Category talk:Homophobia

message: The category's page clearly states:
This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia. Inclusion in this category does not imply that the subject of any article is homophobic.
That's all well and good, but the category title, when it stands alone in the lists of categories in articles, does not make this clear. In fact, this is so much so that the category has obviously been wrongfully added to many, many articles. While these articles may deal with the issue of homosexuality and the subjects' attitudes towards it, they do not, as the category page states, "discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia." For example, I just removed the category from the article for Pat Robertson because while the article discusses his stance on homosexuality, it makes no mention at all of homophobia. I see the exact same problem in many of the other articles listed on the category page. These category links should be removed, but I can easily see reverts being made by those who are ignorant of the category's purpose and who think it's for labeling people and organizations they view as being homophobic.
As such, I would like to propose renaming the category so it's much clearer as to its purpose. Perhaps "Articles discussing homophobia" or something similar. Seregain (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_18#Category:Homophobia Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

text: When a person is someone who blames the act of terrorists crashing planes into buildings as the fault of the existence of gay people, homophobia is pretty much implied.  One cannot oppose gay people just because they're gay, and not be homophobic. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Wikilink and your argument are meaningless. Wikipedia does not work on what is "implied," but what can be established by reliable sources. The category, as it states and I quoted, is NOT about labeling groups and individuals that you yourself deem to be "homophobic." The category is for "articles that discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia." Pat Robertson's article does not refer to or discuss homophobia, only his beliefs regarding homosexuality. That you find his beliefs homophobic does not warrant the category's inclusion. Either find reliable sources that talks about Robertson and homophobia or keep the category off the article. Seregain (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --Personal attack removed--SuaveArt (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm happy to debate things with people who have a point of view. They might have a point. It is when they disrupt things bringing up the same point again and again without a break and without accepting a dispute resolution for even a couple of months that there is disruption. Having a POV isn't automatically bad faith. Dmcq (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with you on this, DMCQ. In fact, I'd go a step further and suggest that nearly everyone has a POV about almost everything they think they know anything about. If one recognizes and acknowledges one's own POV and is extremely careful, it's possible to edit neutrally. Rivertorch (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

text: A bit like the one in bold, large font that currently adorns the category page? Orpheus (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't be snarky. There's nothing that clearly states that the category is not for labeling persons or organizations as "homophobic" according to what editors think about them.  Seregain (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, that ended up a lot snarkier than I intended - my apologies. You could add something like "nor should it be used to do so" to the end of the bolded sentence and probably end up with the result you're after. Orpheus (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll wait for some other comments to see what others have to say before I change anything. Seregain (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current wording (full disclosure: which I rewrote) conveys it adequately. I suppose, if we're really bound and determined to pound people over the head with the message, we could add what Orpheus suggested. (Re the good Rev. Pat, how hard can it be to find a RS linking him with the topic of homophobia?) Rivertorch (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm a cynic, so I'm typically all for pounding people over the head with messages. In my experience, people often will either fail to understand a message that is not pounding them over the head or they will use any and all loopholes to get their way over what the message intends. As far as finding information linking some person or another with homophobia, I'd have to say that since phobias are a clinical psychological diagnosis, it would have to be a pretty darn good RS. Any yutz can claim someone is homophobic, but that doesn't make it absolute fact. Indeed, when the term is used in reference to someone, it's almost exclusively used as nothing more than a pejorative and not indicative of the presence of a psychological problem. Perhaps it can be shown that a person or organization has been accused of homophobia by another [notable] person or organization (and described as such in the article) and that could justify the category being added to relevant articles. Seregain (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but let's keep in mind that while most phobias may be regarded as clinical psychological (or psychiatric, i.e., medical) diagnoses, homophobia is more than that. In both common parlance and scholarly jargon, homophobia is analogous to racism, sexism, xenophobia, and a host of other types of prejudice, none of which are typically associated with a professional diagnosis of any kind. Rivertorch (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But Wikipedia doesn't use common parlance or scholarly jargon for the basis of determining the legitimacy of labeling someone as one thing or another. Many people think Pat Robertson is racist, sexist and promotes hate. Does that warrant the inclusion of the "Racism," "Sexism" and "Hate" categories? Seregain (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're asking—do you mean should those categories be included in WP or should Pat Robertson be included in them? (Yes in the first case, qualified yes—if he's been linked by reliable sources to those topics—in the second.) In any case, we seem to be going in circles here. Wikipedia is not labeling anyone as anything by placing their article in this category. The wording on the category page makes that abundantly clear. Rivertorch (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't written on the BLP article pages themselves and it wouldn't be necessary with an appropriate category. Anyway it is clear from the discussion that BLP shouldn't be here but I'm waiting to see the results first before doing anything. Dmcq (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

text: No, Wikipedia isn't the issue. The category description is very clear (even without what I'm asking about here). Unfortunately, the category title alone isn't clear and some editors - anonymous and otherwise - are obviously ignorant of or ignoring the description or are fabricating a loophole and are placing the category into articles where its inclusion has no support. That's the issue here: misuse of the category. Seregain (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename category for clarification? 

message: Another clarification that probably should be added is a sentence unequivocally stating that the category is not for labeling persons or organizations that editors themselves deem to be "homophobic." As shown by Gilgamesh's very telling statement above, that's exactly what the category is being used for and I can see people ignoring the category's description and fighting tooth and nail against removal of improper uses of the category. Seregain (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit like the one in bold, large font that currently adorns the category page? Orpheus (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't be snarky. There's nothing that clearly states that the category is not for labeling persons or organizations as "homophobic" according to what editors think about them.  Seregain (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, that ended up a lot snarkier than I intended - my apologies. You could add something like "nor should it be used to do so" to the end of the bolded sentence and probably end up with the result you're after. Orpheus (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll wait for some other comments to see what others have to say before I change anything. Seregain (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current wording (full disclosure: which I rewrote) conveys it adequately. I suppose, if we're really bound and determined to pound people over the head with the message, we could add what Orpheus suggested. (Re the good Rev. Pat, how hard can it be to find a RS linking him with the topic of homophobia?) Rivertorch (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm a cynic, so I'm typically all for pounding people over the head with messages. In my experience, people often will either fail to understand a message that is not pounding them over the head or they will use any and all loopholes to get their way over what the message intends. As far as finding information linking some person or another with homophobia, I'd have to say that since phobias are a clinical psychological diagnosis, it would have to be a pretty darn good RS. Any yutz can claim someone is homophobic, but that doesn't make it absolute fact. Indeed, when the term is used in reference to someone, it's almost exclusively used as nothing more than a pejorative and not indicative of the presence of a psychological problem. Perhaps it can be shown that a person or organization has been accused of homophobia by another [notable] person or organization (and described as such in the article) and that could justify the category being added to relevant articles. Seregain (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but let's keep in mind that while most phobias may be regarded as clinical psychological (or psychiatric, i.e., medical) diagnoses, homophobia is more than that. In both common parlance and scholarly jargon, homophobia is analogous to racism, sexism, xenophobia, and a host of other types of prejudice, none of which are typically associated with a professional diagnosis of any kind. Rivertorch (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But Wikipedia doesn't use common parlance or scholarly jargon for the basis of determining the legitimacy of labeling someone as one thing or another. Many people think Pat Robertson is racist, sexist and promotes hate. Does that warrant the inclusion of the "Racism," "Sexism" and "Hate" categories? Seregain (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're asking—do you mean should those categories be included in WP or should Pat Robertson be included in them? (Yes in the first case, qualified yes—if he's been linked by reliable sources to those topics—in the second.) In any case, we seem to be going in circles here. Wikipedia is not labeling anyone as anything by placing their article in this category. The wording on the category page makes that abundantly clear. Rivertorch (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't written on the BLP article pages themselves and it wouldn't be necessary with an appropriate category. Anyway it is clear from the discussion that BLP shouldn't be here but I'm waiting to see the results first before doing anything. Dmcq (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

text: No, Wikipedia isn't the issue. The category description is very clear (even without what I'm asking about here). Unfortunately, the category title alone isn't clear and some editors - anonymous and otherwise - are obviously ignorant of or ignoring the description or are fabricating a loophole and are placing the category into articles where its inclusion has no support. That's the issue here: misuse of the category. Seregain (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category description clarification 

message: So I removed the original one and left new one. Your Categories for Discussion note (without link) is good model for other bigotry related categories.  CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclaimers mentioning individuals still vs. policy

message: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories doesn't mention media explicitly. But I see the Admin who applied this to all categories also added the relevant link to the front page. Since I know there will be a battle over this at another Category, I don't want to add there til clarified. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Media no longer added to categories as well?

message: Very necessary for article I got it from; not sure if as necessary here. Should be bold, anyway.  Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Put message in a box?