Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric/Archive 1

I can see no justification WHATSOEVER for this page. If some bigots had a slogan 'gas all jews', 'kill all Pakis' or 'fuck Palestinians' would we carry it too? JTD 22:30 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

No, of course not. The major difference seems to be that, grammatically speaking, "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" is not an imperative (as opposed to the examples you mention). Also, to me it seems perfectly NPOV. --KF 22:41 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Could we delete this page if we mentioned "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" on both the Sebastian Bach and Westboro Baptist Church pages?

Hey, User:AxelBoldt, since you created this page... Want to tell us what the point is?

The point is an interesting connection between corporate America, heavy metal music, christian fundamentalism and hate speech. What more do you want from a six-sentence article? AxelBoldt 18:24 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Hold it, ladies & gentlemen. Aren't we supposed to enter any page we'd like to see deleted in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page and wait for one week? KF 22:49 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

There was no deletion. I moved the content to hate speech. An anonymous user restored it for reasons unknown to me. Now it's redundant. --Eloquence

I think the content is perfectly fine, but should be incorporated in hate speech (as I did) or another similar article; phrases should usually not have their own articles but be mentioned where appropriate, as people are unlikely to search for a specific phrase or link to it (but the redirect can stay). --Eloquence 22:49 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

NPOV? You have got to kidding. Whatever about the content which is NPOV, the title is blatent encitement. If someone used a slogan 'kill pakis' it would not be used as the title; an NPOV title would be used linking to the page. NPOV doesn't simply mean content of a page, it also refers to the article title. And you can hardly find an article title more POV and less NPOV than this. If this belongs anywhere, it should be on the Sebastian Bach or Westboro Baptist Church, not on its own with a title like this greeting Wiki users. I agree with Eloquence's argument. JTD 22:56 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

There is no reason we can't move it AND remain NPOV. If you just redirect it to hate speech you are exercising judgement and failing to be neutral, specifically you are making an editorial decision that this is hate speech. Instead, let the reader decide for themself. If the only two "significant" times this phrase has been used have been related to Sebastian Bach and the Westboro Baptist Church, then why not just quote the phrase on those pages, and let the reader judge for themselves what the motivation of the person who used the phrase was?

It is not possible to write anything at all on any subject whatsoever without "exercising judgement". The phrase is undoubtedly offensive, does not offer any prospect of becoming an enclycopedic topic, and the content belongs, if it belongs anywhere, in the entries on hate speech or particular prominent figures (if they are indeed prominent) who used it. Tannin

I don't know what everybody's problem is. I found an interesting bit of information and wrote an article about it. Would it help to put the article's title in quotes?

Where does the information come from that the t-shirt incident with Bach was in 1989? I couldn't locate the precise date, and in fact the Rolling Stones article implied that it happened in the 1990s. Furthermore, the article on the band claims that he wore the t-shirt on MTV, is that confirmed? AxelBoldt 23:06 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Quotes might help. AIDS, it might be noted in passing, kills heterosexuals dead. AIDS kills women dead. AIDS kills Africans dead. AIDS kills people dead. Is there an article in Wikipedia about the logical fallacy of seeing the misfortunes of others as evidence of God's disfavor? If so, a link might help. -- Someone else 23:11 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I don't see the problem either. No one would suggest removing slogans like "Ein Volk - ein Reich - ein Führer" from an encylopaedia article on the Nazis. I can very well imagine someone coming across this phrase and wondering where it originated. If they then google it, a separate entry on Wikipedia will give them all they need to know. --KF 23:13 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

This article has been placed on the Votes for Deletion page. JTD 23:17 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Well, even if I disagree as to where this info should go, I agree that it doesn't need to have a page of its own.

Yes, it should have a page of its own because, as I just pointed out, it will be easier to find that way. Haven't you all become victims of the use-mention fallacy? KF 23:25 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

If it is deemed that a redirect rather than a link to hate speech helps the reader in any way, then fine, but the information from this article needs then to be added to that article. It took me a while to research, I find it interesting, and it is NPOV. Alternatively, suggest a better title for an article to hold this information. AxelBoldt 23:19 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I've reverted the Hate Speech page to the version produced by Eloquence which included the information formerly contained on this article page. So the information is there, unless our anonymous contributor decided to revert that again (and this page) to return it here. (In which case, all of us busy reverting both pages will have to do re-reverts again, I suppose.) JTD 23:39 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

C'est buono, Jay:

Quoting KF:"No one would suggest removing slogans like "Ein Volk - ein Reich - ein Führer" from an encylopaedia article on the Nazis. I can very well imagine someone coming across this phrase and wondering where it originated. If they then google it, a separate entry on Wikipedia will give them all they need to know."

Yeah, well, the basic problem with this is specificity: What is it? 'It' is -a slogan, and a t-shirt, under the category of "Hate speech/Forms/Events/Details/" The idea of seeding a whole encyclopedic area of research into hated or discrimination of homosexuals is valid, and it doesnt necessary have to be from top down... but in this case, the specificity is highly suspect - and your premise that "no one would object" KF, you assumes that you knows where the boundaries of what's objecitionable is, yet the article itself is an perfect example of what is potentially objectionable: conclusively demonstrating that you're not in tune with the incidental notions of NPOV and encyclopaedic content. -'Vert

So whereas I just think I know what might be objectionable, you actually know what is and what isn't -- is that what you're trying to say? Apart from that, is there anything you are not accusing me of? --KF 23:56 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

ON the subject of the Use-mention distinction, maybe this (if it stays) should be "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" phrase, with quotes. Maybe any other articles about phrases should get similar titles. -- Tarquin 23:43 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think you can have quotes in article titles. A single quote -- 'Aids Kills Fags Dead' phrase works, I think. Tuf-Kat

I was just going to ask the same thing, since the original article is about the slogan as a slogan. I just saw part of the movie about the Laramie goings-on last night, and noticed that particular slogan in the background in a couple scenes, so when it appeared today in Recent changes, I was instantly interested in reading about it. Wikipedia already has article titles like fuck that are thoroughly offensive to large percentages of our intended audience, so somebody has already decided that the space of acceptable article titles is pretty broad. Stan Shebs 23:54 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Its really unneccessary, especially in the balance of issues. Consider the basic idea: Does this phrase, carry enough meaning to warrant an article? Is a whole essay on Hate speech toward homosexuals to be titled : "Aids Kills Fags Dead' phrase" - certainly not, Toker. What if i were to write: "Death to the Kikes", with the content:

BOOBY-TRAPPED ANTISEMITIC SIGN INJURES WOMAN TRYING TO REMOVE IT. However, not only progress but peril, too, was dramatized during President Bush's visit to Russia. The day after he attended a Russian Orthodox service and spent time in a synagogue, a booby-trapped poster with an antisemitic slogan exploded and seriously injured a Russian doctoral student, Tatyana Sapunova, 28, who lost sight in one eye and needs a series of surgical procedures. According to local media reports, upon noticing the message "Death to the Kikes" daubed in large black paint on a sign, she pulled to the side of the highway 20 miles southwest of Moscow, near a turnoff to Vnukovo Airport. She got out of the car and tried to yank the sign out of the ground. The blast triggered by her touch had the force of 100 to 200 grams of TNT, according to the Russian news agency Interfax. Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov said he would take the case under his personal control. "All incidents of extremism or racial intolerance will be handled with the maximum strictness allowed by law," he told Interfax.

'Nuf said: -'Vert

Don't misinterpret me. I'm not trying to take a side here, as I don't care too much about whether this is a separate article or not. I was just pointing out that double quotes don't work in article titles, so that isn't an option. Tuf-Kat

I see two separate issues here:

1: Some people think this deserves an entry of its own. 2: Other people think it should be merged somewhere else. 2a: Some prefer merging it with hate speech. 2b: Some prefer merging it with Sebastian Bach or Westboro Baptist Church.

I am in am camp 2b.

Well, I'm still in camp 1, since the article is related to at least: Sebastian Bach, hate speech, Matthew Shepard, LC Johnson, RAID, Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church. All these articles need to link to the article covering the phrase, and this is unnecessarily complicated if the information is arbitrarily added to one of them. Simply put quotes around it and be done with it. We don't even have quotes around fuck, even though our article is about the word and not the act. AxelBoldt 01:23 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Ironic it is, that you, Axel point to several "articles", at least three of which are empty,... WBC might barely qualify as a stub... hate speech.... RAID refers to a way to link hard drives... Need I go on? Indeed, your valid service of dropping stone in pond- has long since been done, and dealt with. -'Vert

RAID is an insecticide that gave rise to the phrase; I didn't claim that all the articles exist, I only claimed that they "need to link to the article", which is correct. AxelBoldt 02:08 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

This should not redirect to "hate speech". There's no guarantee that the hate speech entry will discuss the specifics of this phrase in the future. Therefore it is inadvisable to redirect this phrase to that entry. --The Cunctator

Why does that possibility exist? Are you trying to say that hate speech directed at homosexuals will be removed from the article? -- Zoe

No, I'm saying what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that the specific discussion of this phrase may be removed from the hate speech entry. --The Cunctator

The Cungcator is right about one thing: 'There are no guarantees."-&#35918&#30505

Cungcator?

The bold markup should clue contributors in that this is a name of an inbound redirect. If the relevant hate speech content is ever moved to homophobic hate speech, then this can be fixed by the next person to follow the link. Martin

There's no guarantee that the hate speech article will mention this particular example of hate speech only in the same sense that there is no guarantee that the article will not be replaced by "fffdfdfdsfdfioj". I would hope that if a conscientious Wikipedian were to see a piece of factually correct, verifiable, NPOV information removed from an article, then they would just put it back in. (Or, if the article in question is not the right place for it, find a more appropriate article to put it in, and divert the redirect accordingly.) So there should never be a problem with the information on the phrase disappearing forever. -- Oliver P. 17:44 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that Cunctator's argument is not particularly strong, but how about this: the principle of least astonishment requires that somebody who clicks on AIDS Kills Fags Dead or maybe better 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' phrase gets to an article which discusses the specifics of this phrase, certainly including a link to hate speech. Right now, these people are immediately redirected to hate speech and have to wade through two screenfuls of only marginally relevant discussion of academic hate speech codes before they find the information they're looking for, if they ever get that far down in the article. AxelBoldt 18:24 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not convinced by any of the arguments about where the information should be; I'm not sure it matters whether this phrase gets an article all to itself or not. (But if it does, I think the phrase should definitely be put in quotes and labelled as a phrase, or - more precisely - a slogan.) A counterargument to what you're saying about linking would be that hardly anyone is ever going to link to such a phrase. If a different article wants to mention the phrase, it could always be reworded to say, "The phrase ... (an example of [[hate speech]])". -- Oliver P. 19:09 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

The articles on Skid Row, Matthew Shepard, and Fred Phelps currently link to this phrase; in the future, Sebastian Bach, Raid, and Westboro Baptist Church probably want to link to it as well.

Your suggestion "The phrase ... (an example of [[hate speech]])" is not good enough, since it doesn't tell the reader that hate speech has specific information about the phrase. AxelBoldt 19:21 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, good point. "... (discussed in the article on [[hate speech]])" might work, though. -- Oliver P. 19:46 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

A suggestion: replace the automatic redirect with See contents of [[hate speech]]. JtdIrL 19:58 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)