Category talk:Homophobia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

object to category name

I object to this category name as presently applied. "Phobia" suggests a clinical diagnosis. Whereas, editors are applying to anyone publicly opposed to gay-rights. Yes, the Homophobia article makes note that this term covers more than just a clinical diagnosis, but that doesn't mean it isn't derogatory (ie, neutral).

I have no objection to adding biographical articles to a category that indicating opposition to gay-rights. In fact, a simple re-naming of this category should suffice. I just don't think this particular label is appropriately neutral. As to exactly what this new name should be, I'm open to suggestions. Rklawton 21:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. As you said, the article itself makes it clear what homophobia is and the people listed in it (which isn't that many) are notorious homophobes and widely publicised examples of the term itself.MassassiUK 03:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the "Homophobe" category was soundly deleted as inherently POV. Using the "Homophobia" category for the same purpose as the "Homophobe" category (that is, to categorize biographical articles), would not be acceptable as this idea has already been reviewed an rejected. Rklawton 19:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Even though the "Homophobe" category's deletion was on the grounds that it is (rightly) derogatory toward individuals, that in no way constitutes a rejection of the idea of homophobia in itself. The fact that some people experience, for whatever reason, a visceral aversion to gay people is well documented. That homophobia is disputed by those who exhibit homophobic tendencies does nothing to disprove its existence. So, while the categorization of a living person as a "homophobe" may not be acceptable, there is a clear interest in the concept of homophobia in general--especially, it seems, among those who might in earlier days have been labeled "homophobes." Rangergordon (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people need to pick up a dictionary sometime. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary categorises "homophobia" as "fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". The American Hertitage Dictionary defines it as "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men". The Princeton University Wordnet Dictionary defines it as "prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality". Do I need to go on? Of course, many people will disagree with these definition...and you will find that they are usually the homophobes themselves. Wiki's "Homophobia" category clearly specifies that the "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." 79.66.65.230 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for use

What exactly then are guidelines for use? That is, how do we avoid WP:OR? As with religion, must the biographical subject at some point state clearly "I am a practicing..."? Is it OK if a reliable source simply states, "This person is a..."? Or is it merely enough for an individual to publicly oppose some element of the gay rights movement for us to apply this category? Rklawton 13:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the Homophobes CFD, it would appear that using this category to tag biographical aricles would not be appropriate. Thoughts anyone? Rklawton 03:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate to use the category on articles that involve a highly prominent, well documented example where the subject has exhibited homophobic tendencies and beliefs (Fred Phelps, for example, is the epitome of homophobia). I would not use the category merely to describe every right-wing (and in some cases left-wing) politician or public figure who simply does not support gay rights, though examples where public figures have actively campaigned and made a well publicised effort to prevent gay rights and/or made highly homophobic public comments should be included. Anita Bryant's campaign in the 1970s would be another prime example as she actively campaigned against gay equality and even went as far as to say that gay people "recruited" children, which shows an irrational fear of gay people. It has to be something more concrete than just a lack of support or indifference towards gay rights.MassassiUK 03:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of that - "appropriate use of the category is on articles that involve a highly prominent, well documented example where the subject has exhibited homophobic tendencies and beliefs and public figures that have actively campaigned and made a well publicised effort to prevent gay rights" sounds like a great definition. I would add that homophobia should be central to the article (person, event, issue, etc). -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I suggest we delete this category. Putting this category against Christian groups is far from neutral. Please can people comment. Eiler7 21:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If a Christan group is involved in the subject of Homophobia, it should be stated. Religious groups do not get immunity from being labeled a neutral term. This category has been brought to CfD three times and consensus was to keep it all three times with no stated exception for religious groups. Go ahead and list it at WP:CfD if you want more comments. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 21:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed the previous "debates", it seems clear to me that CFD is becoming a bit of a vote. I think the best argument should win, not the side with the most signatures. Eiler7 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The deletion process is NOT a vote. When an overwhelming majority just happens to also present an argument that's consistent with policy, then it might look like a vote, but the accusations you've just made are pretty unfounded. If you want this category deleted and you refuse to go through the proper channels, then you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and forum-shopping. These are against policy, and cause undue argumentation and dispute. --Cheeser1 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep. This article was proposed for deletion less than a month ago, and was also proposed for a rename (which also failed). You can't just nominate this thing for deletion every few weeks because you don't like it. Homophobia is a well-documented phenomenon, not just in the media, but in published academic works. "Neutrality" aside, the existence of homophobia is verifiable, and certain groups/individuals/things being homophobic is just as verifiable. --Cheeser1 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus can change. You say "I can't just nominate this thing". I would like to know the minimum time before a renomination would be appropriate. But, before I do a formal renomination, I would like to build consensus on this discussion page or at least understand the arguments for retention. Some of the arguments on the previous debates have been poor - like "keep it because we also have a racist category". Wikipedia is not bound to follow certain published academic works especially when "some believe any usage of homophobia is controversial" - this is not me, this text is from Homophobia. Eiler7 23:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no set time limit, but whenever you decide to, consensus will likely not change. The previous CfDs were strong keeps, as the few users who wanted the category removed had very weak arguments and CfD is certainly not based on a vote system. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you don't want to listen to the consensus that was JUST established, but that doesn't make it any less the case. You can't demand that a new CfD happen whenever you get upset about a category that you don't like. CfDs (and other_fDs) are not supposed to occur over and over in short periods of time. It's a waste of our time and energy. Overwhelming consensus was that the category stay, and not even be renamed, just a few weeks ago. I'm sorry that you really don't like it, but that's not enough to get it deleted, and it's not enough to waste our time re-nominating something so soon for deletion. --Cheeser1 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You say "the users who wanted the category removed had very weak arguments". I would like to put forward an argument not addressed by any discussion page I know of.

As it stands, the Homophobia category covers a number of options, the first being "irrational fear of homosexuality". I think there are Christians who do not believe they have such a fear. They think they have a faith-based concern for the effect of homosexuals on society. It is not for wikipedia to take a side on this issue. In fact, NPOV requires that wikipedia not take sides.

This category can be added to articles about organisations. When this happens, the reader will look at an article and decide that it is being suggested by wikipedia editors that individuals in the organisation are being irrational.

This is a standard neutrality issue, resulting in wikipedia seeming to take sides.

The standard solution is to rephrase avoiding non-neutral statements and attribute opinions to people. This is what was done for the Abortion page with great success. This category does not attribute opinions to people and so it must go.

My solution is to simply delete the category. Eiler7 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This category does not cover a “number of options,” it only covers two. It does not state the article has to have "irrational fear of homosexuality" because it could refer to discrimination. You claim "it is being suggested by wikipedia editors that individuals in the organisation are being irrational'"; however, this is completely untrue. The category merely states the organization is involved in the subject of homophobia. For example, European Fundamental Rights Agency is classified under this category but the category does not suggest the European Fundamental Rights Agency is "irrational. " Also, Wikipedia is not "taking sides" by stating an organization in involved in the subject of homophobia. You claim that homophobia is "non-neutral," but your wrong; homophobia is a neutral word that may be viewed as negative by some people, while other people may not view it as something negative, like many other categories. Your arguement is very weak and will not result in a deletion of this category after you nomiate it for CfD.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you don't realize that if an "accusatory category" or whatever is reliably sourced, then it's verifiable. Since nobody seems to want to cite anything but the dictionary, let's cite a paper on the term homophobia: It is now used to encompass phenomena ranging from the private thoughts and feelings of individuals to the policies and actions of governments, corporations, and organized religion. This is Gregory Herek, Beyond "homophobia": Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1(2), 6-24. That's a PhD in psychology publishing in a peer-reviewed academic journal. He discusses, in depth, the history and application of the term homophobia to (among other things) the Christian right. Now, could we argue all day about whether or not it's "right" or "fair" to call them homophobic? Sure. But that does not change the fact that use of this term is verifiable, and is applied to people, groups, and organizations. Are you suggesting that we do away with Category:Racism too? Or Category:Sexism? In short: cherry-picking the dictionary is not a valid reason for deletion, nor is the fact that this term is "bad" or an "accusation." --Cheeser1 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, applying this term to individuals (at the very least) is inherently POV and the reason why the "Homophobe" category was deleted. As a result, this category should not be used as a substitute for that category and applied to individuals per CfD concensus. Rklawton 03:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not applying it to individuals though - we're applying it to organisations. In this case, the American Family Association, whose published goals are clearly homophobic (opposing the "homosexual agenda", loudly promoting ex-gay theory, etc). Orpheus 04:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please take the time to read this whole talk page? It says right above when/how this category is applied. --Cheeser1 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it is applied to organizations, naturally, it will apply to members of that organization. Yes, we should get rid of Racism too if it is POV. Homophobia is a negative term in common usage. Wikipedia should move away from such terms and towards objective terms such as "Opposes the gay agenda". Here is a quote "The Game's comments were very offensive, completely unacceptable and clearly homophobic." which demonstrates that homophobic is commonly used as condemnatory. This is from the BBC [1]. Eiler7 11:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I’m beginning to change my mind on using the homophobia category for concepts also. I did think that it could focus on concepts, but how many concepts under the umbrella of homophobia? It seems to me that homophobia shouldn’t be a category at all. According to the article, it’s defined as a non-scientific term [2]. It seems to me that a homophobia list could possibly be more appropriate.

And here is at least one interesting view that says the term itself is controversial. “It is also concluded that the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality.” (William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, "Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues," Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2005)) Hal Cross 12:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Eiler. Regarding your statement above "Well, if it is applied to organizations, naturally, it will apply to members of that organization", this is where I agree with your statement: The large number of organizations and religious groups that have been accused of homophobia, e.g. [3][4][5][6], makes the category condemnatory of those groups. It also condemns the member individuals in the group, that will certainly include ex-gays, who choose to follow scripture and become celibate, or adopt a heterosexual lifestyle including having children. It also includes those who embrace homosexuals and help them follow their choice to follow scripture. It makes the label of homophobia unreasonable and most definitely condemnatory. Hal Cross 05:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting new reading of living persons policy. However, there's no precedent for such a conclusion, as far as I've ever seen. Nowhere does it say "BLP policy applies to anything related to, associated with, or containing any living persons" -- it only applies to biographies of living persons. --Cheeser1 22:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it's even POV to apply it to individuals sometimes - would you say that applying the category to Fred Phelps is controversial? ELIMINATORJR 11:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we've been over this repeatedly, very recently. If you want to nominate this for deletion, do it. It will just be speedily kept because we've been over this ground several times before, only weeks ago. Homophobia is a well documented, reliably sourced, verifiable social phenomenon. Certain groups, people, institutions, etc are associated with homophobia. That's the point of a category. It's not an accusation, it's not a statement "The subject of this article is homophobic." It means "The subject of this article is associated with homophobia." --Cheeser1 05:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're gonna do it, then do it. Interesting topic about this. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice one EVula:) Hal Cross 07:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1. We are trying to solve a big problem here. Its not just a matter of nominating. There are sources and reasons to consider. This discussion page is useful for such matters.Hal Cross 07:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)PS. Actually a lot of this discussion relates to solving problems with the category if it remains. For example, the category should not be defined in a way that makes assignment to the category subjective. The current dictionary definition, for example is subjective. Thats a big problem. Whether it is fixable or not is another matter. Hal Cross 10:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and if you'd read the existing talk on this page, you'd know that this has already been covered. If you want to "propose deletion" and not really propose deletion, I'm going to do it for you. --Cheeser1 14:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

He's talking about defining the category. If you can point us to a policy that says something like "once a subject has been discussed by a few editors, no one else gets to talk about it later on" - then please share it with us. In the mean time, it's worth noting that no concenses was achieved in the section where this has "already been covered" - so clearly this matter isn't closed for discussion. Rklawton 14:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of trying to never let anyone talk about anything. XfDs are often summarily closed when they are put up repeatedly for teh same reasons. And yes, no consensus was achieved here, because outside editors have not been brought into the discussion. It's been the same three people talking this whole time. I created an RfC to attract outside attention, but when Neon White and others came in, it still didn't make consensus, because the only process we're supposed to use to propose deletion is CfD. --Cheeser1 14:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Its ok Cheeser1. I'm here now. What are you interested in discussing? Hal Cross 14:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what does this comment mean? --Cheeser1 14:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't want to discuss the bits that have been discussed already. So what about the rest? Hal Cross 15:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "bits" or what "rest" you're talking about. If you have a point to make that you haven't made, make it. I've ready what you have said previously, and responded to whatever I saw that requires a response. --Cheeser1 15:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you know whats been said, so its easier for you to say something new. Don't worry though, I'll probably think of something. Hal Cross 16:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, don't rush it. You don't have to comment on this article every 20 minutes. You can also, you know, participate in the actual consensus-building process over at the CfD that you are responsible for creating. --Cheeser1 18:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks closed to me. Hal Cross 02:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"We are trying to solve a big problem here. Actually a lot of this discussion relates to solving problems with the category if it remains. For example, the category should not be defined in a way that makes assignment to the category subjective. The current dictionary definition, for example is subjective. Thats a big problem. Whether it is fixable or not is another matter."

I agree with this assessement. Categories should have some form of verifiable criteria that binds all the components together, rather then being a catch all garbage bag for unrelated items. Currently Homophobia as it stands does not meet the criteria. I don't believe Cheeser is motivated by anything other then good faith, and I think so long as the category is subjective, these nominations will continue to crop up. This is why I believe the category should be deleted, as these issues will be resolved if the category is deleted in it's entirety. I would like to see a counterargument, as to why it would have a negative effect if we were to get rid of this problematic and very troubled category so we can move on to more constructive editing. Benkenobi18 21:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For counterarguments, please read the previous CfD debates.DuncanHill 21:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read them. I have not been able to find a counterargument to the idea that the category is non-neutral. Not all academics agree that the term should be applied and so to single out those academics who do agree is not consistent with NPOV. Please can you state the counterargument you see. Eiler7 21:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eiler7, you are once again engaging in pointy behaviour. If you have cogent rational reasons for the deletion of the category, state them at a CfD. Deletion has been proposed on several occassions, a clear consensus to keep has emerged. Please stop deliberately disrupting Wikipedia. DuncanHill 22:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Duncan. You cannot simply ignore consensus or policy because you don't like it. "Not all academics agree that the term should be applied" is a pretty wishy-washy claim. Not all academics agree about accepting the Axiom of choice - that doesn't mean we don't talk about it. Your argument doesn't seem to stem from any policy, and isn't entirely sensible anyway. --Cheeser1 23:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate use

Now that the CfD silliness has ended, let's get on with discussing the appropriate application of this category. In two previous CfD's that both resulted in the deletion of Category:Homophobes, we have consensus that applying a category very much like this one to individuals is inherently POV. As much as I dislike Fred Phelps and his organization, I think applying this term to a person pursuing his or her religious beliefs is pejorative.

As far as groups go, where do we draw the line? Should we apply this term to the U.S. military and its various branches who all operate under an official "don't ask, don't tell" policy? An organization that fires people for engaging in homosexual activity might be considered homophobic, yes? Of course, most U.S. public schools and major religions would also fall into this category by virtue of terminating employment, barring from sacraments, etc homosexual individuals (the very definition of discrimination and the basis for this category). Anyone care to add this category to the Islam article?

So, with the CfD behind us, let us know resume discussing how and where to best apply this category. Rklawton 22:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to anything and everything related to living persons. It applies to comments written directly about living persons. There was already a consensus established for the use of this category. It is explained both on this talk page (see "Guidelines for use" above) and on the main page. his category is for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of 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. --Cheeser1 22:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Following that logic through, we could create a category Evil and define it as "individuals frequently regarded as evil". Then Hitler could go in that category. That seems as POV as just saying "Hitler was evil", a formulation specifically ruled out by a policy page. Eiler7 22:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the most inapplicable analogy I've ever seen. Evil is inherently bad, and is an adjective no less. Homophobia is a noun, a well-documented social phenomenon with academic verifiability. The AFA and other groups/individuals can be verifiably associated with homophobia, through reliable sources. There is no accusation, judgement, or POV operating here. --Cheeser1 23:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hitler was full of evil". It can be a noun. It is also verifiable in academic sources that homophobia "as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions" (Williams and Caselles 2005). Its pejorative. Placing subjects such as the AFA in the category will be like Wikipedia is condemning the AFA. The category is inappropriate for religiously oriented groups who believe heterosexual lifestyle is a choice that we are all free to make. Hal Cross 09:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It can be pejorative and it always is pejorative are two different things. This is an encyclopedia. We talk about homophobia. We have an article on it. Many people/groups/events are associated with homophobia. Categorizing them does not imply any sort of accusation or endorsement unless you decided to take it as an accusation. The fact that you've conveniently decided to take it the wrong way is a clear result of what you'd like to do to the article: you've been campaigning for weeks to make this article more like the AFA's opinion of itself (you've admitted it, no less). This is nonsensical. --Cheeser1 23:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A category, when applied to a biographical article, becomes "about that person." Therefore, it's a BLP issue. This discussion is about changing the description on the main page. And no, there is not now, nor has there ever been consensus on this talk page that this category could be or should be applied to people. I should know. I opened the topic at the top of this talk page, and nowhere on this page do the various parties come together and agree that this category is appropriate for biographical articles. If you would like to make a stab at it here, then this is the place. I also addressed several other points at the top of this thread and invite you and everyone to comment on them as well. Rklawton 22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Eiler7, evil means "morally bad or wrong," so it is basically an opinion. Homophobia is not an opinion. Horrible example. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 23:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That a group should be said to be involved in homophobia is a conclusion and an opinion. Not all academics agree that the term should be applied. To just decide that one academic opinion "wins" is a violation of NPOV which says that all significant views should be represented. 23:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiler7 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it's a "conclusion" and an "opinion" that is both verifiable and reliably sourced. I think you're missing the point about how we decide to include content on Wikipedia. Views like "The AFA are not homophobic because they love gays and turn them to Jesus instead of sin" give undue weight to the views of the AFA itself, which is not a reliable source and has a clearly non-objective (and non-authoritative) stance on its own article. --Cheeser1 00:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see - A category, when applied to a biographical article, first of all, that means your objection about applications to organizations is irrelevant. Now, to say "Hilter is associated associated with antisemitism" - is that a stretch to you? Is that really unverifiable, not reliably sourced, or non-NPOV? Absolutely not. That's why he's in the category "antisemitism." There's nothing wrong with this category existing, nor is there any problem with it being used to tag groups/individuals who are particularly noted for an association with homophobia. --Cheeser1 23:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My objection about organizations is a separate issue - one that should also be addressed. By the way, if you have any question about what I mean in my edits, I would prefer you just ask. Now, let us see if we can agree on the definition of "homophobia". I suggest we use Wiktionary's 3rd definition: Antipathy towards homosexuals. The first two definitios, by the way, are archaic and obsolete. For the purposes of this category, then, it would make sense to say that this category should be used in articles "about or pertaining to antipathy towards homosexuals". Does that sound reasonable to everyone? Rklawton 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The way the category reads now, many LGBT activist organizations would be tagged with this category because they are "involved in the subject of homophobia" - in their cases: attempting to combat homophobia at work, religious organizations, and schools. Rklawton 00:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with that? Organizations who's focus (or major defining characteristic) is dealing with homophobia (for or against) should be considered for this category. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If you think an organization's primary or notable purpose/goal is to oppose homophobia, you know what you do? Add the category. --Cheeser1 00:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's very appropriate for activist organisations to be in this category, if combatting homophobia is their primary objective (as opposed to, say, sexual health). Otherwise it does become an attack category, which isn't really appropriate. Orpheus 00:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

American Family Association has been tagged with this category, but antipathy towards homosexuals doesn't appear to be their purpose (unlike Phelps). According to its article, "[t]he AFA defines itself as 'a Christian organization promoting the biblical ethic of decency in American society with primary emphasis on TV and other media'". LGBT rights issues plays into this, but only tangentially and as part of a much bigger fight against "indecency" in the media. I.e., they also oppose depicting immoral heterosexual behavior on TV as well. Rklawton 00:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How "the AFA defines itself" is not how we construct a reliably-sourced encyclopedia. --Cheeser1 00:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I've added this category to the article Say Amen for illustration purposes. The article is about a documentary dealing with this topic and includes Homophobia in its "See also" list. My concern here is that most (or all?) organizations in this category oppose LGBT rights, thereby giving the appearance that the operating definition for this category differs from its stated definition. Rklawton 00:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Then add some that work against homophobia, or are otherwise associated with the phenomenon. None of this motivates deleting/changing the category. --Cheeser1 00:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Like many Christian groups, the AFA are reaching out to homosexuals, and offering services to help those of them who choose to accept scripture and follow a celibate or heterosexual lifestyle. So the category is inappropriate. The AFA is full of homosexuals or ex-gays. Saying they are homophobic is illogical, and Wikipedia siding with the critics and condemning the AFA when they seek to help homosexuals is inappropriate.

The AFA is labeled by critics in a debate as homophobic. But its a controversy. As the categorization recommendations state, if it is controversial, then its inappropriate for the category. The label will be controversial and inappropriate with all such religious groups, such as Catholic church, Islam, and so on who are all labeled by critics as homophobic in controversies. Hal Cross 02:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC). P.s. The category should be used extremely carefully, and only with concepts. People and religious organizations can be in the conceptual articles, where all sides of the controversy can be covered. Categories cannot be annotated so they should not be used to circumvent NPOV policy. Hal Cross 02:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is there even a debate over if the AFA has "antipathy" towards homosexuals to be considered for inclusion in the category? Wiktionary is obviously not a reliable source. M&W's definition or othermainstream dictionaries should be used. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, stating the AFA is involved in the subject of homophobia is not "illogical". There has been no evidence to back up the AFA being considered homophobia is controversial and even if it was, WP:CAT is a guideline, which is merely a recommendation. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 02:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is evident in the existing sources. Hal Cross 02:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the controversy can be contained in the body of the article itself. If one side of the controversy (eg, X is homophobic) is used to apply the category, then the category is condemnatory. The other side of the controversy is not shown there. So it circumvents NPOV policy in that it is a one-sided condemnation. Hal Cross 02:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC). P.S. The controversy is already evident in the existing sources. This will most likely be the case in many articles about religious groups who's beliefs urge them to help homosexuals. Hal Cross 02:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are we trying to equate "critical of homosexuality" as "homophobia"? Doing that is introducing POV though the use of categories. Labeling a group such as AFA as "homophobic" is making the assumption that they are not acting rationally... or that, their motivation is hate/fear/etc. I don't know much about the AFA, but I suspect that it would be difficult to find reliable sources that show that their motivation is hate/fear/etc. I think the category will only rarely be used - as it should be.

I see two types of articles being the bulk of this article - Groups that combat what they consiter to be systemic anti-homosexual bias and radicals (groups or individuals) who prech hate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The category is not "Homophobic organizations" it's "homophobia." Furthermore, the actual term homophobia (as discussed in academic literature) is not "fear of homosexuals." --Cheeser1 03:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The need for extreme care

In the interests of keeping Wikipedia articles constructive, the application of a category of homophobia needs a lot of care.

The AFA article is a very good case to show the long term problems of lack of care;

There has been a conflict on the AFA article over the homophobia category for months. That has disrupted improvement of the article.

There are other problems with the article in that it generally does not show all relevant views, especially concerning religiously oriented views. There seems to be a resistance to context and presentation of the broader range of issues, and the article tends to focus on the homophobia issue. Context/background information is presented to introduce the broad range of issues [7] but it is deleted [8]. It’s an article that is prone to narrowing of issues to the homosexuality/homophobia issue, focusing on the accusation, and the religiously oriented –choice to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle- right is not there at all.

There seems to be an attitude that guidelines are not policy and should therefore be ignored, e.g. [9]. Yet the category recommendation itself was altered in a way that seems to obscure logic of the recommendation [10]. And there is even a possible “lack of awareness” of the basic categorization guidelines and a lack of acknowledgment of controversy [11]. There are attitudes that seem to show lack of care, even during Rfc e.g. [12].

As can be seen on the talkpage, the conflict continues to disrupt editing. If the category is applied, there will most likely be objections from other editors as multiple editors have objected before, and being a religious group, the issues surrounding the religion vs gay activist controversies are well known and apply to articles such as the AFA. Its intrinsically controversial.

And the term homophobia itself is controversial term; “It is also concluded that the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality.” (William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, "Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues," Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2005)).

A further issue to handle with care: Categorizing only with concepts is also problematic. If we have Nazism next to Catholicism or Calvinism, there will be disruption on those articles. Thus, if the homophobia category survives, then again extreme care must be applied in order to save articles from month upon month of disruption as has happened on the AFA article.

Homophobia is almost always part of some sort of controversy concerning accusation or pejorative use, both in definition, and in application. For the simple reason of ensuring NPOV policy and reducing the likelihood of long term disruption and bad feeling on articles, the homophobia category should really be applied only to concepts that do not involve religion or religious groups where there will always be a controversy over the right to choose a heterosexual lifestyle. Hal Cross 04:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of this comment is repetitive boilerplate that has been hashed over a dozen times, but there is one point I must strongly object to. The dispute over the category has not been going for "over a year". It has been going since July, and the only reason it has lasted that long is because of the pointless circular arguments that some people insist on filling the talk page with. Exaggerating the length of the dispute does not help to solve it. Orpheus 04:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes the conflict has been going month upon month, since July. I'll make the adjustment. There are new points in my comment above. Hal Cross 04:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. To suggest that homophobia is not allowed to be used in religious articles is the singular most bizarre, nonNPOV thing I've seen suggested thusfar. It is verifiable that Relgious Right / New Right / Neocon / "conservative Christian" / whatever groups are associated with homophobia. To propose an all-out, no exceptions ban on the mention of homophobia in cat'ing religiously oriented articles is nonsense, and has neither precedent nor reasonable basis in policy. --Cheeser1 05:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Certain specific subjects that are supported by religious ideals which see heterosexuality as a choice that we are all free to make, are always part of a controversy. Unless gay activists suddenly change their minds, gay-activists will always call such religions homophobic. Those religious groups will never say "ok, yep, that's me, I'm a homophobe, go right ahead and stick me on the category". They will, however state their beliefs, which are to generally accept homosexuals into their congregation and provide services for them to accept a heterosexual or celibate lifestyle if they so wish. Its a compassion based activity. The fundamental intention is love and spiritual development. Hal Cross 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you were trying to make. It does not matter if gay activists label the AFA homophobic; if the gay activists label the AFA homophobic, it does not change the fact the AFA is largely involved in homophobia, which is reported in reliable sources, demonstrated on the AFA article, and is a verifiable fact. It also does not matter if the AFA's "fundamental intention is love and spiritual development" or if the AFA will never admit to being homophobic--these issues are not requirement for categorization. I don’t know about other Christian groups, as I haven’t read their articles yet.—Christopher Mann McKay^talk 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, I'm sorry but I cannot accept that "the fundamental intention is love and spiritual development" in organisations that actively campaign for gay people to have fewer rights in law than those enjoyed by straight people. There is nothing "loving" about discriminatory behaviour.

It doesn't matter what you or I think about this matter. The fact is, certain religions around the world are labeled by critics as homophobic. The other side of the story is that those religious groups say they are not. They say they are offering homosexuals the opportunity to be celibate or heterosexual if they so wish. That is the controversy. Its a general controversy that applies to certain religious groups who see heterosexual behavior as a choice that we are all free to make. Its not my idea. Its an ongoing controversy that shows every sign of continuing indefinitely. Hal Cross 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, this does not make sense. The category is homophobia, NOT homophobe. They are verifiably associated with homophobia in reliable sources. Secondly, if they say "but we love gays, that's why we want to make them straight/ex-gay/religious" it doesn't matter because they are NOT reliable sources about themselves. How many times have I said that already? --Cheeser1 02:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is a global matter. It is discussed by 3rd party sources. They describe the controversy which involves more than one side. There exists a controversy over gay rights, the right to practice and express a belief that adheres to scripture, and the right to choose a heterosexual lifestyle (second and third paragraph of the lead [13]. That controversy applies to certain religious groups, usually of an Abrahamic origin. That includes a lot of religious groups, and its a highly notable controversy.

This is something that is extremely important to take into account when using the homophobia category. Wikipedia should not take sides in that dispute, and should not be condemning a particular side of that controversy. Hal Cross 04:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Find me the part of this category that says "Wikipedia condemns these groups/individuals as homophobic." Go on, find it. --Cheeser1 04:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Put it this way: If the category is applied to those specific religious groups, then Wikipedia is siding with gay activists and ignoring the other side of the story (the religious groups who say they are motivated by love and spiritual development). The issue is homophobia vs not homophobia - something else. In this sense, the homophobia category is inappropriate to those religious groups. The categories that are relevant and NPOV compliant to those specific religious groups are: Religious Views [14] and Sexuality and Religion [15]Hal Cross 06:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If the category is applied to those specific religious groups, then Wikipedia is siding with gay activists - This is untrue. If you want to spin things that way, feel free, but that's not what's going on here. Nobody's out to get the AFA. --Cheeser1 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am offering solutions Cheeser1. You seem to be denying them. Are you interested in continuing a situation that will likely lead to more disruption? Or did you have something else in mind? Hal Cross 18:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Hal, you're advocating the opposite of consensus. The fact that your suggestions tend to be summarily rejected by virtually everyone else should tell you something about who's become disruptive by refusing to let anything go. --Cheeser1 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am offering a solution that involves the application of alternative categories. That involves compromise. Those wishing to add the homophobia label to their least favorite religious groups will have to compromise with those wishing to offer a balance of issues and views. So those specific religious groups can be added to other categories that contain the relevant issues, rather than have a pejorative value-laden label that is used by critics of that group, and offers only a narrow selection of views. NPOV policy and inclusion of all relevant views and issues is the main reasoning behind the proposal. NPOV policy is the one with all the consensus behind it. Hal Cross 11:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but your interpretation of NPOV policy does not have consensus. You can't say "I demand this be removed, because of NPOV policy" and assume that if I disagree with you, I am disagreeing with policy. This is not the case: I (and the others who bothered to participate in the CfD) believe that using this category does not violate NPOV policy. The interpretation of NPOV policy that does have consensus is the one where the category is not deleted and is, in fact, still used as it has been. That's what we'll continue to use until consensus speaks otherwise. --Cheeser1 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I told you before. I missed the CfD, but that is irrelevant. Right now the issue is how to use the category appropriately. I am offering solutions. Do you care to address those solutions? Hal Cross 01:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We have already established, through consensus echoed at the CfD, that this category is already being used correctly. You are offering new ways to use this category to suit how you feel about the AFA. That's not "solutions" - that's an attempt to override or disregard consensus on this matter. Homophobia is a verifiable social phenomenon studied by sociologists and others. Many groups/individuals/events/etc are associated with homophobia. That begets a category. Like I've said, your proposals are both unnecessary and disregard the use of homophobia as a properly academic term. The fact that you think it's a slur or accusation automatically (or at all) is irrelevant. --Cheeser1 02:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Its clear both here and on the AFA article [16] that the category is being abused by circumventing NPOV policy. The issue is controversial and non-self-evident. Categorization guidelines are clear on this matter. The category is being abused. Hal Cross 03:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hal, that's a serious accusation. You'd better back that up with more than your personal opinion (which we have established does not agree with consensus). Unless you can back that up, I demand that you retract this accusation. --Cheeser1 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that this page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.114.102.13 (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing to help the reader

Hi. I added the homophobia as a subcat to the LGBT issues and religion category. I think that should solve at least some problems and will help the reader browse more of the broader range of issues at the same time. Hal Cross 12:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC requested

Another editor has made an RfC relating to this category and the recently closed CfD. The link is here Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#RFC. DuncanHill 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Phobias

Reviewing the discussion, one thing that springs out is the automatic linking of "phobia" to "fear". That might be true in a linguistic sense, but I don't think it is in the common usage. For example, xenophobia is widely used in the public discourse as meaning "Like racism, but to do with foreigners instead." The issue is the lack of "-ism" words. If we had a word for discrimination against homosexuals (or foreigners), we could use it and not have to call it a phobia. Unfortunately English doesn't seem to have those words. Orpheus 05:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Remove the link. Links are not necessary for every word that happens to have an article, especially when it's the wrong context. --Cheeser1 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean a hyperlink - I meant the link in the minds of the editors. If I could remove that, we wouldn't be having this discussion (and I'd be editing from a solid gold computer bought with the money I convinced Bill Gates to give me). Orpheus 23:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, whoops! There's a word, by the way, heterosexism. However, heterosexism and homophobia are not synonymous. Homophobia, on its own merit, is a verifiable academic term. The fact that other people have decided it's slander or a slur or something notwithstanding. --Cheeser1 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

page protection

This page definately needs to be protected, more and more categories are being removed everyday. Indlucing many of the dancehall reggae musicians. I'm sorry, but the promotion of setting gay people on fire or hanging them is homophobia. If you're a fucking fan of the musician whose being put in the category, GET OVER IT!! THEY MAY NOT BE HOMOPHOBIC NOW, BUT THEY HAVE SAID HOMOPHBIC THINGS IN THE PAST, THAN THAT STILL MAKES THEM PART OF THE CATEGORY. Opinions?

California Proposition 8 (2008)

There has been disagreement and debate as to whether California Proposition 8 (2008) belongs under this category. The discussion has been going on at Talk:California Proposition 8 (2008)#Category:Homophobia. This issue needs greater peer review in deciding whether this category is appropriate for it. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem with this entire category -- very little fits here because it is a derogatory term typically used to malign those with traditional family values. Deet (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Read much further up. Homophobia is an actual scientific term with neutral applicable usage. It doesn't matter how offensive it can be to some people—opposition to the equal rights of LGBT people is homophobia, regardless of the reason or motive or how traditional it might be. LGBT people exist and have existed in every single region and culture since the beginning of humanity, and science and medicine concur that LGBT people and family environments are completely normal and as well-adjusted as heterosexual environments. We can use the scientific method as a NPOV reference, but we cannot use cultures and religious doctrines solely as references. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How can it be neutral if virtually every person who is labeled using the term objects to it? A phobia is an irrational fear. People supportive of traditional family values view their beliefs as being just that (often based on their understanding of religious texts), not a bout of irrational fears. Deet (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Because religion and cultural tradition are based on faith, not fact. Wikipedia deals in fact. There may certainly be a place for faith in life, but Wikipedia is a place for fact, up to and including the study of religions, but religious doctrine based on faith and tradition alone (i.e. not merely teaching about religion but teaching religion) cannot substitute for fact. Fact alone dictates neutral policy because fact is fixed in its nature of being impartially and dispassionately reproducible through a formal scientific approach. And dispassionate scientific consensus about LGBT people is resounding, and has been for decades, ever since social taboos against discussing it were dropped starting with the Kinsey Reports and their consistent third party verification. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, perhaps you should consider Conservapedia for American conservative Christian values. Wikipedia isn't really a forum for that. It's an international encyclopedia. Even in English, its scope is international and is supposed to transcend all cultural points of view. One culture's tradition may be anathema to another, and when culture becomes more important than dispassionate fact, clashes are imminent. Consensus is to be reached, and individual cultures cannot be impartial enough to reach a conclusion that affects the whole world. Truth is belief. Fact is reproducible in a laboratory. If you cannot focus on fact uncolored by individual belief, then it will be difficult to be happy on Wikipedia. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum for what? Is there an article edit I have made that you disagree with? Is this just the way you try to censor discussion? My view is that it is not neutral if virtually every person who is labeled using the term objects to it. It is therefore by definition not neutral; it is a derogatory term. Nothing you have said justifies an opposing view of that simple logic, because it really can't be countered. Neutral implies uncontroversial, or at least not one-sided. Your view that socially conservative views are inherently invalid is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Deet (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not about conservative or liberal. It's about being externally scientifically reproducible. The scientific method is based on nothing short of empirical evidence and analysis, and does necessarily not take controversy into account when it comes to findings. It doesn't mean uncontroversial. In fact, it can be incredibly controversial. That doesn't make it unscientific, and Wikipedia isn't a forum of debating whether or not to use science. Science is fixed fact, and it's used. Many people—even the majority of lay people—can deny it until their blue in the face. That doesn't make what they say fact. In fact, the term for that is denialism, and there is entire category dedicated to that too, Category:Denialism. It doesn't matter how much denialism there is, if empirical science contradicts it. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we're so into facts, the fact is that virtually all people who are labeled by the term by and large do not think they have any irrational fear relating to the topic, and disagree with being labeled with the term. Deet (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. But how they feel are beliefs, substantiated by culture and sometimes religion. Those are attitudes. However, they do not prove that LGBT people are as sick or as unnatural or as broken as they believe them to be. The scientific method requires absolute skepticism in the collection of evidence, analysis of observations, and the neutral peer review of findings establishing their empiricism, e.g. that any other scientist can come to the same findings using the proper scientific methods. As such, the scientific method absolutely forbids leaps of faith. That is not to say that there is no place for faith in the world, as even young children rely heavily on faith in their parents and surroundings to survive and learn and grow. But faith can only at best be a matter of what someone believes to be truth, and can never be a platform for hard fact. In this sense, truth and fact are different, in that truth is believed, and fact is proven. And it is a fact that LGBT people by nature are as natural, well-adjusted and capable as any other people. You see, for Wikipedia to have wider credibility, it must cite hard sources of fact and build consensus That consensus cannot merely be based on majoritarian polling, as it is based on lay people's opinions, which inherently are a collection of personal points of view no matter how many ways you look at it. A neutral point of view, as Wikipedia requires, must be so neutral that practically anyone regardless of background or personal beliefs can come to the same findings using proper scientific methods. When you edit on Wikipedia, you think like a dispassionate scientist, and park your personal beliefs at the door, as much as you can giving the human condition. Not everyone is perfect at that, but it is certainly important to try. By the way, all those articles I linked are Wikipedia policy and guideline links. WP:POV in its examples specifically mentions heteronormativity as a bias that may unacceptably color the neutrality of articles. You seem like a social conservative, right? I mentioned Conservapedia because it was founded by a disallusioned user who wasn't satisfied with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, feeling that they were too liberal. I don't know whether to say science is inherently a liberal establishment, as that too would be a POV. But it certainly seems that enough social conservatives thought so if Conservapedia became such a significant project to them. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all high science, is it? Where can a person get a brain scan or a blood or gene test to scientifically determine if a person has this condition? Deet (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, while the exact causes are still not entirely certain (there are certainly many scientific leads in terms of genetics, psychiatric criteria, etc.), enough has been observed in science and psychology to come to the sound conclusion that it is natural and not a disorder. Many topics are discussed in depth (with links to individual other articles) at sexual orientation. It examines scientific as well as social factors at sexual orientation#Influences on sexual orientation. And of course, in the social realm, it even examines traditional conservative notions that it is entirely a choice. However, considering the long parade of failures of numerous exclusively gay and lesbian people to be anything less than gay or lesbian and marriages that usually fail over it, the vast majority of consensus among exclusively gay and lesbian people is that it is not a choice. That is not to say that it can't be a choice for some people (such as bisexuals) in certain situations. Even Sigmund Freud championed the concept of innate bisexuality (where the majority of individuals are not exclusively heterosexual, but bisexual and able to be molded by the expectations of society), but for those who are always only gay or lesbian, heterosexuality simply does not and can never exist in their lives, and they forge their lives according to what does exist in their lives. Even the extremely conservative church I was raised in now no longer recommends gay and lesbian people get married and no longer pretends sexuality to be a trivial issue of choice and sin. Though the church is socially such a deeply conservative establishment, there are simply far too many seasoned accredited scientists and psychologists among its ranks. Its modern recommendations (unfailing lifelong celibacy on pain of excommunication and social ostracism) are still considered socially draconian (and even homophobic), but at least even they will not deny it is naturally occurring. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. How can someone be tested for the scientific condition of homophobia? I mean, you probably think that I may have it, and gosh, that means I'm living a life with irrational fear, and I didn't even realize that I was even afraid at all, and that can't be good, so how can your science help me to be tested to know if I have this phobia? It is all scientific, right? Deet (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The way you're talking to me here seems to be cause for concern. With all due respect, please, maintain your cool. That said, having before misunderstood your question, I have an answer. Homophobia, along with phobias in general, is neither a question of biology, genetics or neurology, but one of psychology and personality traits. The homophobia article defines it at homophobia#Etymology and usage. However, I've considered something else. I don't believe I directly or indirectly called you homophobic. Such an accusation would be a direct personal attack, and I endeavour to assume good faith from my fellow editors. I did say I wondered if you were a social conservative who was dissatisfied with the criteria of this category and potentially also with the policies of Wikipedia, but I said that out of concern that you have misunderstood the tone we need to keep here. You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you please, but in Wikipedia the personal beliefs of individual editors are largely irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not a referendum on opinion—it's a collection of hard fact, as much of which is sourced if possible. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are the cornerstone policies of editing and discussion in Wikipedia. If you presumed that I called you homophobic, it seems that is more of the conclusion you may have drawn for how this category may see your opinions, though I cannot vouch for what you may have been thinking. And to be frank, how another editor might personally feel about you is no more relevant than how another editor may feel about me—we are to be professionals here. So I hope you can understand how I intended you no disrespect whatsoever. I am also autistic, and I tend to speak without conscious tact, but that is more of a lack of certain instinctive social skills than of anything accusatory. Now I hope I have put your personal concerns to rest. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, I was never the least bit offended by anything. Regards, Deet (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This category is POV

A look at the other pages categorized as "homophobia" shows they are all organizations that are vehemently opposed for their perceived homophobic stances, and indeed some might actually have those stances, but the grouping in general is only from one side of the political fence, thus is biased/POV. If the category was actually intended to honestly and impartially present information on homophobia, the list would also contain organizations that claim to oppose claimed homophobia. Based on this total and absolutely lack of balance, the entire category looks POV driven. Either remove the POV by making this category wikiworthy, or remove the category.

I see a lot of discussion has gone on in the past about this. That's nice, but this category as it appears now is POV. Something must be done to either improve or remove the category if it cannot be improved. As it stands now, it is pure POV. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this category has been well-discussed (and previously nominated for deletion), leading to the current consensus. What new points do you have to introduce to the discussion? --EqualRights (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's unbalanced. Can we add the groups that oppose the existing groups? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue has since been resolved by the addition of balancing parties. Look at Orpheus's edit adding GLAAD. That's a great start. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason for the perceived imbalance is that this is a relatively new and unseen category. For instance, International Day Against Homophobia is a shining example of an article that matches this category beautifully. It even has the category name in the article name! The authors of the article obviously agree - they have "Homophobia" in the "See also" links section. I think if they were aware of the category when they were writing the article, they'd probably have added it on the spot. Orpheus (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)