User talk:Citadel18080/AFA Discussion with Orpheus

Orpheus, thank you for suggesting this, as the talk page discussion was becoming increasingly ridiculous. What do you think about swapping Category:Homophobia with Category:LGBT issues and religion? This category includes, among other things, the article on The Bible and homosexuality. Citadel18080 15:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best if I lay out my reasoning so you can see where I'm coming from. When KooKooStar added the category back in, it got me thinking about the AFA's goals, and one of their primary goals seems to be advocating for discrimination against homosexuals, or at least advocating against preventing it. I know one of those is much more of an inflammatory statement than the other. Regardless, if you combine "discrimination" and "homosexuality" the intersection covers a lot of their action alerts and advocacy.

As a result, I think it's important to have a category in the article that covers that and relates them to other groups and individuals with similar goals. It's good that there's a generic LGBT cat, which is already there (history of etc). It's good that the discrimination category is there, because it covers their efforts in preventing anti-Christian discrimination as well. The one you just suggested is also good, but as an addition rather than a replacement.

I think the homophobia category, as it stands, is the right fit for the article. However, I can definitely see your point that it can easily be considered a pejorative term. I genuinely believe that the best solution is to rename that category, a move which I would support. I'm thinking "sexuality-related discrimination" or something like that - a specific one that links a collection of groups with similar ideas together. As I said on the article talk page, if the category remains un-added, it's a magnet for people to wander along and think "ho-hum, that category looks like it fits, I'll add it" and spark another megabyte of discussion.

Anyway, that's my line of thinking, how I got to here - what are your thoughts? Orpheus 04:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. Somebody did wander along and add it, and that is why this discussion started up again. Renaming the category would solve the problem, but the category is heavily populated, and I'm not sure that other editors from beyond the AFA article would agree to it.

I do think that Homophobia is a perjorative term, but I'm also concerned about some of the other articles in the category to which the AFA is being related, including the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism. I think that it is important to distinguish between activism against homosexuals rights and actions taken against homosexuals themselves. The AFA is not sending out action alerts requesting that people beat up homosexuals or trash gay bars. In fact, I've been through their website, and never once did I find any anger or rage against homosexuals. Ideally, I'd like to see Category:Homophobia split into two cats: one for legal, nonviolent activism groups like the AFA and another for extreme organizations that seek to harm homosexuals. What do you think? Citadel18080 06:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. The common thread is the sexuality-related discrimination. The point of difference is the means. Perhaps the others could be taken out of the Homophobia category and put into one like "Homophobic violence"? I'd be happy to do that and keep an eye on the categories. A suitable bit of explanatory text in the category page would keep things organised, I think. Orpheus 07:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Regarding the renaming of the Homophobia cat, if I'm not mistaken, these types of decisions are typically made through discussion and polling. Do you think that other editors who keep an eye on that category would agree to it? Citadel18080 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if we decide to create a category for the AFA and similar organizations, what do you think about "Antihomosexual activism" for a name? Perhaps this and "Homophobic violence" could be subcats of a renamed "Homophobia" catgory? Citadel18080 19:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically if you want to rename a category you create a Category For Discussion entry (WP:CFD). A lot of people who are very into creating and maintaining the core policies of Wikipedia monitor that page, so you'll get a wide spectrum of viewpoints and a large (sensible) discussion. The original CFD was to delete it, but I think it you proposed a rename instead it would be more successful. A lot of people in the original debate were hesitant about the name but firmly in favour of the concept staying as a category. The consensus you get from a something-fD debate is very powerful, much more than what you get from an article talk page. It's basically getting the opinion of the core community rather than a small number of (perhaps overly) interested editors.

It would probably be better to go with "Anti-LGBT activism". The only problem with making them both subcats is what should go in the parent category? Categories aren't supposed to be a tree structure, so having a parent category solely for subcategories is generally frowned on, unless it's an enormously broad one. I think that the renamed (if CFD passes) Homophobia category should have individuals, organisations and concepts related to anti-gay activism and thought, and a subcategory of that would be the violence one. Then you'd have a strong case for moving everything that's illegal or goes beyond a difference of opinion into the more specific subcategory. Again, I don't mind helping out with that by keeping an eye on the category and moving anything unsavoury. Gay-bashing, for instance, would be a good candidate for that subcat. Orpheus 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Actually, re-reading that debate I noticed something I missed on previous reading. Have a look at this category, particularly the explanatory text. Category:Sexual and gender prejudices Orpheus 01:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. The recommendations in the explanatory text will be helpful when we're subcategorizing Category:Homophobia (if the CfD passes) and the new "extreme organizations" category.

Just to be clear on the CfD, we are suggesting that Category:Homophobia be renamed to "Anti-LGBT Activism", with extreme cases transferred to a subcat with the rationale that "Homophobia" is a perjorative term and that distinction needs to be made between activism and action. Let me know if you agree with this or wish to add or change anything, and I'll add it to the CfD list. Citadel18080 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a good plan. I think the best thing to do would be to first create and populate the subcategory, which will remove all of the extreme cases. Then propose a CfD to rename Homophobia to Anti-LGBT activism, pointing out that the extreme homophobes now have their own category (I reckon "Homophobic violence" is a good one) and see what Wikipedia as a whole (rather than four or five editors who watchlist the AFA) think about it. Then we have a powerful consensus against future changes or reversions. If you think "Homophobic violence" is an appropriate name, let me know and I'll create and start populating it. Alternatively, there is the existing category Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people which may be enough. Let's get this right before we bring the solution out - time is not of the essence. Orpheus 23:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, that category is for specific instances. We need a category specifically for groups that organise, carry out, are suspected or accused of carrying out, etc, homophobic violence. Before creating, we should decide on a name and a scope statement for putting at the top of the category. Orpheus 23:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, good news. Orpheus 03:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I ran across Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people some time ago, but also thought that it was for specific instances. Now that I think about it, "Homophobic violence" is a bit too similar to "Hate crimes against LGBT people" in that it doesn't specify that the category is for groups and not incidents. What if we make "Hate crimes against LGBT people" a subcat of "Homophobic violence" and specify in the scope statement that violent groups belong in the parent cat, and specific incidents in the subcat? Citadel18080 15:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good idea. That links the activism category collection to the hate crime category collection at the appropriate level, too. It looks like we're pretty much in tune with the name, so the next time I get some free time I'll write a draft scope statement (but feel free to preempt me). Orpheus 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Let me know when you're ready and we can populate the new category. No hurry. Citadel18080 06:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

Sorry about the delay, been incredibly busy at work.

Category:Homophobic violence

This category is about violence against LGBT people or the LGBT community (meeting places, community organisations, etc). It includes groups and individuals that advocate violence, groups and individuals that campaign against violence and groups and individuals that are engaged in violence. Specific instances belong in a more specific category, for instance Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people or an alternative. Be mindful of neutral point of view and verifiability when adding articles to this category.

What do you think? Orpheus 07:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the delay. I started a new job a couple weeks ago and have been very busy myself. It looks good, but could you clarify what you mean by "groups and individuals that actively resist violence"? Does that mean nonviolent groups? Citadel18080 02:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In violation of normal talk page etiquette. I propose that we edit that scope in place, as I have just done. The idea I was trying to present was that the category is for those actively involved on either side of the issue, which is important for npov I think. Congrats on the new job, btw. Orpheus 04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The category looks like it's ready to go. I'm probably not going to be on Wikipedia again until Sunday due to time constraints, so if you want to go ahead with populating the cat, that's fine. I'll work on it as much as I can as soon as I have the time. Citadel18080 13:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've moved the obvious candidates over. Next step is to create a CfD to rename Homophobia. I think you should submit it as sponsor, and I'll put a Support response. Orpheus 15:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! This has been a hectic few days! I'll submit the CfD tomorrow. Citadel18080 05:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CfD is now posted, and can be accessed through the Category:Homophobia page. Citadel18080 05:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(od) That was quick. The community appears to have spoken. Orpheus 15:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Maybe I entered the request wrong, but the discussion page for the category says that it was nominated for deletion, not renaming. I'm pretty sure I entered it as a CfR, not a CfD, but who knows? In any case, do you have any thoughts about how to proceed? Citadel18080 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't do anything wrong. The problem was that another editor filed a request to delete the category, which was predictably shot down in short order. Then your request appeared to be a vexatious re-filing, even though it wasn't. If the other editor hadn't jumped the gun, I suspect we would have seen a different outcome. At this stage I don't think there's anything you can do in the near term, except message the admin who closed your request and explain why you filed it. Unfortunate! Orpheus 20:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Hopefully I'll have some time tonight to contact the admin. Citadel18080 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed also that on the talk page the tag says "This category was nominated for deletion on September 12, 2007.", which is incorrect. That suggests that the closing admin made a mistake. Orpheus 13:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment on the admin's talk page. Citadel18080 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the admin who closed it. You're after User:BrownHairedGirl. Orpheus 05:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent). Sorry for the delay. I've made an inquiry on the user's talk page. Citadel18080 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]