Jump to content

Talk:Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric/title

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This talk page was previously at Talk:AKFD/title. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AKFD, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (slogans)

Discussion of the title: is it ok to have AIDS Kills Fags Dead as a title. How about with quotemarks? Still acceptable? Still unacceptable? Etc...

Discussion

[edit]

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)

Would it help to put the article's title in quotes? AxelBoldt 23:06 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Quotes might help. -- Someone else 23:11 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)
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

What is the basis in law for the claim that the phrase, in quotes in an article title, could be construed as incitement to hatred in some countries? AxelBoldt 01:36 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

In many European states, Incitement to Hatred legislation prohibits the use of a term that by its usage or reportage can be conscrued, however unintentionally, as encouraging the expression and reinforcing the opinion of hatred, based on gender, orientation, disability, race or belief. In this context,

  • the use of the headline was unnecessarily provocative, in so far as other means could be used to convey the information;
  • it breaks general publishing ettiquete of usage regarding offensive slogans in encyclopædiæ and source-books, in which such slogans feature within the text of the article but not as the primary definitionary title; (such a title would never be used in any mainstream encyclopædia, for example because it would see seen as unnecessary provocative, POV and giving credence by usage to the term, even if that had not been the intention of the author or publisher, indeed they may have intended the exact opposite.)
  • As Jimbo Wales confirmed, it also ran contrary to Wikipedia's own rules and if it had not been renamed, would probably have been removed as a violation of Wikipedia's own mandate, principles and ethos.

While the US has established the freedom of the press under the 5th Amendment, no such 'absolute' right exists in almost any other jurisdiction. In covering issues like that espoused in the words of the slogan, most publishing organs (whether the media or sourcebooks), both as a matter of principle and also because of legal considerations, would not contemplate using such a phrase in a headline or title. Putting it in quotations in itself is no defence if the fact that it is in quotations is not clearly shown to be an unambiguous disclaimer. Even on a printed page, that is difficult, unless you use a bolded large font for the quotations than for the quote. On a computer screen, it is almost impossible to visually draw instantaneous attention to the quotes before the quotation. That is why such a quote is by definition not used in a title, certainly not when the title consists almost solely of those words. Similarly, phrases that are used like 'kill the infidel', etc are not used in titles, but given a neutral NPOV definition in the title which they leads to the article explaining the quote, its meaning and context. Saying that you are simply reporting or explaining facts is no defence if you had the option of conveying the information in a less provocative manner and chose not to do so. Equally saying the content of the article showed the article was not intended to incite hatred would be no defence, for the issue would be the title, especially as anyone looking through Wiki would see the article title but only a small number would go so far as to read it, especially as some would interpret the title as suggesting that the article was at best validating, even if not agreeing with the phrase.

While the odds on Wiki running into legal problems were slim, the biggest danger was that some journalist doing a goggle search or having come into Wiki would have found the article title, contacted a body like in Ireland the Equality Authority or the Director of Public Prosecutions' office asked for a comment, got a condemnation, and then ran a major story - US WEBSITE ACCUSED OF ATTACKING GAYS, ENCYCLOPÆDIA ACCUSED OF GAY ATTACK, etc and calls from politicians, the media and gay rights groups, for criminal prosecution under the Incitement to Hatred Act, promoting a lot of very negative publiciity for Wikipedia and damaging its reputation, all for the sake of a badly worded title that broke wiki's own rules in the first place and for which, as Svevertigo has shown, there was a clear, less offensive and provocative alternative. JtdIrL 03:06 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Heh, with all the US-bashing of late (and mind you, I'm no fan of Bush), it's ironic that it's the US where something this difficult doesn't have to be hidden away. I guess this is a foretaste of what the wikipedia will have to be like for that 3-billionth reader... Stan 03:33 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

after move to homophobic hate speech.

Why is this article titled "Homophobic hate speech", yet it only contains one example and no further discussion of the concept in the title? AxelBoldt 01:36 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

The old title was offensive given the subject (Homophobic hate speech). Other cases can and should be added. See the 'Don't Overdo it' section on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The other page title would be like having the homosexual article at fag (which is the home of an article about the use of the word - which is fine). But the old title made an express POV statement. --mav
The old title had the phrase in quotes; how could that possibly be offensive? The subject of the article is not homophobic hate speech as everyone here seems to agree; the subject of the article is the slogan. The article's subject does not agree with the title. Whoever renamed needs to justify the name change. AxelBoldt 01:57 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
Then Homophobic slogan would be a better title for this subject area. Slogans are designed to carry a specific POV message in and of themselves. How does 'George Bush kills babies' or 'AIDS kills niggers dead' sound? It causes a reaction in and of itself. We needn't have a single article on each of these slogans. The general rule we follow here is that we do not have articles on specific terms. There are a few exceptions but only for the most famous examples. --mav
Is there any historical context for the slogan "George Bush kills babies" or "AIDS kills niggers dead"? They don't appear anywhere on the Web. --The Cunctator

On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Axel Boldt wrote on the wikien-l mailing list:

The title "homophobic hate speech" had been suggested as "better" by Oliver Pereira, and Tannin agreed.

It seems that I've been misunderstood again... Hopefully now that Jimbo has said the article is okay, the issue will be settled quickly, but just in case it isn't, I think I'd better clarify my position.

My words were, "perhaps a more general article on homophobic hate speech would be better". This was in a list summarising the arguments (as I perceived them) against there being an article specifically about the phrase "AIDS Kills Fags Dead".

Just to make sure it's clear, my summarising the arguments didn't mean that I agreed with them. However, in this case, I did agree with the statement, although I did point out at the end of the post that I wasn't convinced by it as an argument. That is, I agreed that a more general article would be better, but pointed out that no such article had at that time been written. I apologise if my meaning was not clear, but I meant that in the absence of a wide-ranging article which could comfortably absorb the information from the "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" article, the mere fact that such an article would be better if it existed was not a convincing argument for the removal of the "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" article.

I'm still not convinced by any of the arguments against the presence of the article (now thankfully renamed), and have now decided that the information is probably too specific to be comfortably absorbed into any more general article. I have therefore now decided that I support the existence of the article. (I'm still not entirely sure about the name, though. I think the slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' would be less startling. The current title might look at first glance as if we're making a statement, and requires reading to the end of the title to see that it's about a slogan.) -- Oliver P. 13:38 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

This new title ("anti-gay slogans") doesn't follow Wikipedia naming practices. --The Cunctator

It's an article about anti-gay slogans. It's called "Anti-gay slogans". Am I missing something? --Camembert

It is a logical article title. There is a TV ad on British and Irish television where a product is advertised by saying 'it does exactly as it says on the tin'. When this is an article that is about exactly what the article title says. It is unoffensive (unlike the earlier attempt), it is accurate and its sums up exactly what the article is about. It follows Wikipedia naming practices exactly. JtdIrL 20:01 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, shouldn't it be at the singular? anti-gay slogan? Tuf-Kat
I hope so, because that's where I've just moved it! -- Oliver P. 03:26 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

From VfD, November 2003

[edit]
    • Keep. A long-running discussion that is important as a precedent and as an example of the issues involved. Since this whole dreary debate keeps recurring, it is important to keep a record of what we decided. Martin 19:11, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree the discussion should be kept. One solution might be to change the titles of the talk pages to remove the actual slogan from them, such as Talk:AKFD/title rather than Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/title. That does cause problems with broken links though. Angela
      • That would do much to solve the problem. One page stuck in meta on "Offensive slogans" could replace the vast network of pages and talk pages and subpages that we've built up by constantly fragmenting the discussion. -- Someone else 19:38, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Angela's solution would be fine by me, provided someone was willing to get fix all the links. However, merging all the pages together (on meta or elsewhere) would be a mistake - the discussion is fragmented because it is discussing seperate things. Martin 19:49, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To remove the slogan from the titles would obscure what the discussion is actually about. Why anyone should consider this a good thing is beyond me. -- Oliver P. 00:39, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It would be good because it would produce a better encyclopedia. It's not all about process, some consideration should be given to the result. -- Someone else 02:09, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • It's only removing the title from the talk pages, not the article itself. The point is to have fewer pages with this in the title to prevent it showing up so many times in the search. There is no reason at all that it should obscure what the discussion is about. If necessary, a line could be added to each to talk page stating the page is discussing the article with the title "Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'" if it isn't already clear. Angela 02:16, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Memorializing the talk page is fine. Fuzheado 00:06, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • All remaining talk pages with "AIDS kills fags dead" in the title. I posit that there is no value in any of the talk pages discussing the issue. Deleting them is the most merciful thing we can do to protect the next 7 generations of Wikipedians. Shoot this radioactive waste into the Moon, no, the Sun, no, just get rid of it all. I considered merging/redirecting, followed by a request to delete, but they're all indexed by Google and other search engines and unless we get rid of them all, we're going to be hit results 1-50 for this discussion until the end of time. And yes, I find it offensive that we've added legitimacy to this rarely used expression. It's covered more than adequately in one article now anti-gay slogan. Daniel Quinlan 11:16, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
      • We're not going to be "hit results 1-50 for this discussion until the end of time", on account of the fact that we're not hit results 1-50 now. Note that in any case, most of the hits on Wikipedia aren't the above talk pages, and only one of the top ten is. Martin 23:04, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • agreed - I've only ever heard this expression in wikipedia. Secretlondon 14:19, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, please delete these -- I completely agree with Daniel. I will point out that there is a photograph somewhere of someone at a protest with a sign that said this -- but that's the only instance of it existing outside of Wikipedia that I know of. -- BCorr ¤ #1041;райен 14:25, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • For info: [1] offers evidence that the slogan has been seen on a bumper sticker. Andy Mabbett 12:51, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I also completely agree with Daniel. Bmills 14:34, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete DJ Clayworth 14:40, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Could not agree more. Delete and bury. As long as I have been here (since August) this issue has been a constant at VfD. Does not deserve this much of our valuable time - Marshman 17:20, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I could not agree more with Daniel. Delete the whole bloody lot. There is no justification whatsoever for their continued existence. FearÉIREANN 20:48, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Eh? I still vote to keep, as indicated above. Why are we voting multiple times on the same issue? Don't answer that. Martin 22:43, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Because more redirects keep getting made would be just one reason. --Someone else 01:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • It would be, if it were true. No new AKFD redirects were made between the two times you [and Daniel] listed these pages on VfD. Martin 02:48, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • It is difficult to find exactly how many AKFD redirects there are. My apologies if the two additional redirects/five additional talk pages were created earlier rather than later. Nonetheless, they need deletion. So far the argument for keeping them seems to be "they have histories". Perhaps we could prevail upon a developer to join the histories to the page on which the "info" lands? -- Someone else 03:02, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
            • Apology accepted. Try the "What links here" links to get a complete list of redirects, and the "Page history" links to find out when they were created. Similarly for the talk pages. Martin 03:16, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Please delete all these articles/redirects. The content has been sufficiently moved to a new home, and all the debate about redirects, etc. is now moot. --Minesweeper 23:41, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
      • I love this vote. This particular thread is discussing the deletion of certain talk pages. And Minesweeper says "delete all these articles/redirects" - they are neither! Heh, I guess this is what happens when VfD discussions get too long. Martin 01:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Can anyone find ANY page ANYWHERE on the Internet that has the phrase "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" in its title? Other than in the Wikipedia, that is, which seems to have a great many of them. Do we have them all? And if so, can't we limit ourselves to having all 2 of them (an article and ONE talk page? -- Someone else 07:10, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • We have five(?) talk pages because people on Wikipedia have spent so much time talking about this article. If you dislike that, you're welcome to stop talking about it. And yes, I can find pages with "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" in the title - google groups has bunches of them. Martin 22:53, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • No, we have five talk pages because the talk has not been gathered in one place. And I don't consider wikipedia pages and e-mails equivalent.--Someone else 01:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • And the reason I split the talk pages up and spent time refactoring them was because people spent so much time talking about it. Since you're the first person in the history of Wikipedia to complain about the existence of talk archives, you'll excuse me if I didn't anticipate your comlaint. Martin 02:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • Something to consider for the future then. -- Someone else 03:02, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-LGBTQ_rhetoric/title&oldid=1260442052"