Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid the word "homophobic" or "homophobia"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete --v/r - T P 19:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Avoid word homophobic[edit]

This essay is pointy and divisive. It is untrue that if an editor on Wikipedia deliberately expresses homophobic views, then they can not legitimately be called homophobic. At the same time this essay attempts to legitimize the casual use of "queer" to describe gay Wikipedians which seems an intentionally offensive and disruptive act. This essay itself fails to meet WP:5P#4 with regard to respect. ~~Fæ (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)~~ Wnt (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC) (see my next comment below)[reply]

I am withdrawing support for my own nomination text after being psyched by a member of Oversight and an active Arbcom member for engaging in dialogue about this problem - see User_talk:Fæ/2012#Unacceptable_edits. If someone else is not prepared to support the nomination as stated, then it should be considered withdrawn. I do not feel free to engage in discussion when I have an Arbcom member intervening to tell me to back off on my user page. If you wish to contact me about this matter please do so by email. My apologies for the inconvenience. --Fæ (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I voted to keep with conditions, and have not changed my opinion, I think that Fae's nomination above is a reasonable position for someone to take with substantial support from the community, and if none of the Deletes support the nomination I'll claim it for my own as a gesture of solidarity for a much-harassed and much-valued editor and admin. This AfD should be settled the normal way, by evaluating all opinions below. Wnt (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per m:DICK. Achowat (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless, inflammatory WP:ATTACK page against editors that might complain of homophobic abuse, based on the novel and outlandish premise that the word "homophobic" is a medical diagnosis. It is also extremely offensive that a non-gay identified person would proclaim an antigay slur ("queer") appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Shrigley (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "homophobia" was coined for psychological diagnosis by George Weinberg (psychologist), discussed in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual; please note he was a clinical psychologist (Source: EB). So yes, it is tied to medical diagnosis, as its primary use at the time. The essay explains that just because other websites might use the word carelessly, the term "homophobic" has been used for over 40 years in the field of psychology, so it can be easily seen as an attack on a person's mental state. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish this looks like trolling, see below. --Fæ (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, "trolling"? Please, WP:No personal attacks. -Wikid77 13:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

use of a single source to claim that "homophobe" is only a specific clinical term in the current world is complete and utter rubbish. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If one editor sought to criticize another because the first editor pointedly disliked spiders and the second editor was writing articles on spiders, it would be fair to summarize that dislike as representing an arachnophobic view. bd2412 T 17:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't. That's a dislike, not a phobia. The problem is that wikt:homophobia doesn't just mean a "phobia" of homosexuals, but also a dislike or discrimination towards them. Using "homophobia" in any reference to homosexuals is a clear case of mixing a greek prefix with a latin suffix that doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Taken purely as Latin, it should mean "irrational fear of mankind". It's clear that "homophobia" as an English word has very little to do with the Classical Languages those stems are from. Achowat (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To dislike all gay people solely for the sake of their being gay is really no different from disliking all tall people because of their tallness. There is no rational basis for blanket dislike of the group. That is what makes homophobia a phobia. bd2412 T 20:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing rational with moral. I would suppose that most if not anti-gay people have specific rational reasons for their behavior, e.g. fitting in with an anti-gay church, maintaining approval (perhaps tangible financial support) of anti-gay family members, maintaining eligibility in an anti-gay political party. If we trace this all the way back to Abraham (via Moses) we arrive at a description of an entirely rational covenant between a man and (some believe) his God to make his seed as numerous as the dust of the earth, otherwise regardless of what is just or compassionate, and that too has a certain clear rational basis. In truth it is the decision to show tolerance and compassion universally for all fellow men which is an irrational decision based on faith. Reason is a wonderful tool, but a terrible master. Wnt (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taking up an arbitrary discrimination in order to conform to the irrationality of one's peers is not a particularly rational basis for so doing. Granted, it might be rational for a World War II era German to act like an anti-semite to avoid persecution, or for a Jim Crow era white southerner to act like a racist to avoid ostracism, but those circumstances don't make it rational to actually harbor such beliefs. bd2412 T 23:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that a term which describes a kind of hate speech is a form of hate speech in and of itself is rather hostile and ought to be deleted. There's nought so queer as folk who wrote that essay. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Shrigley. Deepest shame upon the author. FormerIP (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, WP:No personal attacks. -Wikid77 06:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikid, I don't think that is covered by NPA, although I can't be bothered to write a half-assed WP essay explaining how I've come to that conclusion. Briefly, though: (1) people who are ashamed sometimes use the word "shame" about themselves; (2) there are several TV series which have the word "shame" in the title (I haven't actually Googled it, but there probably are - I know there's definitely a TV show called "Shane", in any event, which is close); (3) there was a 1980s synthesiser band called "Deepest Shame", so who's to say I wasn't just innocently wishing you the good fortune that they might come round to your house for a reuinion gig? FormerIP (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an essay - not an article. It makes no illegal, immoral, or fattening statements, and unless we wish to censor essays, there is no reason to delete it. In fact, calling people "homophobic" can be a "personal attack" barred by WP:NPA. Suppose we say "avoid the word 'racist'" and there were an argument "but the person is 'racist' in an editor's opinion" -- would the admins say "well that is alright then"? I posit that this is not what would happen. On policy grounds, no reasons have been given for deletion. And I ask whoever closes this to note that fact. Namecalling of any stripe at all is improper on Wikipedia per WP:NPA As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people and WP:CIVIL (Don't) Make personal remarks about editors. Which actions should be noted by any closer. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep possible Amen!!!! We shouldn't be deleting essays unless they're outright trolling or attacks, and this one is not. This essay advises editors to avoid personal attaks, which are forbidden by policy. If "homophobe" isn't a personal attack, then I don't know what is. ChromaNebula (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If using his own words in response to his own words is a personal attack against him then is not his essay an attack against someone? His essay advocates calling me queer for being bi-sexual and yet you scold me here for calling him queer for being odd. Do you see the double-standard? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 19:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - attacking an editor in an XfD is, indeed, still an attack. The !votes based thereon are not based on policy. Nor is it against policy to have a "useless essay." XfDs should primarily deal with policy issues, not with personal likes or dislikes of any sort. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, if this essay were left as an expression of even a minority consensus, then it would be hard for any administrator to block a disruptive user for repeatedly and offensively casually referring to any other contributors who are openly gay, or that they think might be gay, or that have ever been near a LGBT related article as queer (considering the context of the case the the creator of this article was so interested in, this is an entirely practical example). They would be free to do this on any Wikipedia page, including XfDs. Deliriousandlost has a perfectly valid response to illustrate how disruptive this disruptive essay is, which as above, could be deleted under the widely supported :meta essay of Don't be a dick. Behavioural guidelines that you may well find useful to consider carefully before launching a defence campaign, lest you need to construct a case against it to retain your position without drawing out similar opinions from the community. In the meantime, let it be clear, anyone that refers to me as queer without my advance permission will be taken to ANI as being blatantly disruptive and offensive regardless of what they might believe about my personal life or my voluntary work with Wikimedia; without exception I would find it disruptive, deliberately offensive and read it as entirely malicious in the same way as if someone were to shout faggot at me on the street. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - First - essays' have zero value for being the basis of any admin action. Period. Second, look at the editing history of the meta-essay you cite. Third, what the heck is a "minority consensus" at all? Fourth, a "minority consensus" (whatever it is) that an essay can exist on Wikipedia is not indicative of anything at all. Fifth, if we delete this essay, we should delete all essays which express what you term a "minority consensus." Sixth, if we establish that "wrong thought" is deletable, are we not precisely inflicting Orwellian logic on Wikipedia? Seventh, as I have had close gay and trans friends (including AIDS victims) in my life, you assertion of some sort of vague threat that this affects my position on Wikipedia I find grossly offensive. Along with your implicit claim that I have ever called any editor "Q...." or "f....." as I regard those words as very offensive when used as an attack at all. Cheers - can we deal with Wikipedia policy now? So far, I have seen no policy based reason for deletion of the essay. Collect (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first personal attack here was from you Collect in assuming malicious intent on my part and lecturing me based on your assumption. You might notice how for all of the objections raised by the author of the essay they didn't include my vote. "There's nought so queer as folk" is not some new phrase but is rather old. The more contemporary phrasing of the sentiment is "People Are Strange". It isn't an insult or an attack. It is a fairly popular song. That the author was informed enough to know of it was the one positive aspect of the essay. But in advocating queer as the term to use in place of gay lesbian bi-sexual transgendered and everything else the author went in the direction that many do find overtly offensive. Some like the term and others only appreciate it in its more archaic meaning. Some people don't know anything but the contemporary meaning of "queer" just as some don't know that a century ago "gay" had no sexual connotation at all but was a synonym for "good" and "happy". Writing an essay which argues that a term describing a type of discrimination is itself discriminatory is something many would consider odd or strange or excentric. The part of the essay i did quote was the only part i wasn't offended by because i was aware of it's context and origin though i wasn't fond of how it was used to build up to a point i did find offensive. Even the brief description of the television series skew rather negative with passing mention that it isn't all bad. I find the essay exists as a broad-based attack. That the author is now here replying with requests not to personally attack him is somewhat ironic. That the author is now declaring that calling someone queer in a sexual context is not a grave insult seems to be openly advocating in favour of the use of what many consider to be hate speech. It is highly divisive and is really something that belongs on the author's own website because Wikipedia is not a webhost and that essay has little (or maybe no) actual value in relation to Wikipedia. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Useless essay that is completely redundant to our WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies. If you are unaware that referring to someone or something as "homophobic" (given proper context, of course) is uncivil or a personal attack, then please crawl out of the rock that you have been living under. --MuZemike 19:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike, read some other responses here, and I think you will see others do not consider using the word "homophobic" as being uncivil, so saying, "please crawl out of the rock" is not helping to clarify the situation. -Wikid77 13:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Attempt to protect uncivil-ranging-to-PA behavior, based on incorrect (and known to the creator to be incorrect) information. Per other delete arguments, as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, WP:No personal attacks. -Wikid77 06:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was no more a personal attack than your essay was. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This "misguided" "essay" is out of line, lacking reality, and is against wp policies and guidelines which tell us to use common words used in reliable sources.TMCk (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Assuming good faith, as I am wont to do, I'm left with no option but to surmise that the essay's creator is appallingly misinformed about the topic he or she has chosen to write about. It is disturbing to find such drivel in project space, and the sooner it's axed the better. Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, WP:No personal attacks. -Wikid77 06:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made none. Please, no false accusations. Rivertorch (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "essay's creator is appallingly misinformed about the topic" and that is a personal attack. -Wikid77 13:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. What I wrote was an attempt to explain how you, in good faith, could write something so transparently specious and inappropriate and post it in project space. If you didn't want to be called out for creating an essay containing offensive nonsense, you should have kept it in user space until you'd done enough research to know what you were talking about. Various other editors on this page have failed to AGF; by suggesting that ignorance rather than anything more sinister was the problem, I actually defended you. Rivertorch (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been formally educated in human psychology for years, so the term "ignorance" is quite mistaken. If there is anything else you do not understand, then just ask, and I will try to explain. Thanks. -Wikid77 19:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this exemplifies the hypersensitivity we're feeling from those complaining about "personal attacks" here. We agree discuss the edit, not the editor, then someone says, "well this edit is rubbish", and someone regards it as a personal attack! Whatever we call it, we don't have to go along with an insulting atmosphere toward people of a given sexual orientation or any other such personal trait. That means, at times, complaining about the work people do. But, true, it goes semantically astray to say that the essay's creator is misinformed, rather than merely that the essay is wrong. Wnt (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the general thrust of what you're saying but wonder if you may be discounting context. Wikipedia has become something of a powder keg where the topic of homophobia is concerned, and this essay serves to inflame rather than defuse the tension. That, combined with the fact that it is based on a demonstrably false premise that routinely gets debunked at Talk:Homophobia and elsewhere, makes it not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense. It is theoretically possible, I suppose, to turn a blind eye to the fact that the essay didn't spring forth spontaneously from the primordial wiki-ooze—to studiously ignore the inconvenient truth that it has a creator who exercised poor judgment in presenting it for public display—but to do so is to tiptoe around the elephant in the room. This isn't article space, where encyclopedic content can be evaluated based solely on its merits and where the contributions of editors who are ignorant or have malicious motives are perfectly acceptable as long as they meet policy; it's project space, where editors use essays as a very deliberate means of persuading other editors to engage in (or refrain from engaging in) certain on-wiki behaviors. When an editor chooses to offer up claptrap like this for his or her fellow Wikipedians' consideration, it is unreasonable to expect that the inevitable ensuing outcry will neatly exclude considerations of his or her motivations and competence. All we can reasonably do is to remain unfailingly civil and try to assume good faith. Rivertorch (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand (from author). It is obvious that the essay did not contain enough background text and sources to clarify that the term "homophobia" was coined as a psychological diagnosis by an experienced clinical psychologist, George Weinberg (psychologist), discussed in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual.[1] I get the impression that people think that "homophobic" can be used to argue against anyone, and ignore its meaning for 40 years, of a medical diagnosis, as if describing people's actions as "neurotic" or "psychotic" had no bearing on their mental health. When I wrote the essay, I did not emphasize that the term had been specially developed by a medical professional (clinical psychologist George Weinberg), rather than perhaps, by a college professor of linguistics trying to label remarks, rather than diagnose a person's mental state. As noted above, there is no policy-basis for deletion, but the essay could be modified to better explain the issues, for all of us. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are other terms which should also be better explained in the essay. For example, the term "queer icon" has been used to describe many famous people (see: Google search, or Bing search), with no insult intended. For admins with little knowledge of all the related terms, then the essay could better explain the issues. Perhaps many people do not realize that, in the United States, the term "homo" has been considered a very derogatory, insulting term for many years, and not merely a short form of "homosexual", whereas the term "queer" has become more acceptable; the phrase "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is even considered humorous. There is also "Triskelion" self-indentified as the "GLBT/Queer Alliance at Brandeis University" (a nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored institution). As indicated by the disputes above, the various terms are unclear for use in talk-pages, so an essay is an appropriate start to warn of confusion about the words, and clarifies the meanings, in writing, rather than people claiming, " 'Queer' is a grave insult" (not true). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:49/06:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange that you are repeatedly saying above that so many people are attacking you, that must be awful for you. You may not be able to understand that you are the one blatantly defaming gay people. I have no interest in living in the 1970s or letting Wikipedia policies be formed from rehashed outmoded arguments based on misinterpretation. I have no intention of going back to the attitudes of the 1970s and I find it odd that you don't realize that society has moved on massively in 40 years and apparently left you behind (take a look at the later events of Stonewall riots or Harvey Milk, you might have missed them), your offensive argument depends on assuming that homophobia has a clinical basis; it does not. It was the same sort of highly offensive bad science that enabled murders of gay men to get off from imprisonment using the Portsmouth defence. For context, you may want to ponder that in the 1970s it was acceptable for white people to black up and get paid for their funny dancing on TV pretending to be Negroes, we even have an article for it, that does not mean we support doing it again. To be clear, if you follow your deliberately disruptive essay and start calling me or anyone else a queer without their permission to do so, I'll take you to ANI as making blatant homophobic personal attacks. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apologies to the author. I do believe they wrote this in good faith, but I think this essay is based on misinformation and is (unintentionally) a little offensive, per all the arguments above. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 08:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly in agreement with Shrigley. The last thing we need here is an essay that (by design or otherwise) enables or facilitates bigotry towards other editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the essay does the opposite, by advising people to reduce personal attacks by not claiming the actions or mindset of other users as being "homophobic" which is a term in psychology, see 2003 paper "Intolerance and Psychopathology: Toward a General Diagnosis for Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia" in American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Volume 73, Issue 2, pages 167–176, April 2003 (link, March 2010). -Wikid77 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:POINTy and divisive rubbish that does not deserve the light of day anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone in project space. Super Mario Man 11:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ugh. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP: IDONTLIKEIT ChromaNebula (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is trying to force "equality" through the means of prejudice. Not for Wikipedia doktorb _words^deeds 13:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's an essay, not an article. Second, you just don't like it. ChromaNebula (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment First, please forgive me if I've lost touch with what is politically acceptable in today's atmosphere as far as terminology. My thoughts are this, I AGF that the author means no disrespect to anyone. I think it's wrong to view any editor (aka a person) with any thought to whether or not they have a LBGT lifestyle or not. It's their choice, and it's not up to us mere mortals to judge each other in that respect. (I won't drift in to any religious thoughts on "judgement" as this is not the time or place for that - and a person's views on that should be their own private thoughts) However, It's equally unacceptable to make a judgement of someone who is straight. Just because someone doesn't embrace a ~~gay lifestyle~~ doesn't make them wrong or bad either. Live and let live. Address the content, and NOT the editor. Thanks for your time. — Ched : ? 13:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what your comment relates to. Nobody has been making judgements here or in the essay about straight people. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OTOH, Ched, you say you've lost touch with what is "politically acceptable," viz. common courtesy, so I'm sure you'll be happy to know that "gay lifestyle" etc. is quite offensive. I say you'll be happy to know this because now that you know it, you can refrain from using it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies to anyone who was or could have been offended - I've struck the comment. And thank-you for letting me know. I honestly didn't mean any offense. — Ched : ? 22:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not helpful. Constant attempts are made to insert this sort of tendentious tripe into the article homophobia. William Avery (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under conditions. There really is something screwy with words like "homophobe" and "Islamophobe", which misrepresent hatred as fear, politics as psychiatry. You notice that Jewish people never let themselves get suckered into calling people "Semitophobic". (only 65 google hits!) It is worth having some essay to explore the topic, more regarding how we characterize BLPs in articles than for our own interpersonal relations. Some good could come out of the discussion on this topic. However:

The redirect should be lost; it is too prone to be used to say an editor "is a WP:HOMO", and pretty far from the topic of the essay.

OK, I have removed "WP:HOMO" as a redirect. -Wikid77 19:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An essay in mainspace should be the property of all editors, and while it should not suppress minority opinions, it should definitely contrast them with widely expressed views as people have given above.
Specifically, encouraging editors to call people "queer" routinely, while it has certain merits, cannot be sustained given the use of the term in derogatory contexts, as too many editors will find it to be harassing. For BLPs we should stick closely to the language of responsible sources.
The editor should have a nutshell summary with more concrete advice, e.g. that use of the term "anti-gay" is preferred over "homophobic".

Wnt (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wnt, there are several other terms, without the close connections to psychopathology, such as "anti-LGBT" or "anti-gay". If psychology journals had, long ago, replaced the term "homophobia" with some other medical term, then there would be less obvious insult to a person's mindset. However, psychologists still use the term "homophobia" and thus it should be avoided where possible. -Wikid77 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to hear that the medics have multiple specific names for different aspects of Homophobia. But the common term amongst layfolk remains Homophobia. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amend, rename and make policy I've started a radical rewrite. I think that after various recent events we probably do need to review and reaffirm our intolerance of Homophobia, though this essay probably doesn't have the best title for it, I'm not convinced that we should use the term "ant-gay" as for better or worse Homophobia is the normal term for this sort of bigotry, just as Anti-Semitism is the normal term for prejudice against Jews. How about WP:Homophobia as a better name for this essay?Ϣere SpielChequers 17:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm in sympathy with your comments, I wonder if you've actually understood the point of Wikid77's essay. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Nomoskedasticity, the point of my original version was to state correct information, based on reliable sources, and not to shame people against using the term "queer" with queer-indentified groups (search Google/Bing for "Queer alliance" or "Queer community" for thousands of webpages). -Wikid77 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did say I've started a radical rewrite of it. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:BLANKING. -Wikid77 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Did you?TMCk (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try that tactic in an AfD sometime. "Keep. The article is no longer about an amateur tennis player from Luton. I have radically rewritten it and it is now about Mount Kilimanjaro." FormerIP (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well not that radical, more along the lines of "Keep. The article is no longer just about an amateur tennis player from Luton. I have radically rewritten it and it now includes her being the first to ascend Mount Kilimanjaro on elephant back." Ϣere SpielChequers 20:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about "the first pair to reach both peaks of Kilimanjaro, building a bridge connecting the two peaks"? --MuZemike 23:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so we're changing the name of an article because one editor doesn't understand the language is pliable and "homophobia" means something to most people unrelated to medical science? Sets a dangerous precedent, no? Achowat (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amend per WereSpielChequers on condition that it is improved and not seen as a "little offensive". I was unfairly accused of this recently simply because I thought an article on a gay pornographic film was inappropriate for front page viewing. I think it is most certainly a personal attack and quite a serious one being accused of being a bigot. Obviously certain comments which might cause somebody to call another editor it are equally advisable to stay away from. A lot of people are wrongly accused of homophobia on wikipedia and I see that as a breach of WP:Civil in such cases. I think though such an essay should equally advise editors not to mention anything LGBT related in a negative light which make cause somebody to use that term..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to do with an essay that is daft and offensive (per consensus) is not to keep it on the grounds that it might potentially be completely rewritten and page-moved to become a completely different essay. The answer is just to delete it. If you or WSC want to write an alternative essay, there's nothing to stop you. FormerIP (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite synmpathetic to the idea that an alterantive essay should be written. Such an alternative essay will be so strongly influenced by this one and so our WP:Copyrights require attribution. Ideally, this essay should remain available, such as in the history, but at a minimum, the authors should be cited as contributing authors to a new alternative essay, if this one is deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Designed solely to stir up drama and make a WP:POINT. Yes, dealing with personal attacks that have bigoted components is not simple, and Wikipedia disputes are not always simple good guy vs. bad guy arguments. Yes, people can be oversensitive and see far too much through the lens of oppression, and indeed, that causes problems when there actually is homophobia or racism or whatnot. But... this essay doesn't do anything useful to help on that front. The point of essays is they give a useful summation of a point of view, such that it can be pointed to. The problem with this essay is that it will be used as a weapon against an often marginalised group: the next time someone complains (perhaps legitimately) about homophobic abuse, they'll just get "WP:HOMO! ~~~~" thrown back at them. Which is about as helpful or civil as someone complaining about antisemitism and getting "WP:YID! ~~~~" back, or someone complaining about sexism and getting "WP:BITCHES! ~~~~" back. Such responses are inevitable given this essay, are unwelcoming and help create a negative atmosphere incompatible with the civility component of the five pillars. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that discussions of the origin and etymology of the word "homophobia" are completely irrelevant here. The fact is, whether you consider it a good word or not, or a historically legitimate use of the suffix –phobia, or an example of the Evil Gay Agenda attempting to straw man dislike of homosexuality as fear of homosexuality, none of that matters. Wikipedia is not a debating society for linguistics. We deal with the real world of words as they are actually used in reality, not an idealised magic-land where words mean what we really wish they meant. It's a clumsy term, but language is inherently clumsy and organic. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is super pointy and is a borderline attack. It almost boggles the mind that people have actually said this needs to be made into policy so that those awful gays and their supporters can be reined in. To single out a group like this is unbelievably unfair. What about writing an essay about avoiding the word racist? What about Islamophobic? Singling out a group like this is unacceptable, and the calls to make this policy worse. AniMate 15:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essay was entirely rewritten before your comment. AniMate, the essay had been more balanced when originally written, and explained use of the terms "homo" and "queer" (+sources), but other editors rewrote it in WP:POINTy terms, removing sources, to call some people "Homophobe" rather than less disruptive language, then trimmed the text to command a policy degree, and removed the text which explained the historical background associated with various terms. -Wikid77 19:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Userspace. If it's not acceptable in project-space, it's certainly an acceptable opinion to express in user-space. Buddy431 (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, then delete Not helpful; goal is to build encyclopaedia. Entire essay could be summarized in 1 or 2 sentences, and generalized to include all the similar phobias, but that probably still wouldn't be helpful. Von Restorff (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a project-related essay. It touches significant raw nerves, and I don't see why these problems shouldn't be worked through openly. Motivations behind the intial writing I don't see as relevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on drastic rewrite 7 April 2012[edit]

The essay was entirely rewritten by other editors circa 20:00, 7 April 2012, before the comments posted by other editors, from 8 April 2012. I realize such a rewrite by them was disruptive, but I wanted other editors to try improving the text if possible. The essay had been more balanced when originally written, and explained use of the terms "homo" and "queer" (+sources), but other editors rewrote it in WP:POINTy terms, removing sources, to call some people "Homophobe" rather than less disruptive language, then trimmed the text to command a policy degree, and removed the text which explained the historical background associated with various terms. -Wikid77 19:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is unchanged. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise; an essay with this title is divisive and is worse than useless. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a policy about how it's wrong to call people names; in fact, we probably have two or three. No need to have an entire essay devoted to one interpretation of one emotionally charged word. Redirect to WP:No Personal Attacks. On second though, delete outright. Achowat (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly well-intentioned, but this is at best confused and at worst pointy and offensive. The rewrite is an improvement, but ultimately futile; you can't polish a turd. pablo 13:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote remains delete. The rewrite retains some of the false premises that marred the original essay, and there's no point in trying to fix it since the purpose of the essay is confused, at best, if not hopelessly divisive. I was going to say something about silk purses and sows' ears, but Pablo's wording does the trick. Rivertorch (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou - I have sometimes considered writing an essay with that as a title! pablo 22:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No change to original vote - DELETE I am unconvinced by this article, its re-write, and especially its title. What is the intent of this article? To defeat prejudice or to underline differences? To exploit minority interest groups? To sustain divisions within the project, or to promote diversity? This article has been a mess from its very beginning and on that basis, it is better to delete than retain. doktorb _words^deeds 19:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete. The key is what Nomoskedasticity says above. If it were a useless essay, that would be OK, but it's worse than that. Followoing the rewrite, it's not as bad as it was. But the basic purpose of the essay, even though it poses to the contrary, is still to provide cover for personal attacks in the form of a table-turning manoeuvre, which is a negative and unacceptable use of WP space. Formerip (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A nice effort, but still not really an acceptable essay. Perhaps an essay that generally discusses such labels would be acceptable (homophobic, racist, misogynistic, etc), but I see no need to single out the LGBT community for a finger wagging. AniMate 23:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion unchanged - Delete. There are so many terms that one or more strata of Wikipedia users would or could find offensive if applied either to them or their edits. I believe that the scope of this essay is far too narrow for it to fulfil any meaningful purpose. WP:NPA stands perfectly well on its own. Super Mario Man 00:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]