Category talk:Homophobia

Rename category for clarification?
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)


 * See Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_18 Dmcq (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * --Personal attack removed--SuaveArt (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Category description clarification
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)
 * A bit like the one in bold, large font that currently adorns the category page? Orpheus (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Disclaimers mentioning individuals still vs. policy
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)

Comparison to other categories
This may not be the best place to start a discussion of this topic, but if it isn't, I can move it elsewhere. Anyway: as you may notice if you look at my recent contributions, I've been doing a lot of work today in Category:Antisemitism. It's a lot of work because it's a very big category, and it's a very big category in large part because Wiki policy allows editors to put anti-Semitic people in the category. Why is this the case for anti-Semitism (and anti-Islam sentiment, and anti-Catholicism) but not for homophobia? Looking at the category, it seems like we can't even put homophobic laws here. Roscelese (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot of people think that the problem is categories that are too all inclusive. The idea that antisemites, people dubiously accused of antisemitism, and people who work to oppose antisemitism are all in the same category certainly can confuse people too. On the other hand, it makes me want to put a whole big bunch of people (99% men) under sexism :-) (Of course, keeping laws out of this category does sound strange.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a problem with either rule (no people, or people are fair game). I do think it would be nice if we applied it evenly, though. And I can't see any real basis for excluding laws in either case, it's not a BLP issue. Roscelese (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's generally seen as a NPOV issue. Who gets to be the judge that a person or a law is antisemitic or homophobic? Sure, there will be obvious cases à la the Nuremberg Laws, but those are usually the exception. Most cases are far more difficult and subject to controversy and differing points of view. I think the people who are alleged to be antisemitic should be removed from . Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's nearly as obvious a distinction as you imply. Why are the Nuremberg Laws anti-Semitic? And how does that not apply to laws that would presumably belong in this category here? Why don't we call this law homophobic?
 * Like I said - a narrower definition of the category would also be totally okay by me. I'm just not really sure why Wikipedia is fine calling people "anti-Islamic" or "anti-Semitic" for saying one nasty thing about Muslims or Jews, but God forbid we call someone who makes a career of saying nasty things about gay people "homophobic." Consistency is all I ask! (points if you get the reference)
 * (Also, removing all the people from cat:Antisemitism would be a huge endeavor that would need to be discussed there first.) Roscelese (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see why Uganda's anti Homosexuality law isn't in this category. As to people I'd be happy to have a category of people convicted of crimes, that's fairly easy to check. I wouldn't have people included in categories like this or antisemitism without a very good reason like being convicted of a crime. Dmcq (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Roscelese, I don't think "Wikipedia is fine" with the difference you highlight. I think it's more that the issue has been addressed with this category because it was discussed in a CFD, but this has not yet happened with . Also, I wasn't suggesting the distinction between the two was obvious at all—quite the opposite in fact: I was suggesting the issue that arises in both is pretty much the same. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

So, let me re-state a few distinct questions: -- Roscelese (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Should someone open up a discussion on the antisemitism (etc.) category page over bringing those categories to the same standard as this category (ie. removing "allegedly [anti-Semitic etc.] people (including fictional people), organizations, or media"?
 * Should we add relevant laws to this category?


 * I would think aiming to get applied the same way that this category is applied would be the ideal (though more difficult) route. In that vein, I've recently started a discussion on the recently created  here. I'm not even sure if it should be deleted, but I want to get the views of other editors, so feel free to comment there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I definitely think laws that have been described as homophobic with some weight should be included. Why aren't they? Dmcq (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I agree and good question. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I added Category:Homophobia to Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill with this edit. The Bill is a clear case of a law against LGBT people. Let's see if my categorization survives editing.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been a week and the category seems to have stayed. Any suggestions for articles to try next? (Note that some relevant articles are already in Category:Discrimination in the United States.
 * Also, should "homophobia" really be a subcat of "discrimination against homosexuals"? It seems like it should be the other way around. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems right to me. Not all discrimination is homophobic. In fact demonstrating that there is discrimination is much easier than demonstrating that there is homophobia. Why would you think it should be the other way round? Dmcq (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because homophobia happens without discrimination, but discrimination happening without homophobia is probably pretty rare. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at the categories and I think category:Discrimination against homosexuals would be a better category for the Uganda anti-homosexuality law and the category category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws should probably be there too. Homophobia says something about the internal state of people which is a difficult thing to show so we'd need a good source saying 'homophobia' in it and that doesn't seem to happen often, whereas discrimination is straightforward. I think I'll try recategorizing those. Dmcq (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Homophobia for the Uganda thing seems well documented so I'll just doubly classify it. Dmcq (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem with that. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Media no longer added to categories as well?
Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9 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)

Put message in a box?
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)