Category talk:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric

Untitled
No organization should be in this category unless a reliable source specifically says they engage in rhetoric. That elimiates all of them, even if the category shouldn't necessarily be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect.
 * Category names do not have to literally be listed in the article in which they are placed, otherwise we would lose a great many categories on a great many pages.
 * There are many synonyms for rhetoric. Interpretation and common sense are key. From the article that defines the category:

Anti-LGBT rhetoric and anti-gay slogans are themes, catchphrases, and slogans that have been used to condemn homosexuality or other non-heterosexual sexual orientations or to demean LGBT people. They range from the demeaning and pejorative to those expressing negativity on religious, medical, or moral grounds. They generally have an ideological basis in heterosexism, and are also motivated by homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia. The slogans listed here are not just terms of invective but they represent arguments that are commonly used to convey opposition to LGBT rights or to the full acceptance of LGBT people.
 * – MrX 17:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * When it's generally pejorative, the source needs to explicitly name the pejorative adjective, in order for it to be allowable. And ADL and SPLC are not adequately reliable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, while I still think the category should be deleted, I notice the claim is reliably sourced at Westboro Baptist Church. StAnselm (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be reliably sourced in all these groups but that may not matter. Insomesia (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The guidelines for categories suggest that potentially pejorative claims be adequately sourced before the category is added. I suspect that, if you can provide an objective definition of "anti-LGBT rhetoric", many of these organizations could be placed in the category by reliable sources, although it's not a "defining characteristic" of any of them.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think any group being named an anti-gay hate group arguably do show this as a defining characteristic. It is one of the most notable things about them. Insomesia (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but the category you are talking about is Category talk:Organizations claimed to engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric. StAnselm (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If reliable secondary sources categorize it as engaging in anti-LGBT rhetoric we don't turn that into "organizations claimed to ...". That would be introducing a POV of your own. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)