" element) are well sourced, so in absence of any serious arguments (like the legal worry expressed before, which I have now revoked), I see no essential, encyclopedical, problem with applying Category:Homophobia according to both definitions. I do feel the availability of such diverging definitions with the resulting ambiguity described above is an awkward situation. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Anybody here familiar with Wikipedia:DBAD? This humoristic essay contains the following line: "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true." Using this same logic I'd like to point out that if so many people feel that there is a problem with the way this category is being defined and used in Wikipedia, then perhaps it is time to consider the possibiliy that this might indeed be the case. Debresser (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad analogy since, it seems to me anyway, that you're the only one that has a problem with the way this category is being defined and used in Wikipedia. SO are you calling yourself a dick? Or did I miss some of the conversation somewhere and totally off base here? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Allstarecho, if you say I am the only one that has problem with the way this category is being defined and used (don't forget the word "used"), you clearly haven't read anything on this page apart from my posts. So the answer to your question is "yes", your completely off base here". Debresser (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, please notice that this talk page is likely to be frequented mostly by people who are themselves potential (or even actual) victims of homophobia, and are therefore hardly unbiased (as in Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias). Debresser (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

People can be wrong in groups of any number. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)