Category talk:Homophobia/Archive 3

Category Rewrite
Exploding Boy, in his response to me in a thread above (I'm going to try to keep this to a single thread) says that, "Your theory isn't supported by any of the sources." OK. Maybe not. If so, just produce the sources, and that's the end of the argument. If the sources do indeed say that there is no main meaning to the word "homophobia", then there isn't. But there's little point in expecting editors to just take each other's word for it about what sources show. We have to produce them. Weinberg, who introduced the term in 1972, defined "homophobia" as "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals." We should be using that definition unless sources show the main meaning is now something else.

In any case, I feel strongly that even if the Homophobia category can't be restricted to what I suspect is the main meaning of the word homophobia (pathological hatred, not just gay rights opposition), it still needs to be changed. Currently, its description reads "This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia." I find that to be badly written and silly. It makes no sense to talk about people being "involved in the subject of homophobia", since, in addition to being an obscure expression that hardly makes sense in English, it makes no distinction between people being homophobic and their talking about or discussing homophobia. Unless there are going to be objections, I am going to change this to, "This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being homophobic." Everything else belongs in a different category, Anti-Homophobia, or something similar. Born Gay (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This begins to adress my concerns with the use of this category and I think its a good idea. - Schrandit (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought we'd done the sources thing already. Was it not on this talk page?  If not, I direct your attention to our article on Homophobia (which lists various sources), to Dictionary.com (which also lists various sources), and to other reliable dictionaries.  I see no particular reason to stick with a usage from 37 years ago when our current sources indicate the term is used in various ways.  According to all our reliable sources, there is no "main meaning" of "homophobia," and "gay rights opposition" is one of the meanings.  As for everything else belonging in a different category, why?  Exploding Boy (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd advice the formulation "..., including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for their homophobic opinions." Debresser (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That never seemed to be in doubt to me. People like Buju Banton, Iris Robinson, Fred Phelps, Peter Akinola, Michael Savage et al are very well known for their individual homophobia.  Organized efforts like Family Research Council, Alliance Defense Fund, Day of Truth and Proposition 8 like to dress themselves heavily in rationale, but with their fundamental intentional disconnect from and insensitivity to gay people and their life experiences (along with conspiracy theories about gay agenda or homosexual recruitment), their effect and impression on LGBT communities is at least as inflammatory as antisemitism is on Jewish communities.  If they couldn't be in this category, then it would be like saying there is no such thing as homophobia.  The sources demonstrating these effects would flow like the mighty Amazon river from mainstream LGBT news sites like Pink News and 365gay as well as human rights organizations.  All the sources one could ever need are already abundantly found. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Born Gay, Schrandit, Debresser, and Gilgamesh (in his other comments--I could not fully understand his comment immediately above). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The formulation would not work, because it excludes human rights activists who challenge homophobia. The term is used to describe the behaviour of certain institutions who, on inquiry, were found to practice institutional homophobia.  It needs to be left broad to incorporate the diverse applications of 'homophobia', because the practice is varied and diverse. Mish (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Today is International Day Against Homophobia . Mish (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From http://www.homophobiaday.org/default.aspx?scheme=1277 comes this definition:


 * Homophobia is 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. The following are variants of homophobia:


 * Bi-phobia: aversion towards bisexual people or bisexuality;
 * Gayphobia: aversion towards gay men or male homosexuality;
 * Lesbophobia: aversion towards lesbian women or female homosexuality.


 * I think it is pretty clear that those who oppose certain LGBT rights (who are not otherwise homophobic) are not included in that definition. They are not homophobic.  They do not belong in a category called "homophobia" because they are not homophobic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. I can understand that people who oppose the extension of certain human rights to LGBT people can do so without 'homophobia', because of some religious point of view, for example.  This is why 'heterosexism' would be more suitable in that situation (from same page):


 * Heterosexism is the belief that everyone is heterosexual and that heterosexuality is the only acceptable way of being. This belief, which relies on the idea that the majority rules and is therefore normal, is often the source of homophobia.


 * Because it is that paradigm which produces individual and institutional homophobia and discrimination. Stating the opposition from the basis of the point of view that heterosexuality is 'normal', or 'natural', or 'because God says so', and thus homosexuality is abnormal, falls under 'heterosexism'.  Although people don't seem to like that term either, and prefer to maintain 'homophobia' because it keeps things simple and is already used in this sense anyway. Mish (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

By what double-back-flip of logic does a religious aversion or opposition to homosexuality or gay rights not count as homophobia? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not ignore the "irrational" part of the definition. BTW, even if some sources do not state it, from comparison with other -phobia's it becomes clear that it should be there. So religious objection to homosexuality has nothing to do with homophobia, since there is nothing irrational about it. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC) At least not any more than religion in itself could be considered irrational. :) Debresser (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC) BTW, I do not mean to say that some religious people aren't irrational about the subject and should be included in this category. That's besides the point. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because it contains the string "phobia" doesn't mean that "homophobia" means only "irrational fear" (just like a "pineapple" is neither pine nor apple). "Homophobia" refers to a range of behaviours and feelings contra homosexuality and gay people, from irrational hatred or fear to aversion or discrimination.  "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is as much homophobia as "God Hates Fags."  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Homophobia can result from various causes: hatred, fear, ignorance, conditioning, etc. Seeking to deny equal rights to LGBT people is an example of homophobia, and I fail to see how that can be rational, whatever its cause. Rivertorch (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because it is a religious belief doesn't mean it is rational. Some might say the opposite, that because it is a religious belief it is intrinsically irrational.  Somebody could be indoctrinated into believing that opposition to LGBT rights is rational, and the reason for opposition is not homophobia per se, it is because people have been told 'God says so' within an institutionally homophobic environment.  The belief in God would be irrational, but the opposition that has been drawn from that belief is not irrational within the parameters of that belief system, so homophobia may not necessarily apply.  It may, but it may not (although it is difficult to imagine that teaching people that homosexuals are inherently sinful won't produce homophobia in an environment where sin is the work of the devil, a supreme evil spirit).  Laws against incitement to hatred of LGBT people had to be sidelined in UK in the case of religion, because it was considered that it was possible to express opposition to certain specific LGBT rights without being homophobic, that this conflicted with people's religious freedom to believe that homosexuality is sinful.  This is why I mentioned heterosexism, because the view that certain rights and privileges should only be open to heterosexuals does fall under heterosexism, even if it can be argued that it is not homophobia.  The two terms are not completely synonymous.  Heterosexism is pervasive, and most heterosexuals are oblivious to it, whereas many heterosexuals understand homophobia very well, - if not every instance of it - even institutional homophobia.  Homophobia only works in a broad sense if it is understood to mean any form of prejudice, discrimination or expression of hatred, against LGBT people, thus incorporating any form of heterosexism within homophobia. I am happy going along with this broad use, although I think it lacks specificity, because that is the sense it tends to be used in the 'real world', and it keeps things simple. Mish (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The "-phobia" extension does imply the irrational character. But you don't have agree with me. That is precisely the problem here. Using various inaccurate definitions to make inaccurate points.
 * As to "Just because it is a religious belief doesn't mean it is rational." Agree completely. But likewise the other way around: Just because it is a religious belief doesn't mean it is irrational. If we are talking about an intellectual conviction, without emotional excesses, based on religious conviction, then that is a point of view, not homophobia. Any definition saying otherwise is at fault. Same point as above. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It used to be an intellectual conviction among many people, without emotional excesses and sometimes supported by religious conviction, that people of African and Asian ancestry were inferior to people of European ancestry. Was that only a point of view and not racism? Not xenophobia? It sounds anything but rational to me. Rivertorch (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The belief in God would be irrational, but the opposition that has been drawn from that belief is not irrational within the parameters of that belief system, so homophobia may not necessarily apply.

That claim might be true if homophobia were strictly defined as irrational hatred, fear or discrimination; it isn't. The deciding factor is not whether or not the hatred, fear or discrimination is in some way justified; it's whether it exists at all.

The "-phobia" extension does imply the irrational character.

However, interpreting the meaning of the word based on this leads you to the wrong conclusions about its definition, just as a literal interpretation of "pineapple" would. The problem here is not that the word is unclearly defined, it is that you (and others) insist on defining it based on an inaccurate interpretation.

If we are talking about an intellectual conviction, without emotional excesses, based on religious conviction, then that is a point of view, not homophobia.

This is a novel interpretation based only on your opinion. As Rivertorch points out, racism used to be based on science that was considered completely sound; some people still believe in this "science." The fact that they (may) believe in a scientific (ie: "intellectual, without emotional excesses, based on scientific conviction") basis for their "point of view" does not make it any less racist.

The bigger problem here is that, just as the KKK prefers not to be called racist, some people just don't like to be called homophobic because they feel--rightly--that it makes them look bad. "Puppy mill" owners don't like that term either. That's too bad. The claim that "my dislike/fear/hatred of/discrimination against homosexuality and gay people isn't homophobia because it's based on my religion/cultural beliefs/upbringing/the laws of my land/a bad experience I once had with a gay person/whatever else" is nonsense. It's an attempt at a whitewash, and it's just as ridiculous as it would be to say "I'm not racist against Asians, I just don't want them living in my historically white neighbourhood." 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My words are backed up by part of the various definitions. No novel interpretations from my side. Your choice to use the other ones is as subjective as mine. So no pineapples here. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And now about the definitions themselves.
 * 1) unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality Based onthe Random House Dictionary - clearly mentions the irrational aspect, stresses specifically the origin as homo(sexual) + -phobia (so far for the pineapple theory)
 * 2) Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. Behavior based on such a feeling. The American Heritage Dictionary - does not mention the irrational aspect, but does mention the origin as [homo(sexual) + -phobia.]
 * 3) irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - clearly mentions the irrational aspect
 * 4) prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality Wordnet - does not mention the irrational aspect. Please notice that this same dictionary  on another page compares "homophobia" to "paranoid anti-Communism", where the word "paranoid" seems ample proof of the irrational character implied.
 * 5) irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality homophobia Webster's New World College Dictionary - clearly includes the irrational aspect
 * 6) The definition of Fondation Émergence clearly is unacceptable because they are not an objective third party

Now see this article which says precisely what I have been telling you for some time now. Let me lift some quotes from there. "Calling all responses to homosexuality other than it "is a normal sexual variation" as homophobic is anti-scientific and decidedly anti-therapeutic." "Though it was recognized by one author (Friedman, 2002) as not originating as a psychoanalytic conception, he and others writing positively about the normality of homosexuality, have insisted on referring to this phenomenon as "homophobia." This tendency by any analytical author to take a concept which has one definition and applying it to a related or other concept tends to "muddy the waters," contribute to confusion, and even obfuscate the issue."

A more down to earth approach is taken in this article, giving an overview of various usages of the word homophobia and concluding "The precise meaning that a person assigns to "homophobia" is often not obvious. Sometimes a person will switch from one definition to another in the middle of an essay or speech. Many individual and groups fit two or more of the above definitions at the same time; others fit only one. In an ideal world, we would have a different word for each of the above definitions. But it is not easy to create new and acceptable words in English. Until we do, the result will be chaotic."

All I did was having a look at the first page of Google for "homophobia definition".

Findings: 4 out of 5 definitions one way or the other make clear that homophobia is only irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. Dr. Breiner's article clearly show the unscientific character of other definitions, which the Religious Tolerance site shows are in common usage.

Conclusion: any further claims that the Category:Homophobia relates (also or even mainly) to intellectual or religious rejection of homosexuality which is not accompanied by irrational emotional behavior, is shown false and must be removed from Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Refutation: European Parliament Resolution 18 January 2006, P6_TA-PROV(2006)0018. Hopefully this will clarify the confusion in the definition. There are two focii in this discussion, homophobia as a mental state, and homophobia in practice (irrespective of psychological explanation or motive). While it is not so easy to establish the motivation, unless clear indications such as homophobic speech or writing, or words written or spoken that are regarded as homophobic, it is more straightforward establishing homophobia in the second case - which is essentially includes encouraging discrimination and denial of equal and human rights. This means that homophobia is assessed through homophobic practice, homophobic speech, homophobic writing, homophobic ideology, and homophobic intention, not simply homophobic motivation. Mish (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A. Homophobia can be defined as an irrational fear of and aversion to homosexuality and to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people based on prejudice and similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and sexism.
 * B. Homophobia manifests itself in the private and public spheres in different forms, such as hate speech and incitement to discrimination, ridicule and verbal, psychological and physical violence, persecution and murder, discrimination in violation of the principle of equality and unjustified and unreasonable limitations of rights, which are often hidden behind justifications based on public order, religious freedom and the right to conscientious objection.

I find Mish's argument above against my proposed rewrite ("The formulation would not work, because it excludes human rights activists who challenge homophobia. The term is used to describe the behaviour of certain institutions who, on inquiry, were found to practice institutional homophobia. It needs to be left broad to incorporate the diverse applications of 'homophobia', because the practice is varied and diverse") to be unconvincing. Excluding "human rights activists who challenge homophobia" is exactly the intention of my proposed revision, and I see nothing wrong with doing so. It would be a good idea, in fact, since it would help prevent confusion about what the category means. "Human rights activists who challenge homophobia" are not an application of homophobia or any kind of homophobia, however diverse homophobia and its practices may be. The category, as currently written, is bad English, and does not make sense. I will rewrite it unless there are any convincing objections, or consensus against doing so. Born Gay (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note again that we are here to discuss the homophobia category on Wikipedia, not so much homophobia itself. Discussion here looks as though it is becoming off-topic; this is not a forum for general debate. It should be possible for all sides to summarise their respective positions briefly and simply, so let's do that, please. Born Gay (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. Keep it as is. Follow the twofold definition as arrived at by the European Union, as it is the and most concise and comprehensive found to date, and it covers the whole range of homophobias that can be included within the category. We do not need to discuss this, the work has been done for us at state level, and we simply need to cite this as our definition. Mish (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not responded to my argument against your objection to my proposed rewrite of the category (which basically just dismissed my suggestion to remove anti-homophobia stuff from "Homophobia" out of hand). Shall I therefore go ahead and do the rewrite? Regarding the other issue at hand (the European Parliament definition of homophobia), this could only be used to support the very broad definition of homophobia that some editors here support if one takes it for granted that opposition to homosexuality is irrational. I think that opposition to homosexuality is indeed irrational, but it's not reasonable for Wikipedia to automatically assume this in its categories, given NPOV. Born Gay (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I must have missed your suggesting we remove anti-homophobia stuff. But I have stated on more than one occasion that anti-homophobia should be included - citing human rights advocate Peter Tatchell specifically as being the sort of person who should be included because of his stance against homophobia.  I have changed my views, broadening what should be included, moreso on reading the EU resolution, as this does give a very good definition which I was unaware of before. You said, way back:


 * "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"


 * I have given you a source that seems to give you your answer, that supplements the constrained definition by psychological motive, that focuses on practice:


 * Homophobia manifests itself in the private and public spheres in different forms, such as hate speech and incitement to discrimination, ridicule and verbal, psychological and physical violence, persecution and murder, discrimination in violation of the principle of equality and unjustified and unreasonable limitations of rights, which are often hidden behind justifications based on public order, religious freedom and the right to conscientious objection.


 * We do not need to establish anything more than whether the practice, intention, speech or writing fits such a definition; we do not have to decide on the state of mind where it is unknowable, only the manifestation of homophobia. Apart from where it is explicit, we do not need to worry about the irrationality and fear that drives homophobia, it is a red herring. Mish (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll put it another way. Anything that promotes homophobia is itself homophobia - if these are promoted:


 * discrimination in violation of the principle of equality
 * unjustified and unreasonable limitations of rights
 * justifications based on public order, religious freedom and the right to conscientious objection.


 * then it instances homophobia. So, opposition to LGBT equal and human rights is homophobia. Mish (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur totally, and oppose rewriting the category per any proposal to date. The category is not labeling anyone or anything as homophobic; it is simply denoting a connection between the subjects of certain articles and the topic of homophobia. This includes individuals and groups working to combat homophobia. Regarding Debresser's comments about definitions, a couple points:


 * First, about the two links. Why on earth are we paying any attention to how an organization called "National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality" defines homophobia? This is fringe in the extreme. Also, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance may well be a worthy group, but they are not a major notable group nor a reliable source and their essay (which cites WP, strangely enough) is only an opinion; according to their site, they consist of five people. So what?


 * Second, that homophobia contains the -phobia root is a given, but the meaning of many words changes or broadens over time, and homophobia is no exception.
 * "-phobia: extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group (Oxford American Dict.) (my emphasis)"
 * Consider also the word xenophobia, which predates homophobia considerably and is parallel in construction and usage: the Oxford American Dictionary defines it as "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries"; neither the fear part nor the irrational part comes first. The word has long been applied not only to an actual fear of foreigners but to violence, hate speech, and discriminatory policies. While many of those policies were (and are) certainly irrational, the people who devised them didn't (don't) think so. In any case, this is very much comparable to homophobia. I think the word is probably used less today in its original sense than in the sense of discrimination, but that's arguable. What shouldn't really be arguable is that it is frequently used in more than one sense, and either sense is enough for our purposes; it doesn't have to be both. Rivertorch (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur with both Mish and Rivertorch. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I also concur. I don't think that an overly literal dissection of the word is helpful here. What matters is the commonly accepted usage. See, for instance, antisemitism. Alternatively we could even look at the article on homophobia, which goes into this in some detail. Orpheus (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about why we are citing NARTH, who probably would fall under this category themselves, I was surprised by the other source cited, until I read further down, and he should have cited the ReligiousTolerance definition of homophobia on the same page:


 * homophobia as engaging in a behavior aimed at denigrating or restricting the human rights of persons who have a homosexual orientation and/or who engages in homosexual behavior. This behavior can take many forms: signing a plebiscite; sending an Email to one's senator or representative; participating in a demonstration; voting on a school board; knowingly voting to elect a homophobe; talking to coworkers or friends, delivering a sermon; etc. These rights include what many believe to be the most important human right: to be married; to have their spousal status recognized and registered; and to be assigned benefits and obligations by the government. Other rights are protection from hate-motivated crimes, protection in accommodation, and employment security.


 * This is even more specific than that of the EU, and presumably done to avoid the 'chaos' from his cherry picking quote. in this article Mish (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from using language that tries to discredit other authors. This is very childish behavior and does not further objective discussion. I mean the "cherry picking" thing. Which was very cleverly striken (in the first edit!).
 * No cherry picking, just quoting a general observation. They state specifically that the definition quoted by the previous editor is only the definition they choose. Their motives might be various and do not necessarily reflect a scientific approach. Perhaps they just want you to keep visiting their page? Debresser (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also. Orpheus (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What did you want to say with this link? Debresser (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That arguing over the definition of a word from first principles, instead of going along with the common usage, is possibly time that could be better spent on other things. Orpheus (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to use this. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Homophobia is social, not scientific. Mish (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what are social sciences? Debresser (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An oxymoron? Regardless, I would have said that homophobia is socially constructed, not etymologically defined. Orpheus (talk)
 * Social sciences deal with social phenomena, unlike natural sciences, which deal with natural phenomena. 'Science' usually refers to natural science, while Social science is usually referred to as Social science. And yes, I agree that homophobia is socially constructed, and so is the understanding of the term - it has moved a long way from the narrow psychological meaning.  That is how things are. Mish (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be. Is an argument. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I for one am willing to leave it at this. I enjoyed changing opinions and arguments with you. I feel I have learned something from this discussion. I sincerely hope you have too.

One of the reasons I am willing to leave the discussion is that I had a look at all articles about people in this category, and have found that all of them fall within the definition with the "irrational" element anyway.

What I hope you have learned from this discussion is that opposition to homosexuality is not in itself homophobia. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure for a lot of people who don't like it, it's because they simply can't be buggered with it. Mish (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's still rather complex. For most gay people, it wasn't like some kind of life decision "Hey, I think I'll be gay now"&mdash;it's a fundamental part of who and what they are.  If someone knows they're gay and opposes them as people because of that, it can be...pretty harmful.  One can reason all they want about how objectionable or how immoral or how voluntary it is for someone to be gay.  But as long as the opposition against being gay is there, it has the harmful effect of forcing hardship and even suffering on someone.  If it were an issue of skin complexion, opposition to a person for that reason would be transparently bigoted.  It's more subtle with a gay person, because you can be gay and not tell the entire world if you don't want to, but if someone does know you're gay (and there are all sorts of reasons they could know this, both directly and indirectly), then even if they dress up their opposition in the politest of words with deeply philosophical reasons (i.e. premeditated heteronormativity), then it's still homophobia, because its application is so unfair and discriminatory and its effect so harmful.  Someone doesn't have to be without thought of reason to still be fundamentally destructively unhinged in a way that gay people at large still consider and call homophobic. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The interpretation of the meaning of this word based strictly on its constituent parts has been summarily shown to be inaccurate. Even if the intention of the original coiner of the term had been to narrowly describe irrational fear and only irrational fear, we go by current usage, and even the current usage of "phobia" does not define it only as "irrational fear." Are there any other arguments for changing the way this category is used, or can we move on? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not lie, Exploding Boy. I've noticed before your dubious edits, but this is a little too much. Please take that back, or face the consequences. Debresser (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me?? I suggest you refrain from incivility and making personal attacks and threats, Debresser, and confine your remarks to discussion of the topic.  Exploding Boy (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No threats here. I am informing you that if you don't revoke that lie, that "the interpretation of the meaning of this word based strictly on its constituent parts has been summarily shown to be inaccurate", I will request a comment on your behavior in this discussion. Or didn't you notice the link behind the words "face the consequences"? And where did you see a personal attack or incivility? If you mean that I was supposed to say "Your statement is a lie" in stead of "Don't lie, sir", then I hereby correct this publicly. Debresser (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Debresser: go right ahead and request comment about my "behaviour" in this discussion if you like. For the record, the post itself (and the second one above) calling me a liar, your threats to begin an RFC, and your edit summary ( which was "lie") are where I see personal attacks, threats and incivility.  So as I said, go right ahead.  I have no intention of continuing this off-topic conversation, however.  Exploding Boy (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made my point here clear enough. As to incivility: I, at least, try to correct my mistakes (see my previous post). I can not say the same of you and another user who has previously accused me erroneously of issuing threats. Debresser (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess my double entendre missed the mark, it was intended as light relief - let's move on. Mish (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I got it&mdash;I just wasn't replying to you, that's all. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I got it too but wasn't here to laugh. As to some of what came after, I admit to being totally baffled. Fortunately, I think there's clear consensus now to close the discussion, and I sincerely hope that some of the excellent reasoning used here can be recycled succinctly the next time the subject comes up, as it will, as surely as death, taxes, and server lags. Rivertorch (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Possibly a FAQ could be created, as on some other high-traffic talk pages. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. (The comment was meant to try and insert some levity at what appeared to be some sort of resolution of what has at times been a discordant discussion - but obviously it did not have the intended effect. My apology) Mish (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it worked very well, personally. But then I try not to take anything on Wikipedia too seriously (or with too much levity). We're writing an encyclopedia, not a) drawing all over our exercise books or b) constructing the spaceship carrying the whole of humanity to a new planet.


 * Back on topic, I think a FAQ is a great idea, although it might be wise to wait a few days (or longer) before attempting it. Cooler heads and all that. Orpheus (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the sake of clarity, my "ditto" meant I got it; I didn't think it was inappropriate at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"[T]here's clear consensus now to close the discussion...." Will someone spell out what the clear consensus is? So far as I know, most people are saying the category stays but should be applied only to true homophobia and a new category should be created for those who legitimately oppose certain claims for what they see as additional rights over and above equal rights. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh. What, praytell, is "true homophobia"? And—I hesitate to ask—what "rights over and above equal rights" are you referring to? Rivertorch (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The only situation I can think of that remotely resembles "rights over and above equal rights" was the U.S. Episcopal Church's recognition of unmarried committed monogamous same-sex couples as holy (for the purposes of priesthood worthiness), but even that was understandable considering that they (then) couldn't get married practically anywhere. So that was a grey area at best.  I can think of any clear-cut unambiguous examples of "rights over and above equal rights". - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. Just please summarize the consensus.  The page is too long for me to figure it out.  I'll bet others won't wade through all the voluminous comments.  So please will someone write exactly where the consensus supposedly stands right now?  Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you consider your wording relevant, then I'm not clear on why my request that you clarify what you meant is irrelevant. But whatever. My reading of it was that there was consensus to close the discussion without making revisions to the category. Several editors appeared not to disagree with that, at least, and I was unaware of any proposed revisions that were met with anything approaching consensus. Nor was I aware of any clamor to continue the discussion. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I agree that the page is hideously long—and so is this section. Maybe someone else wants to start a new section to try to identify more precisely where we are with regard to consensus. (I don't.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Since it was just published today, here is the simple definition of homophobia given in State Sponsored Homophobia: A World Survey of State Laws Prohibiting Same-Sex Activity Between Consenting Adults (PDF) by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), a network of 670 organizations representing 110 countries on every continent:

"Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It is the hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people."

Exploding Boy (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Exploding Boy, thanks. It's clear that definition does not include opposition to proposed legislation, correct?


 * Rivertorch, yes, it is wordy here. A few sections above, people came to a different conclusion than in this section.  We can't pick and choose the section we like. (I'm not saying you are.) We have to all get it together and do it right. The wordiness does not help. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It will be wordy, because it is not a simple construction. If it were, we wouldn't need to discuss it all.


 * We did not agree on what Exploding Boy gave as a definition, which is part of the introduction to a report on state sponsored homophobia, in the context of a specific application of the term - state sponsored homophobia. It goes on to say "Homophobia is even more appalling and dangerous – and again murderous – when found in the very letter of the law. When discrimination and hatred are enshrined in the texts meant to sanction the social pact embodied by a State, a homosexual knows that there is nowhere to turn to for help."  We could spend another three days arguing about what that means, whether it includes any form of discrimination, and whether promoting acceptance of legal discrimination is homophobia.  I thought we had already done that, and found sources, one as part of a multinational state-wide resolution, which give practical definitions and explanations of the dual-usage, which reflect the usage, and which we need to reflect. Homophobia is not only about when somebody is murdered, or when a state sanctions killing, it includes a range of practices which include state and extra-legal violence, but are not restricted to these.


 * My understanding is the same as Rivertorch. That we agreed to close the discussion and not make any revisions to the category, a few agreed and nobody objected, and somebody suggested a FAQ explaing this in more detail.  Between us we acknowledged that there were two uses of the word, one in the traditional sense, and one in the broader sense as currently used and referred to in various sources.  Some wanted to confine the use on Wilkipedia to where the traditional use could be established, others did not. The weight of opinion was towards the broader definition, but not unanimously.


 * I am happy with the EU definition, not just because the EU laws and resolutions affect me, but because it leads the world in the area of human rights legislation, where other states are still lacking. We assess what is homophobia through its manifestation, not motivation.  Denial of certain rights is homophobia, and it is hard to see how lobbying for the denial of such rights can not be homophobia as well. Mish (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In 2008, the UN Secretary commended Mexico for passing laws "against homophobia", and NBC reports this as referring to when in 2003, "Mexico banned discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it has opened what it calls homophobic-free health clinics" . Apologies if this is wordy, but it will be wordy if you keep ignoring what is shown. Homophobia, in this example, includes discrimination, including discrimination in health care.  No mention of motivation. Mish (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the category. "Being involved in the subject of homophobia" is an extremely peculiar expression that does not make sense in English. No one appears to have answered this point, or offered a good defense of the previous wording. In the absence of consensus, I won't make any other changes immediately. Born Gay (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To reply to Mish. You wrote: "I have stated on more than one occasion that anti-homophobia should be included." Yes. You have stated that. However, that is not an argument. Your stating that something should be included isn't by itself a reason for including it. And though it may be futile, I'd like to remind everyone here again that this isn't a chat forum. Born Gay (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It may not be, but it was an answer to something you said "You have not responded to my argument against your objection to my proposed rewrite of the category (which basically just dismissed my suggestion to remove anti-homophobia stuff from "Homophobia" out of hand)", and I am allowed an opinion. I was pointing out that the suggestion of removing those involved in the subject of homophobia is not supported.  Nobody has discussed this, nobody has argued that it should be removed, as far as I can see.  To remove inclusion of people who have written or spoken about homophobia makes no sense, and I don't understand why you would propose it, because that is not what people appear to have issues about.  Such people discuss homophobia, and that can be verified by sources where they have made statements to this effect, so they need to be included.  I would re-write the whole description thus:


 * This category is for issues relating to homophobia. Organizations or individuals that are considered particularly or persistently as evidencing homophobia can be included; i.e. noted for actions, behavior, utterances, or expression of opinions regarded as homophobia in the established senses of the word. Organizations or individuals noted for their opposition to the practice or support of homophobia are also included.


 * What you do, however, is up to you. Maybe give the full Miriam-Webster description below this to clarify what the senses are, along with an overt 'more information about Homophobia here', to avert future discussion here. Mish (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with the last sentence, as it now stands, is that it depends on context. Somebody may only have been reported making one homophobic remark, but if it happens to be "die faggot" as he empties six rounds into somebody's face, then that is homophobia.  Similarly, a Mayor of a city may not be previously noted for having such views, but stating publicly that gay people are the spawn of satan as he sends in police to break up a gay rights march instead of breaking up a neo-nazi rally against homosexuality would suggest a certain homophobia.  That is why I suggest 'particularly or persistently'.  Other groups or individuals may also express views about homophobia (such as those criticising the way it is used) and they ought to be in there too - so maybe 'groups or individuals that have expressed views about homophobia' should be included as well as those opposed to it and those who engage in it? Mish (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

section break

 * This section is getting looooooooooooooooooong.
 * I think it depends on the significance. But usually if it significant enough for people to hear about it in articles and editorials on 365gay, it's probably significant enough.  I mean, Carrie Prejean's Miss USA comments by themselves would not have been enough, but when a much larger reaction was provoked from her later on, she became thought of as an up-and-rising homophobia figure and spokesperson.  Joe the Plumber may be a more borderline case.  Since John McCain made him famous, he's been more heavily involved in political commentary lately, and given thoughts on all sorts of topics.  One of them was LGBT people, and he said he would never let homosexuals near his children.  While that in itself is very obviously homophobic, and it was certainly enough to earn articles on major LGBT news sites and a 365gay editorial, one has to wonder how ultimately significant it is.  If Joe the Plumber became some major spokesperson or otherwise made his opinions widely known, that might be one thing.  But he doesn't have a radio show, he hasn't run for public office, he hasn't been in any sort of position to pressure his homophobia on someone else in a way that eats at them.  So is he homophobic?  Yeah.  But does he belong in this category?  ...I couldn't say for sure.  I would have said yes, but apparently that article's consensus has decided he shouldn't be. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is long - that is why I put a section break in, but somebody went back to editing this section again. I think whether somebody or something gets this category applied is not something we can discuss here - the guidance is clear, it needs to be worked out by whoever is editing the article - because it depends on the circumstances, and I don't see how we can generate precise hard-and-fast rules. Mish (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misunderstood. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Me too. Joe the Plumber?  I've not heard of him.  That is why I suggested 'particularly or persistent'.  If people make a one-off homophobic remark, maybe not unless it is particularly offensive, but if people persistently say homophobic things, even if done in a way that it doesn't appear particularly offensive, then yes.  If people disagree with the application of the category, then the discuss this on the relevant page, surely?  Take Iain Paisley, who founded the organisation Save Ulster from Sodomy - being in the category is pretty obvious really. Mish (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that makes sense. Carrie Prejean seems more significant&mdash;she's now the spokesperson for National Organization for Marriage, which is notoriously homophobic.  As a beauty queen, she's even been called "the new Anita Bryant". - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break

 * But what you said still does not mean homophobia includes opposition to proposed legislation, correct? People are allowed to opposed proposed legislation without being labeled as homophobics, correct? Organizations may oppose proposed legislation without the homophobia category being slapped on, correct?


 * If this is not correct, if people cannot exercise their rights as Americans to oppose proposed legislation without being labeled as homophobics, then something is seriously wrong, either with a system that allows such labeling, or with Wikipedia for allowing such falsehoods to be established as fact by fiat of a half dozen amateurs like I'll assume we all are, including myself.


 * For example, if the Alliance Defense Fund opposes proposed legislation and is not homophobic, it should not be labeled as homophobic via a category on Wikipedia, correct? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought we had established that discrimination against LBGT people was homophobia? That being the case, opposing rights for gay people is homophobic, although being homophobic doesn't preclude people from exercising their right to vote.  Whether people should be allowed to vote to remove rights from their fellow citizens (your question seems to allude to Proposition 8) is a whole other question.  If people were exercising their civil right to vote by voting in support of constitutional amendments to return the legal definition of marriage in their states to one banning interracial unions, that wouldn't preculde them from being called racist, would it?


 * And what difference does it make whether or not Wikipedia editors are amateurs? We're not supposed to be interpreting the facts anyway, only reporting them.  Exploding Boy (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Legit, regarding ADF, I've never heard of them, and there's not enough detail. Have they opposed legislation for LGBT human rights?  If so, then that would fall under homophobia.  Whether they are Americans is irrelevant.  Nobody is stopping anybody exercising their rights by having a category in Wikipedia.  Being listed in that category does not label anybody - because people and groups who are opposed to homophobia are also included.  We have been round this so many times, it is like a stuck record. You don't agree, fine, but sources show otherwise. Mish (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on the answers of Mish and Exploding Boy and for related reasons, this category is completely and totally POV/soapbox used to push their POV. Anyone reading this page should know that. The Wikipedia Lords That Be need to get involved in this matter to stop Wikipedia from being commandeered to promote POV. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What you mean is that you have a POV, and what I have said doesn't agree with it, so mine is a POV. Instead of hurling around insults, have the courtesy to follow the discussion and consult the sources.  The deifintions are clear, both here Homophobia, and the various sources given to you, including the Yogyakarta principles, the EU parliament, as well as dictionaries.  It is not our job to pick and choose what we like and don't like - just because you don't like how homophobia is defined does not give you a reason to start throwing around accusations about POV.  I came to this discussion not seeing the definition as broad as I now understand it to be - it is taking the time and effort to investigate this matter that has led me to my opinion - based on what I have read in legitimate sources.  Not NARTH, not some other organisation with an ideological agenda to convert gays to heterosexuality and/or Christianity - that such groups can even be considered as having any say in how homophobia should be defined is, frankly, ludicrous.  It is a bit like asking Goebbels what antisemitism means. This has already been pushed for comment, for deletion, and it really is time to accept that it is here to stay, instead of all this shit-stirring disruption - which frankly I'm beginning to see is itself not exempt from NPOV, because of the dogmatic cleaving to fixed ideological positioning despite referral to legitimate sources. Mish (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mish, please, calm down and keep WP:COOL. That said...I concur with you, Exploding Boy, the Yogyakarta Principles and the EU's findings. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, apologies, thanks Gilgamesh, but it does seem that every time we move forward on this, it happens again, a day or so later. There is no point going through this discussion any more - we have done that, reached a position, the details are all above, the arguments need to be reviewed and sources followed up before anything else is said; simplistic dogmatics simply will not cut it. The rhetoric of 'rights' of people, and whether engaging in opposition to LGBT human rights is a homophobic activity or not is not an issue for us, beyond the way this debate is already well documented in various places in Wikipedia. This is to discuss the category, not the issues concerning the category. I am insulted, though. But I'll get over it by the time I've had a cup of tea.Mish (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To some degree, that's just to be expected. Much homophobia is driven by heteronormativity, an inherently unscientific logical fallacy and confirmation bias that can be extremely common in many cultures.  This is part of why having a FAQ for this can be so helpful.  Sure, it may end up turning people off this, but many people are turned off of Wikipedia for precisely the reason that it uses empiricism-based consensus and scientific basis even where it breaks regional cultural taboos.  Why do you think Conservapedia came into existence?  It considered NPOV to be "too liberal", "unchristian" and "unamerican" and adopted a POV in advance and enshrines it as its policy. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess this has something to with why there is a GLBTQ encyclopedia as well - because it can appear at times that NPOV is cited in a way that assumes a certain heteronormativity as if it were neutral. If we have a FAQ detailing how the category is applied, and pointing to the main article on homophobia, with sources, which highlights possible issues people might have about the term, then it seems we allow people to make their own minds up. It would make a nonsense of a category if a human rights declaration, set of principles, or campaigner, can be flagged under the category - yet groups etc. actively proposing what they are talking about cannot be. Mish (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia FAQ
I suggest that within the FAQ, we refer to the Yogyakarta Principles as being the most comprehensive document dealing with LGBT human rights, drawn up by leading human rights experts in the world, and that when we discribe LGBT rights, it is the types of rights detailed in the principles that we are referring to.


 * Yogyakarta Principles

That homophobia can be seen as engaging in, or encouraging, denial of LGBT rights, it is the types of rights described in the principles that we are referring to. The denial of these types of rights constitutes 'homophobia' as detailed in a number of documents, including the European Union resolution which contains a concise and comprehensive statutory description of homophobia in practice.


 * European Parliament resolution on homophobia in Europe

Under items A and B.

Plus,

As a guideline, a 'Category: homophobia' tag should only apply in the case of a BLP where there is explicit source in the text of the article to show that the individual is regarded by reliable sources to express opinions that fall within the category, or states words themselves that place them in the category. Mish (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Homophobia/FAQ temp

I am not sure why this is under homophobia, as I thought the FAQ related to the description and use of of the category, but I have made a start. Mish (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on homophobia category for Jamaican "Murder Music" musicians
Earlier, I tagged most of the artists linked from Stop Murder Music with Category:Homophobic violence (one with Category:Homophobia where the article did not mention any evidence of violent lyrics), since these artists call for the killing of LGBT people in their lyrics, along with other anti-LGBT hate speech in their public comments. I believed I was careful. The artists involved are Buju Banton, Beenie Man, Elephant Man (musician), Bounty Killer, Sizzla and Capleton. The editor User:Smooth0707 reverted all the categories, accused me of stereotyping the artists and Jamaican music in general, and said it was inappropriate to tag any of these musicians as homophobic. I said that I was acting in my understanding of the consensus we've come to here, and I restored the categories with comments linking to this and the homophobia FAQ we've been working on. He reverted my edits again, called them unfair, and seemed to discount the credibility of any consensus we could come to here as well as the credibility of any of the editors involved here. I tried my best to act in good faith and be kind. I must say...the editor's tone...I'm not sure how to respond considering the tone I was sensing. Here's what happened, in the section of my talk page "Stop tagging inappropriate categories":
 * Do not continue to tag Jamaican singers as homophobic. The topic has been more than extensively covered in their talk pages and appropriate articles (and far overblown). Are you going to tag every person on Wikipedia with strict religious morals as homophobic? No - do not stereotype Jamaican musicians. smooth0707  (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We've had another discussion, at Category talk:Homophobia. Since the Stop Murder Music campaign, these artists have become visibly highlighted for their homophobic lyrics, including those lyrics which call for the killing of LGBT people.  And we've come to a fairly good consensus at Category:Homophobia over what can be categorized as such as.  And yes, it includes many religious people who use religious excuses to justify this.  And yes, it even includes Leviticus 18 as it's one of the most widely invoked justifications for homophobia.  Category:Homophobia has a FAQ in the works of what constitutes homophobia, based on the consensus principles of two independent sources&mdash;the European Union and the Yogyakarta Principles. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing that was reviewed extensively in the discussion, is that virtually no one applicable as homophobic or associated with homophobic violence wants to be thought of as such. Even the Ku Klux Klan denies being racist or homophobic.  Homophobia is measured not only in ones words and works, but also in ones effects and visibility.  Anita Bryant may claim she's not homophobic (at least anymore), but she's still heavily associated with homophobia.  There are some major world religious leaders and politicians in the category as well. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care for things like revert wars. I strongly suggest you discuss the topic in Category talk:Homophobia where we've been discussing this in depth for quite some time.  A consensus decision can deal with this.  I'm trying to edit in good faith of what I understand to be the consensus rules-of-thumb formed there.  Care to join the discussion? - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, a "consensus" was reached over at Category:Homophobia by members of WP:LGBT? Wow, big surpise there {sarcasm}. Not one of these artists exhibits what I deem an "irrational fear," that is the point you seem to be missing. Quite rational IMO. I can't speak to the other bios b/c I am not involved in editing them. smooth0707  (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reservations about your tone. We discussed the effects of homophobia, and came to a consensus that it doesn't have to be irrational to be homophobic in association, especially when the effects can be so destructive to rights and dignity of LGBT people.  And I don't know if any of us were members of WP:LGBT or not.  I'm not a member of it.  We were discussing the applicability of the category.  Please involve yourself in the discussion and the consensus process there, and without assailing the backgrounds and associations of the other editors and without dismissing the credentials of the category out of hand.  I do concede that, as a gay man, I cannot reach a full POV on the issue by myself, which is part of why we have the Wikipedia consensus process.  It's better to contrast different editors together than to approach everything alone. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering there's been three consecutive mass-reverts and he doesn't seem to give much credit to any conclusion reached here, what now? I'm not sure what I can do independently anymore without consensus. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to challenge is if independent and neutral sources cite people as being homophobic. You can cite the source and the comment that 'so and so said...' Then you can tag the article. So, this BBC report states that the lyrics of certain artists (Elephant Man and Vybz Kartel) were regarded as having homophobic content, and not only was this the view of the BBC, but also the MOBO awards:. This was not about stereotyping Jamaican artists, because it it was reported by the BBC (who would not get away with that), and the MOBO awards are specifically about recognising the accomplishments of black artists. In this report, Beenie Man and Buju Banton are identified as having homophobic content, and were investigated by the police (as promotion of violence is a criminal offence). Beenie Man apologised for his lyrics. He also tried to explain his lyrics that in Jamaica 'gay' ('batty-boy') means a predatory paedophile who pays young boys in the ghetto for sex, because what we understand by gay in Europe and America is not the same as what people in Jamaica understand - people in Jamaica don't do the same kind of gay we do (consenting sex between two adults). The issue about Jamaican artists doesn't wash when you look at how the issue was first highlighted with Eminem and the Grammy Awards - although with him the issue just got forgotten, with Jamaican artists it persisted. Beenie Man, Sizzla and Capleton all renounced their earlier lyrics, and signed up to 'the Reggae Compassionate Act' through a deal worked out between reggae promoters and Stop Murder Music activists. It appears that some people did have homophobic lyrics, but is historical because they apologised for that, and stopped using those sorts of lyrics - the strength in this that they admitted that what they did was not right, so it would be wrong to say they are homophobic, but that their lyrics were seen as such and they changed. Where that leaves those others who also did this but have never apologised is not clear, but because their lyrics have similar content, have been described as homophobic in reliable sources, and they have never seen anything wrong in that, suggests they still are. The point of tagging with homophobia is not to tag the person, but the content, so in tagging we are not saying anything about the person, but that the content of some of their lyrics falls within the category 'homophobia' - there is no need to tag them as homophobic if they have promoted homophobia in their speech or lyrics or writing in a notable way, because that is what is being tagged. A person is only homophobic if they say so themselves, or if their being so is reported in a significant way. Being reported in national newspapers and the BBC over being dropped from the MOBO awards seems to fall into that category - but if they have publicly disassociated themselves from the words or actions, then it probably wouldn't be appropriate to continue saying they are homophobic, simply that some of their lyrics were seen as homophobic, and they accepted this. I hope this helps. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. I seem to recall some PinkNews articles about how some of them denied they had ever signed the agreement.  Would that be a notable reference? - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think in a situation like this it sounds like there will be resistance in hearing something from Pink News, so it would be better to get it from a national newspaper or something related to Jamaican music. I saw that too, after my post, and I'm not sure what to make of it.  Thing is, its not relevant, because we are not tagging them for being homophobic - but for the homophobic content of their lyrics, which is documented in a historical context.  I had a look at the first two in your list, and see that some of what I put above is already in there - in Beenie Man and Buju Banton (the two I just looked at) there is reference to the controversy, using the word 'homophobia' (in one case as a section). That is enough to warrant a tag, and whether someone thinks it is reasonable to be homophobic or not is not an issue, it is whether there is content that relates to homophobia that counts - which there is, and it is that which the category applies to, and says nothing about the artist beyond what is said in the article. All the tag does is guide people wanting to find out more about homophobia to articles that have content that relates to homophobia - not because we think people are bad because of it. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, resistance or not, Pink News is a reputable LGBT news source. I can understand the need at times to have multiple corroborating references on an issue.  There's also 365gay news.  But is it that there is just one source, or that the source is from a website for LGBT news?  I can even appreciate sometimes having additional sources that aren't from LGBT new sites, but the fact that sources are from Pink News or 365gay shouldn't make them any less reputable or credible.  Are you suggesting that there are editors on Wikipedia who are entitled and justified (e.g. being good Wikipedians) while treating LGBT sources as irrelevant and responding to LGBT news sources as revert-bait?  Because if a source is credible, it shouldn't matter if it comes from Pink News or not, shouldn't it? - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no neutral articles (i.e. NOT Pink News, 365gay, etc) that call Kalonji or Beenie Man homophobic. Focusing on misleading content like this detracts from the article, especially given the circumstances concerning the artists in question: keep in mind how significantly different Caribbean culture is from whereever you may hail, and artists like Kalonji are devout Rastamen - there is little forgiveness on this issue. Granted, I am no fool - I realize these lyrics can be harsh and abrasive, but these artists do not warrant a homophobia tag. smooth0707  (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But does it matter whether they come from a different culture and have particular religious beliefs and customs? Regardless of the motivations and traditions involved, the effects and reputations of a person or a person's work can be objectively measured to have homophobic effect on other people.  You could even find a million people who agree with those works&mdash;even all within 100 kilometers distance&mdash;and it doesn't make a difference.  The thing is, all sorts of topics are associated with extreme homophobic effect even if the people involved are simply following their cultural traditions.  It doesn't mean the traditions are good or bad.  But when they have an effect that is detrimental to LGBT people, it is homophobic.  Read the homophobia FAQ.  Read the Yogyakarta Principles.  For instance, U.S. Senator Jesse Helms was absolutely infamous for his strongly homophobic views and actions, but he was also understood to be preserving generations of old deep cultural traditions that he more or less reflected in practice. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, these artists were categorized because they were topics of the Stop Murder Music campaign, which has been covered in LGBT news media. Since LGBT people are the people most impacted by the effects of homophobia, mainstream LGBT news carries a significant weight in this issue.  They are neutral enough for the purpose, publishing news for the most mainline audience of LGBT people.  They are not radical, militant or shock sites with an agenda to destroy the human race.  You cannot treat a gay source as having no credibility by virtue of being gay.  The very ways of thinking involved&mdash;homosexual agenda, heterosexism, heteronormativity&mdash;are themselves under this category as well.  Please don't assume a gay person automatically has some kind of ulterior motive by virtue of being gay alone. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International reported on Kalonji because of the racist and homphobic content of his lyrics, which included incitement to murder. This was reported in the national press. Whether Beenie Man is homophobic or not is not the point, and given his own inconcistency in responding to such questions it is hard to say one way or the other. That is not the point - for him or for anybody, in this example. Some lyrics were homophobic. The articles concerned include comment on this. Homophobia is established when the person or people reagrd it to be so - gay people do consider content that promotes violence against them to be homophobic. The religion or culture is irrelvant, because this issue is in an international context - the problem with these lyrics, and the response to them, took place in a country where urging the killing of gay people is not tolerated. It was reported in the national press, which acknowledged the homophobia implicit in the words. The police investigated this, and the MOBO awards dropped aome artists on account of their words, their record companies and promoters sought to get the artists to recant those words because they were damaging their marketability outside Jamaica. Having a category applied does not detract from the article, it highlights that it contains content that relates to homophobia, and if there is significant reporting on it, then it should be in the article - most people in the UK will have only heard of some artists like Kalonji and Beenie Man because of the coverage in the national media, which makes that notable. Beenie Man is covered in all these articles, all relaible national media sources:, , , , , , , , , , ,. While this should not be unduely weighted, or dealt with in an unbalanced way, it shouldn't be censored either. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * MishMich, I envy your ability to state things so clearly and to-the-point. Anyway, I seem to recall some controversy about Buju Banton's "Boom Bye Bye" when I read about how the late Brian Williamson was stabbed to death in his home.  After his death, the mob kept chanting "boom bye bye" in reference to the lyric.  It's mentioned in LGBT rights in Jamaica.  There are also plenty of Pink News articles on him. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't have any issues with sources like the Pink Paper, which I've not found any discussion here that suggests it should be considered anything but reliable. Just think that locating sources from national newspapers are harder to dismiss. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2009
 * Can't find equivalents for GLAAD or Canada, but these cover most of the rest: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499691/Brighton-city-ban-rap-music-offends-gays.html

],, , , , [/Met-accused-supporting-homophobic-music-allowing-gay-hate-singers-concert.html],. There's other stuff on hip-hop & Eminem, but I can't find much on metal. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

suggested couple of changes in description
I would like to suggest two changes to the description. First in:

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.

I would like to add "organizational". This is in reference to the article Boy Scouts of America membership controversies where one person complained because he felt that it being in the Category:Homophobia was Wikipedia taking a stance. I noticed then that the category only gave the disclaimer for biographical articles. The result would be:

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

The second change is less important but I think the paragraph:

This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being homophobic or for being opposed to 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.

might imply that wikipedia is making a judgment on them being homophobic. I suggest changing "noted" to "accused"

This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly accused of homophobia or for being opposed to 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.

My apologies for making the changes without checking here first. They are now back to the original but I still think the first at least would be very useful. Thoughts? --Erp (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with your first suggestion, although it is less serious an issue than BLPs, but I see the logic. The second point I don't see as necessary.  The point is not that they are accused, but this is notable in that it has been reported in WP:RS.  It is not us who are making the judgment, it is in accurately representing the sources that note this.  I don't see any justification for including organisations that are accused of homophobia or for being opposed to it, but who are particularly noted for expression or activity that is deemed homophobic, or opposed to such activity or expression.  This would be established in the sources.  I take your point about the Boy Scouts (USA), but thinking discriminatory practice is not a form of homophobia doesn't really accord with the definition of homophobia, and there are sources that substantiate this, I believe.  If the sources do not support this, then that would be an issue about tagging that organisation, not the scope of the category itself.  Please give other involved editors the opportunity to respond, because they may see this differently.Mish (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Propose the exclusion of biographical articles from this category
I propose that categorising individuals under the heading of Homophobia presents significant neutrality, BLP and vagueness problems, and that as such ought to exclude biographical articles from this category. In its place, biography-specific categories such as, and  could be created where appropriate. Previous discussion here. What say ye? Skomorokh, barbarian   14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that because some of these cases are individuals who clearly are homophobic. If we have enough sourcing to establish that it should be ok. I've never been happy with this category as a whole because of the POV nature to start with, but if we accept it as an ok cat then we shouldn't be throwing articles out of it. However, we could add some reasonable alternate categories to replace some of the BLPs into such as something like "opponents of gay marriage" etc. That would at least alleviate some of the issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is unecessary, because such articles are subject to WP:BLP] policy, and so tagging with this category would only be acceptable if it can be shown that the subject is noted in [[WP:RS for comments or writing that are considered homophobic. If not, they don't get tagged.  End of story. Mish (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Strongly oppose. I see no neutrality or BLP problem, and vagueness problems are endemic to broad categories such as this one. In any case, I don't see how a category like "critics of homosexuality" would be neutral or even make sense enough to be in an encyclopedia. What's next—critics of left-handedness? Critics of short stature? Rivertorch (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If there were people who thought that left-handedness or short stature were signs of moral turpitude why not? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your question is a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's role as being neutral and descriptive. I guess I'm reacting to the absurdity of anyone being a "critic" of something that just is. It's sort of like railing against the sun for being too bright or the mountain for being too high. In any case, there certainly is a danger of euphemisms being deployed in subtle but highly non-neutral ways. Like homosexuality, homophobia just is, but that doesn't mean that those who hold with it won't try to cloak their bigotry in meaningless jargon. The nice thing about this category as it now stands is that it doesn't label anyone, thereby sidestepping BLP problems and avoiding the need for controversial judgment calls on the part of editors. Rivertorch (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * I think this is not the proper forum to discuss this, as I believe any consensus reached through this page will have a debilitating sample bias. This honestly should be taken to some sort of other venue such as RfC because Skomorokh has made an important point about categorizations with respect to BLPs.  There are so many issues surrounding this particular  that I would like this to see a wider audience.  This discussion began with a wider audience at AN/I and was unfortunately moved to an much more narrow venue (when editing this page you even get a warning "Attention: Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users").  Homophobia as a category is way too vague to not have problems (especially with respect to BLPs); as a meta-issue, the use of "homophobia" as a term is even controversial.
 * Even if a subject was noted as such in a reliable source, as suggested above by Mish, I would still be wary to utilize such a vague category. Imagine if we had .  Such a category would be hard to define, but would be "uncontroversial" as such in an objective sense.   is hard to define, and is inherently controversial, and is even exherently controversial (i.e., the loaded use of "phobia").  "Homophobia" as a label can be taken so many ways (especially so in the offhand way we here at Wikipedia peg categories at the end of articles without any explanation as such).  Imagine another somewhat general category, something like .  While something like this happens to be extremely general, it at least does not suffer from the interpretive vagueness and ambiguity of such a category as Homophobia.  I can not find any similarly vague categories.  Something like  would be similarly vague; but (very appropriately) it doesn't exist.  The closest thing to it is the much better .  See the difference?  Looking back, I see I haven't made my point here very clearly; nonetheless, I think this should be moved to a different venue for an appropriately objective consensus.
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ("I'm listening....") 01:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Imagine if we had . We could find reliable third party sources, because such a thing as "diabetes" can be diagnosed by a topically-relevant reliable source: a medical professional.  Regardless if we then get the information from the original medical source which made the diagnosis (unlikely) or a second-hand report, there was an authority in the applicable field which gave rise to the claim.  Such a thing (i.e., category) is objectively tenable.  Now with homophobia, we can admittedly get a whole bunch of sources which refer to someone as such, but is there any source in existence which could be considered qualified to make such a statement?  There is far less objective tenability to such a categorization, regardless if a whole bunch of people and sources say it.  You see, what I'm trying to say is that even when stated by third-party sources, such a claim has an inextricable value judgment associated with it ; there is no professional or anyone qualified to categorize someone as such.  This is very analogous to the "Alcoholics" example I gave above, when applying such a vague category to BLPs you'll either have to come up with  or  or something of the like.  The other ones would still be as Sko says above, eg.
 * Your choice of hypothetical categories is fascinating. Thing is, they're not parallel. Alcoholics and diabetics are plural nouns referring to individuals with medical conditions. (In the former case, of course, the condition is one that invariably involves behavior that is always detrimental to self and frequently detrimental to society.) If we had either of those categories, clearly any biographical articles associated with them would brand their subjects as suffering from one of those two medical conditions. Homophobia, on the other hand, is a singular noun that refers neither to individuals nor to a medical condition; it refers to a prejudice akin to xenophobia or ageism. The placement of a biographical article in Category:Homophobia does not imply that the subject is a homophobe, only that he or she is associated in some significant way with the topic of homophobia. We do have parallel categories, such as Category:Sexism and Category:Racism; the latter is particularly illuminating to this discussion because of its size and scope. Like this category, Category:Racism is broad and vague and sometimes involves the risk of value judgments. Applying your question to that category, is anyone at any reliable source qualified to categorize someone as racist? Arguably no, but it's beside the point there, too, because the category isn't Racists—it's Racism, so no implication is made about any individuals there either. Rivertorch (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The category Racists was specifically discussed and deleted here. A category Homophobes would be just as bad.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When allowed on BLPs this just seems like a magnet for POV attacks on people. It does more harm than good. Consider this, someone reads an article, sees the "Homophobe" category, asks "who else is a homophobe?" and gets a list. That doesn't seem like a very good use for this encyclopedia. --  At am a  頭 16:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is always the risk of people reaching unwarranted conclusions and drawing inferences they shouldn't. We can seek to minimize that sort of thing—by not having a "Homophobe" category, for instance (did anyone suggest such a category?)—but we can't prevent it entirely and shouldn't waste time trying. Rivertorch (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Homophobia, in the popular consciousness, when tagged on a BLP, may be tantamount to Homophobic. The response to my comment by Rivertorch takes into account my logical reasoning, but does not charitably take my argument, and misses the point.  I know alcoholic has a value judgment.  Try and observe my real line of reasoning above, without developing a value judgment about it as you read it.  Then you'll maybe understand what I mean.  For example, in my use of the term "alcoholic," there is no value judgment.  In this encyclopedia's context, there would be.  Hence the analogy (and the mention of the realistic "self-identification" category).  Read my logic with respect to the Homophobia category, leaving your (and my) value judgements out of it.  Then maybe you'll understand what I mean about the societal value judgment inherent to the terminology.  The only thing I can think of that may help you interpret my contribution is Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication, but that article's not up to par....
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ("I'm listening....") 03:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Rivertorch, if you read my logic, you'd see your response to my comment has the same logic as my comment....
 * Sorry, Peace and Passion, for missing your point. I'm afraid I still don't get it. My main point was about people carelessly equating homophobia with homophobes and how your examples appeared to fit that pattern. (Alcoholism and diabetes would be category equivalents of homophobia in terms of grammar; alcoholics and diabetics are not.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To affirm what Rivertorch said, the category is called 'Homophobia' for a reason, rather than 'Homophobe' or 'Homophobic'. Applying the category to an individual/organisation does not assert they are homophobic, but that they have been publicly been connected with homophobia in some way - either in opposition to or known for writing or making statements described as homophobia on several occasions.  In that respect the parallel would be Racism, rather than 'Racist', which would relate to a catgory 'Homophobe' (which does not exist).  If you look at that category, there are quite a few names of people and organisations associated with racism - this is no different.  Rather than belabouring the category, if you take issue with specific applications of the category, it would be more productive if you discussed the application on the talk page of the articles concerned. Mish (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Well put. Rivertorch (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I could not agree less with the above. The problem is that placing someone in Category:Homophobia is ambiguous, and will as often as not be interpreted as "this person is homophobic" or "this person expresses homophobic views". I believe Jimmy Wales rightly stated that the antisemitism category ought not be used in such a form. At very most, in order to avoid a blatant violation of BLP standards, we should create a category: Persons who disagree with homosexuality (much less defamatory, but similar meaning). People/Groups who don't expressly say they disagree with homosexuality, just against equal rights legislation or marriage, should in turn have their own category (believe it or not, the two are different; my best friend's brother is gay and is against homosexual marriage; and some may disagree with homosexuality or dislike homosexuals but not care about the law). Finally, another category could be created for another group, persons involved with controversy in homosexuality. But simply placing a "homophobia" tag on an article is akin to saying "this person is homophobic", whether that's how it was meant or not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Magog says part of what I was trying to say better than I did; we ought to look at this problem realistically not idealistically. It would be great (the ideal) if everyone who came across such an ambiguous tag on the end of an article was "as enlightened" as "us," and immediately deduced the proper (our) meaning (which is actually extremely vague, based on the uses given by the supporters of the category above).  Regardless, this is not realistic.  Specify the category into more categories.  (I mean "specify" in the traditional sense of "make more specific").
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ("I'm listening....") 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Except in blatant cases where we have worded something misleadingly, we cannot prevent readers of the encyclopedia from putting unintended constructions on its content. "Category:Homophobia" isn't misleading, only vague. The vagueness is necessary because it's a large category, and it needs to be large; its size serves a function in pointing readers seeking information towards many different articles that would be much harder to find if it were broken up into narrower categories. Most of our readers are shrewd enough not to think that the presence of the Category:Homophobia tag implies the subject is homophobic, just as most don't automatically see Category:Racism as implying the subject is racist. There are, of course, readers who will misconstrue anything and everything, and we cannot be responsible for that. Placement of either of these tags in a BLP article is not in any way defamatory.


 * "Persons who disagree with homosexuality" would be beyond vague to the point of being utterly meaningless, and most of the other examples of supposedly more precise categories I've seen in this thread have their own problems. For all the controversy its application generates, the term homophobia is well established and has clear meaning across various scientific disciplines, as well in popular usage. No way should it be removed as a WP category or its use limited because someone might misunderstand. Rivertorch (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Persons who disagree with homosexuality" is clearly narrower than "homophobia." If "Persons who disagree with homosexuality" is "beyond vague to the point of being utterly meaningless," then what is "homophobia?"  To pull back from the meat of the debate for a second, I don't think either side in this debate is making any headway; hence, my previous suggestion that this would do better and come to a clearer consensus either way at a more objective venue.  Does anyone have any comments on that?
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ("I'm listening....") 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have to point out, Rivertorch, that given your logic, we could attach Category:Sexual perversion to any articles of homosexuals. We're not applying they're perverse, and it's not our fault if readers misinterpret. Would you care to create the above category and include homosexuality?
 * Or perhaps you would realize, as I am trying to say, that putting that in there carries its own bias. And the statement that our readers wouldn't see that: the evidence in the past that I've seen is quite contrary to that.
 * Ambiguity is for us to correct, not the reader. The point of a good encyclopedia is to be unambiguous.
 * Finally, I was only giving a suggestion. Persons who believe homosexuality is morally wrong or persons who believe homosexuality is evil would be much better. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should be renamed "Category:Homophobia accusations" and require that the article contain documented accusations of homophobia. This would include both people and organizations that make accusations as well as recipients (both organizations and individuals) of accusations.  It may seem more neutral in that the word accusation does not mean it is true or valid (or false or invalid). --Erp (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To Erp, the current category extends way beyond the parameters of your suggested new category. It includes court cases, films, historical epochs, related terms, organizations working to combat homophobia, government policies, slogans, and so on. It isn't about accusations; it's about people, groups, ideas, events, theories, and so on—all relating to homophobia in some way, and all potentially helpful to someone wanting to learn about the topic.
 * To Magog: your hypothetical does not follow my logic in the slightest. "Sexual perversion" is not a term used within the scientific community or among serious researchers in any field; it is inherently unneutral, highly subjective, and carries pejorative connotations, unlike homophobia, which is simply descriptive. I might also point out that we don't have articles about "homosexuals". Homosexual people, gay men, lesbians, LGBT people, sometimes even queer people if they self-identify that way—but never "homosexuals", which is widely considered an offensive usage. In no way do I want to discount any evidence you've seen in the past, but we should probably try to separate hard evidence from anecdotal evidence. At the very least, diffs would be helpful. Yes, unambiguity should be one goal of any encyclopedia but it is hardly "the point of a good encyclopedia". There are competing goals, and some of them—such as verifiability and neutrality—are vital. And there are other goals, such as accessibility and connectivity, which are hampered by narrow categories.
 * To Peace and Passion, you're probably right about lack of headway. I have no high hopes that a venue change would help, and I'm not sure what you mean by "more objective". In any case, you don't need consensus to broaden the discussion if that's what you want to do. Personally, I'd suggest another route: dealing with objections on a case-by-case basis on the relevant article talk pages. Many of the arguments for changing the category seem to be based on the presumption that there's a widespread problem, but is there really? In what articles is it currently causing a problem? Rivertorch (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I do think the disclaimer "...subject of any biographical article is homophobic" needs to be expanded to include organizational articles (I'm thinking in particular of Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article). --Erp (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Done (albeit in reverse—I removed the adjective biographical to make it inclusive of all article subjects). Regarding the scouting controversies, I'm not sure I get your point. The current disclaimer includes the following wording: This category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for expressions of homophobia, opposition to homophobia, or involvement in controversy about homophobia. It is not intended for groups or individuals who have made homophobic remarks and related actions but are not widely known for stances that entail homophobia. The BSA is particularly noted for expressions of homophobia (widely held opinion, easily verified with multiple RSes) and its involvement in controversy about homophobia (easily verifiable fact, 100% neutral, no opinion involved), and its stance is widely known and verifiable. Rivertorch (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I quite agree but the disclaimer means they can't claim that wikipedia is taking a stance by putting the controversy article in the category. Hammering it in can't hurt.--Erp (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you reading what is written, or trying to wind people up? It is in there - it only has to be said once.  If 'they' can't read what it says, then hammering it in won't help.  How many times and ways do we need to say it? Mish (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what some of the editors are concerned about is that "homophobia" is not simply descriptive and does carry pejorative connotations. It is often used as a dismissive and always used negatively. To use the Wikipedia guideline; WP:AVOID:  "Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of an outsider looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral." Or, look at this way, (to use my favorite example) would it be acceptable to have a category:gay agenda that included every LBGT organization?--Knulclunk (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies in advance if I'm less patient than usual. (Long day, watchlist filled with stupid drama, extremely tiresome thread that never seems to end.) The distinction you're trying to make between "outside" and "inside" is, as far as I can tell, meaningless as stated. Outside and inside what? Like racism, sexism, xenophobia, and various other terms describing forms of prejudice, homophobia is not only "accepted" but widely used by social scientists and others in academia. It is also in common usage in nonacademic publications of various sorts. Did you actually read the section you linked to above? It lists three problematic examples, none of which involves any word comparable to the word homophobia, and then, for each of the three, it lists a better alternative, the last of which is very much comparable to homophobia because it is scientific and descriptive. Can you see the distinction? Cult and racist organization are labels; perversion is a label (albeit applied to a thing, not a person or persons). Homophobia (unlike homophobic or homophobe) is not a label. Unlike a label, it is never applied directly to an individual or group. It is scientific and descriptive.


 * Your favorite example, huh? "Gay agenda" is, to the best of my knowledge, used exclusively for political effect; it has no basis in science, is not used in academia, and is not in common usage (except perhaps for ironic purposes, and then only occasionally ). So, to answer what seems to me a bizarre question, no—it wouldn't be acceptable to have a category:gay agenda that included any LGBT organization, because it would be impossible to find any neutral reliable source that defines it. It's factional hyperbole at best, if not an outright hoax. Are you claiming that is true of homophobia?


 * Quoting myself from above, I ask again: Many of the arguments for changing the category seem to be based on the presumption that there's a widespread problem, but is there really? In what articles is it currently causing a problem? I want to continue assuming good faith here, but in the absence of satisfactory answers to these questions, I'm beginning to detect a whiff of something—perhaps pointless devil's advocacy, perhaps something else. In any case, enough. If there's a problem, document it. If not, then all of these bytes are nothing better than speculations and abstractions. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well there was a bit of an edit war on September 25 in the Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article over including the category or not. It was kept as it should be in this case. --Erp (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit wars happen every day and are not indicative of a problem with the wording of a category. The only recent, relevant discussion I can find (here) regarding that article involved exactly two posts: one from an IP user who objected to the article's inclusion in category:homophobia and a reply in which you correctly defended the inclusion. This sort of thing happens all the time and does not suggest there's a larger problem. Rivertorch (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How can Ken Hutcherson | Category:Homophobia not be interpreted as a label? --Knulclunk (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What is it labeling? As far as I can see, the category is labeled "homophobia" and the article is labeled as belonging to the category. Nothing else is labeled, and no person is labeled. Are you claiming that the category is somehow inappropriate for the article, the majority of which relates to Hutcherson's attempts to deny equal rights to LGBT people? Rivertorch (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The place to discuss the appropriateness of the application of the category is on the article. As you say, there was a discussion on BSA, and the issue was resolved there as it should be (not by changing the description of the category). Ditto for any other article. If people believe the category is misused, then that needs dealing with at the level of the article, not the the category. the usage is clear in the decription. Can we close this discussion now, please, it is long past its use-by date and is beginning to stink. Mish (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at Ken Hutcherson. There is no mention of the term 'homophobia' (or variants) in the article.  This article does not pass the test.  There needs to be WP:RS describing homophobia for the category to be applied - this is not the case here.  I have removed the category. Mish (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "It's factional hyperbole at best, if not an outright hoax." That comes close to a fine description of homophobia. Using it in classifications of biographical articles is systematic POV. --Årvasbåo (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Fortunately, we use reliable sources for determining category inclusions. Rivertorch (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources for not accepting the term are found in the article. --Årvasbåo (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Move entries to category:Homosexuality
The business about 'irrational' means that irrationality needs to be established for each of he entries especially the biography articles. On the other hand that they said or did something about homosexuality and whether it is notable is normally fairly easy to establish. Therefore I suggest the entries all be classified under Category:Homosexuality or some other such category if there is a more suitable one where one doesn't need to establish somethings about the workings of people's minds. Dmcq (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at Fear of youth which does not suffer from this 'irrationa' problem in the leader. However in the next section down we have that "Today, common usage occurs internationally by sociologists, government agencies, and youth advocacy organizations that define ephebiphobia as an abnormal or irrational and persistent fear and/or loathing of teenagers or adolescence". They haven't quite yet put 'irrational' into the definition. Lots of old people will be afraid of going anywhere near a grouip of youths in places like a subway where they might be mugged. They have a fear of youth but I wouldn't call it irrational.


 * What I'm saying about 'homophobia' is that either the article should have the 'irrational' down in a subsection saying something like homophobia is normally irrational, or else this category should not exist. The homophobia article sticks that word up right at the start citing Websters dictionary. Therefore what is here fails WP:Verifiability in many cases. Even citing a source that uses the 'homophobia' word is not enough really without establishing that the source is using a similar definition to wikipedia. Unless of course you want to have the category covering where the 'homophobia' word is used irrespective if the meaning corresponds in any way with what you mean. Dmcq (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We have no effective way of establishing what definitions most reliable sources are using. As is the case with many words, homophobia is reliably defined in various ways, and the category should reflect that. Here's one definition: "1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. 2. Behavior based on such a feeling. (American Heritage Dictionary. 3rd ed.)"
 * We cannot pick and choose among major dictionaries or other reliable sources, so inclusiveness is clearly the best way to go. That some definitions involve modifiers such as "irrational" shouldn't limit the meaning to that for our purposes. Your point about ephebiphobia as it relates to homophobia isn't quite clear, btw. Rivertorch (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My point about the 'Fear of Youth' is that it shows government and youth advocacy agencies hijacking an issue and branding those holding it as irrational. Thus saying someone has a 'fear of youth' is becoming a prejudical label saying they are irrational. Homophobia has gone way way past that as a prejudicial label, the irrational has become written into dictionaries. It is written right at the top of the Wikipedia article and defended by people on the talk page. It is not right to stick an 'irrational bigot' label on someone if their religion tells them something or they had a bad experience. Inclusiveness of definitions not including 'irrational' is wrong when 'irrational' as part of the definition has been defended and cited on Wikipedia right at the top of the article. A definition including irrational does not include all those covered by a definition without the word irrational. Dmcq (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just took the first biography in this category I came across at random Mirosław Orzechowski. The article says he has strong anti-homosexual views, something that can be verified easily. Nowhere does it say he is homophobic, the article never even mentions the word. If irrational is included in the definition then sticking the homophobia tag is at best speculation, without the irrational it would be a reasonable deduction which I don't think veers into original research.
 * If the article had said he was homophobic or inspired homophobia and cited an article saying that, then we'd need to verify that the definition of homophobia in the article corresponded with the one in wikipedia. They might use a common definition of homophobia which doesn't include the word irrational whereas wikipedia does. It might be an extreme form of sticking anyone who said they had a gay old time or danced the Gay Gordons into the homosexual category.Dmcq (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Words get "hijacked" all the time; this has happened for millennia. Dictionaries define words based on their usage, not whatever they may have meant originally, and it is appropriate for WP articles and categories to reflect that. Many words have multiple meanings, and a subject doesn't have to fit each of them before the word can be used in reference to them.
 * You are, of course, entitled to your belief about the homophobia label (as is anyone whose religion or bad experience leads them to negative beliefs about people of a certain skin color or nationality), but we don't use editors' personal beliefs as a basis for structuring the encyclopedia. As the disclaimer at the top of the category page indicates, we are not labeling anyone by placing the category tag in an article. Rivertorch (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. The category is not "homophobic people" or "people who inspire homophobia"; it is simply "homophobia". Why is that distinction so hard to understand? 2. WP does not "use definitions"; that the lede of Homophobia is currently written a certain way does not commit us to applying any set definition to the word for the purposes of this category. Rivertorch (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly the disclaimer is not on the biography page and one needs to be very careful on Biographies of living persons
 * Secondly homophobia was not mentioned on that page but the leader says "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."
 * Thirdly if the page had referred to the concept of homophobia then there is a consensus of what that means on wikipedia which is given by the link homophobia. It would be no excuse as I was pointing out with the Gay Gordons to say that the same looking word was used especially when dealing with biographies. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "homophobia" is pejorative and should not be used in any NPOV context, certainly not by Wikipedia. Everything here falls under Category:LGBT Rights. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. While we're at it, let's get rid of Category:Racism, Category:Ageism, and Category:Antisemitism. And since NPOV applies to article as well as category titles, we'd better delete Xenophobia, White supremacy, Sexism, and Bigotry while we're at it. When we've deleted all of those, we'd better start searching for any instance of such nasty, defamatory words cropping up in article text and either remove the offending sentences or entire paragraphs or at least find suitable euphemisms. When our purge is done, we can kick back and relax, certain that we'll never ever run the risk of offending anyone by employing a word that someone—most likely someone with a limited grasp of the English language and parts of speech—might consider pejorative. Sure, we'll be the new laughingstock of the Web, but hey, bending over backwards to avoid irritating hatemongers is clearly the prime objective of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and all those other policies. Why did it take me so long to figure this out? Rivertorch (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look at all those articles and except for Bigotry they don't seem to suffer from the kind of the problem the Homophobia article does. Bigotry says in the leader "The correct use of the term, however, requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion." Obstinacy and animosity are easy to measure but irrationality is in most cases not. Is a person a bigot because a politician has told him his neighbours are evil and he believes it? Is the politician a bigot if he does it to gain more power? Therefore I couldn't support putting a 'Category:Bigot' on such a person. I think though the 'irrational' is reasonable in the case of the bigotry article and is intrinsic in the term - it's more that we should not stick that category on people without checking very carefully. Also in general people agree that 'irrational' is part of its definition. Even the article Xenophobia which I would have thought would be like homophobia is fairly okay and just says 'Xenophobia is a dislike and/or fear of that which is unknown or different from oneself.' Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the EU law bit "whereas homophobia can be defined as an irrational fear of and aversion to homosexuality and to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people based on prejudice and similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and sexism". They're idiots is my opinion. I guess the 'similar to' is a let out so the irrational bit doesn't have to apply to the rest but people will obviousy move the bits around and it shows how politicians work. It will cause real problems in court if it is tested. Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not good
Applying a label to someone with which you disagree, in language that would be unsupportable in the text of the article, is not good. All labels and labeling should go. This is a "hate category" BTW, since it's primarly purpose is to encourage hate of groups you don't like.Student7 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored and labelling is okay if it is in line with WP:BLP and WP:RS and the fact is notable about them. However I do not believe the current category is a good one and believe something like Category:Homosexuality would be a better one, that category is free from its original use. It is easy to establish if a person has written or spoken something notable about homosexuality. However homophobia has 'irrational' written into it. It isn't up to wikipedia to determine irrationality of people, so the only thing that can be used is if a reliable source says explicitly that they are homophobic. And that hasn't been established for a very large proportion of them so wikipedia is as far as I can see in violation of WP:BLP.


 * I had meant to propose this category for deletion before or at least the entries should be moved to something nore verifiable. 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've proposed the page be renamed, see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_18. Seems to be quite a range of opinions, from some like you wanting to remove all names of people to other who are adamant it must be this name and no other complete with the disclaimer on the category page. Dmcq (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete or recategorize names?
It looks like the category is going to be kept again as there won't be a consensus to delete. Having the tag put on biographies of living people is wrong though, as one contributor at the Cfm discussion says 'Adamant Keep "Homosexuality" is the general topic, and does not necessarily imply stigma. "Homophobia" does.', which is precisely why it has to be removed for living persons unless they self-identify or are convicted for it or some other extremely good reason.

The options I can see are either to remove the tag from all people where it might be considered prejudicial, which is what one person advocated and seemed to think should be done for a couple of other tags like Category:Racism tags too, or move them to some category which is much easier to verify. It is fairly easy to establish that Fred Phelps has spoken out against homosexuality in a notable way for instance, so "Anti-LGBT activist" or "Anti-gay activist" could probably be easily supported. It is the difference between attacking the person which needs very good evidence and is very hard to establish, and describing the action where you can easily provide objective evidence.Dmcq (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You raise an interesting point about whether something that carries a stigma can actually be applied neutrally. But I'm not about to propose any renamings.  To be honest, I just don't know, and my vocabulary for such a thing is limited basically to "homophobe".  However, on the other hand, this category does not say "homophobes"&mdash;it is the general topic of "homophobia", including how it meets the subjects of living people in notable ways.  And there's my other point from the same comment that you didn't quote&mdash;my opinion that all "anti-homosexuality" is homophobia.  It's only stigmatizing because it's bigoted and people don't want to be thought of as bigots.  But still, if they oppose homosexuality, and if that's homophobia, then it is the topic that it is, and I'm not about to sugar-coat it.  True, that's not very detached of me, but like I also said in my complete comment, I'm not going to be completely detached from this, for reasons obvious from my user page.  So, to attempt to compensate, I try to be considerate and polite.  But if it came down to any arbitrary vote, I could not vote that the denigration of LGBT people is anything scientifically lesser than homophobia, regardless of whether the source is as universally-reviled as Fred Phelps or as semi-respected as the Book of Leviticus.  When you're gay, there can be no rational reason in the world that another person can have to oppose you on that basis alone. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-LGBT activist
I'm going to remove all the people from this category to a new category Category:Anti-LGBT activist unless it is obvious that category is wrong and they are self identifying as associated with homophobia e.g. authors writing about homophobia. Dmcq (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops sorry I see a new category people prosecuted under anti-homophobia laws has been set up and the category emptied of people. Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No I was wrong again, they just had the category removed. I'd have thought a anti-LGBT activist category could be justified. Dmcq (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It might come down to the fact that there's no solid definition of what constitutes an "anti-LGBT activist." It's pretty obvious in some cases - e.g. Fred Phelps and his merry band of hatemongers - but not so much in others. Seregain (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No? Which others? Rivertorch (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For instance, people who otherwise support LGBT issues opposing gay marriage. Can such people be rightfully called "anti-LGBT" because of that one thing? Seregain (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a question that more than a few people disagree on. (Personally, I think it runs parallel to the question, "Can someone be called racist if they oppose miscegenation but otherwise support racial equality?) The problem is, it's not up to WP editors to decide what's "rightful" and what isn't; it's to use reliable sources and report what they have decided. Unfortunately, "anti-LGBT" is a term we'll have trouble sourcing. That was the nice thing about homophobia; there was no lack of reliable sources that used the word, so it required no interpretation and didn't risk synthesis when it was applied properly. Oh, well. Rivertorch (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But that's the point. Editors themselves were deciding who was supposedly homophobic with no RS to back up their use of the category. At what point do you say "this person is homophobic, but that person isn't?" There's no clear-cut definition. Many otherwise LGBT-friendly people believe marriage should remain between heterosexual couples. (This is how constitutional amendments are being passed in many states - support from both sides of the social and political spectrum.) As far as what sources exist that can be used to label someone as supposedly being homophobic, I will point you to my example above where I point out that there are lots of reliable sources accusing former President George W. Bush of being a Nazi, but that doesn't make it so nor does it warrant the inclusion of such accusations on his Wikipedia article in any form. Seregain (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's really not all that complicated. You ask: At what point do you say "this person is homophobic, but that person isn't?" "You" (i.e., WP editors) don't say that at any point in article space. As I said above, WP editors "use reliable sources and report what they have decided". I don't know why you're evidently having trouble with that distinction. It is a fundamental part of WP policy.


 * Shift back 40 years: many otherwise tolerant people believed that marriage should remain between couples of the same "race", so my analogy holds. Fred Phelps is a convenient whipping boy and a distraction, uniting the broad- and the narrow-minded alike in pious denunciation while countless others who lack his histrionic tendencies but share his core values work civilly and methodically to preserve the second-class status of LGBT people. That you find Phelps homophobic doesn't mean squat in terms of his article content or his place in any category, in any case; whether it's Phelps or Robertson or Dobson or whoever, it's all about reliable sources. As for W=Nazi, I think that there might be contexts in which such an accusation conceivably could merit inclusion in that article. In addition to being impeccably sourced, it would need to meet other requirements, such as the very basic one of its adding something significant to our understanding of the subject of the article. I don't see a direct analogy, though, and actually I am finding your logic quite hard to follow. If we can try to return to the original topic here, I jumped into the thread by way of questioning your suggestion that some people are "obvious" anti-LGBT activists and others aren't. My basic point remains that it's not up to us to determine who is and who isn't an anti-LGBT activist, no matter how obvious we think it may be. We need to use reliable sources for that. Rivertorch (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, if "GWB = Nazi" hasn't been included on Wikipedia yet, it never will be. That's because reliable source or not, Wikipedia is about encyclopedic content. "GWB is a Nazi!" is not encyclopedic content and neither is "Pat Robertson is homophobic!" Seregain (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While the hypotheticals you provided above may not be encyclopedic, the following might well be: "[Reliable source(s) report that notable person, in a widely reported statement to the press, denounced Robertson as homophobic." While definitions of what constitutes encyclopedic content vary widely around here, it's hard to imagine how that wouldn't qualify. Less speculatively and more to the point, though, vis-à-vis the topic at hand: reliable sources that link Robertson's repeated outrageous statements, writings, and political activities to the topic of homophobia. At any rate, you're either missing or ignoring the essential distinction between reliable sources saying something and WP editors saying something. Please consider reviewing WP:NOR, which makes it rather clear. Otherwise, I'm afraid I'm done with beating my head against the wall. Rivertorch (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A category named Category:LGBT rights opposition was previously created, then deleted (I don't know the exact circumstances), and its contents merged with Category:Homophobia. This happened twice&mdash;once in 2006, then again in 2009. The article LGBT rights opposition itself is in this category. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, a FAQ was created for this topic, based on the results of the international Yogyakarta Principles. See Talk:Homophobia/FAQ temp. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And exactly where in those principles does it say anything about homophobia never mind justify the business in the FAQ about pjust labelling people with homophobia because of their remarks? It does mention LGBT and the actual actions of people. You should go and delete that FAQ now, setting it up is I feel an attack against the conclusions of the category debate. Dmcq (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)