- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: do not rename, though I believe that there is a need for additional discussion and consideration of relevant issues.
Closer's notes
A number of issues were raised in the discussion, and I want to touch on two of them briefly: categorization by opinion and scope.
First, categorization of people by support for or opposition to an issue consitutes overcategorization and should be avoided; an exception exists for activists. However, as noted by choster, categorizing organizations by issue-opinion may be even more problematic "as different representatives of the organization may nuance its stance differently, especially over time".
Second, as this discussion illustrates, the scope of this category must be clearly-defined in order for it to be viable. Without clearer definition, the scope of "LGBT rights opposition" could plausibly extend to all activists, ideologies, organizations (governmental and non-governmental), programs, publications, and statutes which oppose or deny LGBT rights. For example, it is clear from looking at LGBT rights by country or territory that almost all countries have a red "X" in at least one category of LGBT rights.
-- Black Falcon (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:LGBT rights opposition to Category:U.S. organizations opposed to gay marriage
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. LGBT rights opposition is too broad a topic and open to much interpretation, misuse and potential BLP issues. This category is 5 days old, the move has been discussed on the category's talk page is is supported by all save the category's creator. Other suggestions for a move destination are welcome. - Schrandit (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of the category name. "LGBT rights opposition" category name was chosen to be as neutral (non-pejorative) as possible and is not intended to be used for any organization's incidental views, nor individual's (as per Wikipedia:Categorization of people), but only for activist groups that focus primarily and unambiguously on limiting LGBT people's legislation or public opinion . I understand Schrandit's concerns and perhaps my definition of category may not be clearly evident, however I have a couple of concerns for renaming the category to reflect marriage only.
1. Civil rights or human rights, as they are universally understood, are not individually categorized. If one believes that a group of people only deserves SOME rights while still acceptable to deny them other rights OR even to treat them differentlyas codified by law, it indicates an opposition to view them equally and is still a denial of rights. The argument has been suggested that LGBT people don't want equal rights, we want more than equal rights, because a gay man can get married(to a woman,) same as a straight man. That is like saying "everyone in Iran has freedom of religion, as long as it is the religion of Islam". Treating a group of people differently for any reason, moral or otherwise, doesn't change the FACT that the group is being treated differently.
2. My secondary concern is creating too many categories, such as "U.S. organizations opposed to same-sex couples adoption", "U.S. organizations opposed to gay in the military", "U.S. organizations opposed to non-discrimination laws against LGBT people", "U.S. organizations in favor of criminalization of homosexuality", "U.S. organizations opposed to civil unions / partnerships", and the rest.
Perhaps a compromise could be "U.S. activist organizations opposed to LGBT rights".
That said, I am not against renaming this category "U.S. organizations opposed to gay marriage".--DCX (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LGBT rights are not congruent with gay marriage legalization, and it's not made clear what the change would accomplish in terms of "misuse" and "BLP issues". Also, it should be "same-sex marriage" not "gay marriage". Hekerui (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Organizations opposed to gay marriage to avoid Americentrism? --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hekerui - I'm fine with changing "gay" to "same-sex", as for the other part of your statement, good points.
- @ IdiotSavant - One of the editors from Australia wanted us to define it as US based, because he felt it would be mostly American's in that category.--DCX (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest not limiting it to US based. Other countries certainly have currents of opposition, and rather than a category for each country or continent, why not put them all in the same one? —Zujine|talk 04:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the above mentioned Aussie, I should clarify that my concerns on the US centric front revolved around two things, firstly, the term LGBT, a term I only discovered from Wikipedia in its descriptions of the American situation, and secondly, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, obviously a very American thing. If the scope is narrowed to just same sex marriage, it could again be global, because that is an issue in many countries. However, it still runs the risk of becoming a very US-centric article simply because of the disproportionate amount of relevant activity happening in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I support keeping both the category LGBT rights opposition and the category Organisations opposed to same-sex marriage. They're not the same thing, there will be articles that fit into one but not the other (in both directions). Orpheus (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support what Orpheus does, Category:LGBT rights opposition and Category:Organizations opposed to same-sex marriage CTJF83 chat 16:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds fine to me. - Schrandit (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the concerns expressed around both categories, but particularly the LGBT rights one, is that they could be misused. Well, every category can be misused. The Wikipedia approach on misuse, like any vandalism, is for the vigilant among us to revert the misuse, warn the violators, etc. IF time shows us that the category is really, extremely problematical, THEN we get rid of it. This area, while sensitive to some, should not be treated differently. That WOULD be discriminatory. Let's be BOLD. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I like Orpheus' suggestion to keep both categories, but suggest Category:Organizations opposed to same-sex marriage become a subcategory of LGBT rights opposition, as same-sex marriage is an LGBT right. --DCX (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The proposed sense is of narrower scope than the original, and thus not a suitable rename. Moreover, the name does not convey the sense that the organization must primarily be organized around opposition to gay marriage, as opposed to a formulation like "Anti-gay marriage organizations." Otherwise, probably a majority of articles about religious denominations and political parties (opponents in this case being more splintered than proponents) will qualify, rendering the category uselessly broad. But even the more restrictive category may be problematic. We do not categorize individuals by issue or opinion as established by Wikipedia:OC#OPINION, but the problems may be even more pronounced for organizations, as different representatives of the organization may nuance its stance differently, especially over time. - choster (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note about the term "LGBT" being US centric I completely understand HiLo48, however it is notable that there are already categories and subcategories called "LGBT organizations in Australia". LGBTI is used in the United Kingdom to include Intergender people, but LGBT is well understood the there as well.
Spanish speaking countries also use the term LGBT, (ex. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Federation of Argentina, or FALGBT). --DCX (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but use Orpheus solution and be careful in its use: I agree with Orpheus, generally. But instead of Category:Organizations opposed to same-sex marriage, I would use a category that includes all sides, such as Category:Organizations addressing same-sex marriage issues. Otherwise it seems POV to pick out those opposed for being labelled and not those in favor. Let's be even handed, and let's list all parties addressing the issues under a single category.
- Further, regarding Category:LGBT rights opposition, that has to be limited to LGBT rights opposition. Not what some editors claim it is. Not legitimate opposition to those seeking to obtain superior rights over and above the existing rights they currently enjoy but choose not to avail themselves of. I foresee it being very limited to true LGBT rights opposition, as in opposing the rights of those labeling themselves as LGBT vis-a-vis those who do not in cases where both communities are already enjoying the same rights. It is POV for us to say LGBT rights opposition includes legitimate opposition to efforts to seek superior rights others do not enjoy.
- Everyone knows Wikipedia is being used as a battleground for those seeking to promote one view or another. Let's not do that. Let's be very, very careful. Let's use neutral terms that everyone can agree is neutral.
- Given all that, note that I am speaking off the top of my head and I am not an LGBT issue expert, so give me slack if I have not explained my views clearly enough. Remember my comments are intended to improve Wikipedia, not address the underlying issues of LGBT rights or suprarights and opposition to either. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe you are inciting Please clarify superior rights / suprarights and "legitimate opposition to those seeking to obtain superior rights over and above the existing rights they currently enjoy but choose not to avail themselves" in unambiguous and non pov terms.
- I believe LegitimateAndEvenCompelling may be violating WP:BATTLE.--DCX (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with DCX. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has used a humble sounding final paragraph to follow up from an initial paragraph using tricky, manipulative language to present a extreme, fringe view on the issue of LGBT rights. It's a view I hadn't even heard of before seeing an earlier post of his. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way, I think we ought move this to the title that Orpheus suggested and have it out on what merits inclusion and whether or not the category should be nation-specific over there. - Schrandit (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification - Orpheus' suggestion was to keep both, not move to a suggested title.--DCX (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats the dyslexia kicking in. I'm saying we should move the content over to the better category and wrangle out the other issues there. - Schrandit (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the field of "LGBT rights opposition" is relevant and appropriate, fairly easily delineated and certainly large enough for this category. I can see it as an umbrella category for smaller, more topic-specific categories as exemplified above. __meco (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.