Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:LGBT rights opposition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 14:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:LGBT rights opposition[edit]

I wish we could do away with theocrats on Wikipedia, but the name of this category is just not NPOV. Perhaps we could rename it to Category:Against same-sex marriage or similar. Vacuum c 19:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Summary after 2 weeks — no consensus reached => move to /unresolved

  • 5 Delete: Jguk; Vamp:Willow; Kbdank71; Sean Curtin(2), Vacuum one anonymous vote not included
  • 6 Keep: Wincoote; Grutness; MadreBurro; JamesMLane; Beland; Seth Mahoney(1)
  • 2 Move: Sean Curtin(1); Seth Mahoney(2)


  • Keep I think this name is much better than your suggestion and I'm an atheist. Wincoote 13:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not standard run-of-the-mill Christian either, but think this name is far better than the suggested alternative. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 00:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this category will encourage hate campaigns by liberal bigots against those on the list. Clear POV with the only purpose to give ammo to those who harrass those who hold views that are not "politically correct", jguk 06:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick there. This group was nominated by a liberal and it was presumably created by a conservative. Wincoote 11:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not NPOV, indeed clear POV that boosts such opposition without merit. We may as well have 'xxx rights opposition' for every 'xxx' there is (irony). --Vamp:Willow 11:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Vamp. -Kbdank71 14:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this has a horrible name but nobody has a good one. What is the opposing category called? This'll do for now to group up the witch burners. MadreBurro 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but the category shouldn't include any movie star who happens to have answered an interviewer's question by expressing opposition to gay marriage. It should be reserved for people or institutions who are significantly involved in issues of marriage, adoption rights, workplace discrimination, etc. I took a quick glance at the category just now and it seemed to have been applied with reasonable care so far. JamesMLane 22:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete - Nothing by spite generating propaganda 216.153.214.94 23:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • How is grouping together a bunch of articles about people, groups, or legislation that are all opposed to the idea of LGBT rights "spite generating propaganda"? -Seth Mahoney 23:31, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename or delete. Category:Anti-LGBT rights activists maybe? -Sean Curtin 00:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps "activism" would be better than "activists". The category now includes Category:Anti-gay rights legislation, as well as several specific articles like Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka) that are about institutions, not individuals (to me, "activists" suggests individuals). JamesMLane 01:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • That name wouldn't work for me. The issue is that 'LGBT rights', like 'anti-gay', is a term almost exclusively used by liberals, and thus has a POV. Vacuum c 15:40, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • Do you have an idea for a title that works? I mean, it seems to me that this is a valid categorization and the question is just one regarding what the category should be called. Whether or not the term is used exclusively by liberals, there are people who are opposed to the idea of LGBT rights. -Seth Mahoney 23:31, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • Perhaps, Category:Against homosexuality? Vacuum c 15:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • I think there's a problem with that title, too, in that a lot of people who are against the idea of LGBT rights say they aren't against homosexuality or gay people per se. -Seth Mahoney 23:31, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well, the language that these groups use to express their position is that they don't want "special rights" for these groups, and their opponents say they do want "equal rights". Both groups are talking about "rights", so I'm not sure how this name is POV. "Anti-LGBT rights activists" is just more convoluted. The most trouble I have is actually with the "LGBT" part. It's confusing to people who aren't already familiar with the subject, but most alternatives are very long. There's also the question of whether or not to separate out "T" (transexual) issues, which I haven't really considered in any depth. (Some people - including LBG and T - are offended by the lumping together of sexual orientation and sex/gender identity; others consider the civil liberties questions, at least, to be closely intertwined for all of these populations.) If there's any concerns about inclusion criteria, I recommend writing a good header for the page which clearly defines the class. I agree that most or all of the current members do seem to belong here.
    • I forgot to mention that the "rights" in question are broader than marriage. They include, for example, discrimination in employment, hate speech, and adoption rights. -- Beland 05:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename - there was some discussion on this name a while back, but no one could come up with a better title. Here's the deal: there is opposition to the idea of LGBT rights, and it usually takes the form of questioning whether or not what people are referring to when they talk about LGBT rights is any sort of human rights at all. So the dispute is, in fact, about LGBT rights, and there are people who, in fact, oppose LGBT rights, either as a concept or in whole. So, while supporters of LGBT rights will read this title as "people who oppose LGBT rights", people who oppose can read it as "people who oppose the idea that 'LGBT rights' are rights at all". The title as is carries a dual meaning, and that works for the category. A single meaning would be preferrable, but I don't think any acceptable ones have been proposed yet. And yeah, as pointed out above, the category has more than articles regarding gay marriage. -Seth Mahoney 23:31, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)