Talk:LGBT rights opposition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Conservatism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


@Lincean: I don't understand your objection to including "bigotry" as one possible motivation. We don't state that every person or organization shares all of these motivations, so the argument for not including bigotry would seem to be that no opposition to rights is motivated by bigotry, a thing that is patently untrue. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I do not see how it follows that just because something is not listed, that it makes it seem that no opposition is motivated by it. Exclusion from this list does not mean that it is not a reason.
Also, the use of the words "bigotry" or "bigot" are inherently value laden. Please see WP:LABEL, "bigot" is a contentious label, and it is a value judgement. Having it listed is presenting an opinion as a fact. Please see this essay for the distinction between fact and opinion.
Lincean (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
"Moral beliefs" is also a value word. I'm unconvinced by your argument that neutrality requires us only to include language that depicts LGBT rights opposition in a positive light, but if you think it's the language we're using to describe the view that's the problem, please propose an alternative, rather than removing the view entirely. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
"Moral beliefs" is not a value word because it is qualified by "beliefs." A belief can be true, false, or nonsensical (that is, if moral beliefs are all nonsense). It is a fact that people have beliefs, they may be right or wrong, but the belief is still there. My argument is not that "neutrality requires us only to include language that depicts LGBT rights opposition in a positive light" or anything like this. Please reread what I wrote. My point is to not state opinions as facts, as stated in WP:YESPOV:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

And, to avoid a contentious label, see WP:LABEL. Therefore, I propose a change. We could remove "bigotry" or the whole sentence. Lincean (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Bigotry is an appropriate reason and it's perfectly factual. Bigotry is implicitly qualified by "beliefs" as well.- MrX 12:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
"Bigotry" is subjective, and a passes a value judgement. Even if "bigotry" is explicitly qualified by "beliefs" it is putting forth a class of beliefs whose nature is value dependent and so passes value. Unlike, say, "moral" which is a class whose title is not necessarily value dependent. Please see WP:LABEL. Lincean (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It's also a fact that people are sometimes persuaded to opposed LGBT rights opposition due to bigotry. The article addresses this issue. This should be included in the text. The current wording says: "Such opposition can be motivated by religion, moral beliefs, homophobia, bigotry, political ideologies, or other reasons," not "Such opposition is motivated by religion, moral beliefs, homophobia, bigotry, political ideologies, or other reasons." [emphasis added, of course].
If you have a better way of phrasing the sentence, then that's fine. But don't just remove the word "bigotry" because you don't like it. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
What people oppose what out of "bigotry" is a matter of opinion. I am not sure why you are pointing out what the wording is and what it is not, as the meaning of the text, that you pointed out, is not disputed here. Please read what I wrote. Lincean (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
So is your position that LGBT rights opposition is not motivated by bigotry? You have claimed it was an issue of language, but your recent comments suggest that you think this is unverifiable. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
My position is that we do not use words like "bigot" just like we do not use words such as "good" and "evil" as positively describing things. Lincean (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I must still be missing something about your position here. WP:LABEL says we should avoid labeling people, concepts, etc. with value labels, but we're not saying that LGBT rights opposition is bigotry or is always motivated by bigotry. Is your argument that the word "bigotry" (or "terrorist", or "cult", or "racism", to use other words from WP:LABEL) can never appear in the encyclopedia? Again, you seem to be arguing from the position that LGBT rights opposition is never motivated by bigotry, a position I think you'd have a hard time defending with reliable sources. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand why you wrote: "...but we're not saying that LGBT rights opposition is bigotry or is always motivated by bigotry." Please read what I wrote to Zumoarirodoka, this is not something that I am disputing. My argument is not that that "the word "bigotry" (or "terrorist", or "cult", or "racism", to use other words from WP:LABEL) can never appear in the encyclopedia." For I previously cited WP:YESPOV which includes this point:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

From this and the rest of what it says, it is clear that you can cite opinions that have words like "bigot" in them. But opinions are to be described as opinions. Note also that I wrote:

My position is that we do not use words like "bigot" just like we do not use words such as "good" and "evil" as positively describing things. Lincean (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that I said "use words like 'bigot'", not "mention word like 'bigot.'" It clear that you can mention all sorts of words, such as in quoting someone. It is also clear that it is best to generally try to avoid using some words. Such as stating opinions as facts, value-laden language, contentious labels, etc.. Lincean (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── i just stumbled across this and wanted to drop a note. The sentence, "Such opposition can be motivated by religion, moral beliefs, homophobia, bigotry, political ideologies, or other reasons." appears in the WP:LEAD, and is not sourced. That could be OK, if there is sourced content in the body to support it. There is a section describing religious opposition to LGBT rights that is sourced, so that term is well founded. I see no clear discussion of the other 4 named motivations in the body of the article as it stands now. So ... from a policy/guideline standpoint, the list seems to violate WP:OR and WP:VERIFY and WP:LEAD and should be pared down to "religion" until sourced content is added to the body, to support their presence in the lead. (fwiw, isn't homophobia a kind of bigotry? it is unclear to me why both would be needed even after sourced content is introduced to the body) Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you make some good points here. Perhaps this sentience should be removed. Lincean (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment can the word "animus" be used (as it has been a subject of discussion in the US Supreme Court as to whether denying same-sex marriage to LGBT couples can be defended by anything other than animus towards the couples as a minority group) ? -- Aronzak (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The body of the article contains ample content that is aptly summarized as "bigotry" For example, under Opposition in different countries>United States>History, the passage concerning Anita Bryant is an example of text book bigotry. Homophobia can have bigotry at its roots, or can be based on bona fide fear, or self-loathing, but the terms are not interchangeable. Nor is 'animosity' interchangeable with 'bigotry'. - MrX 03:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The use of "bigotry" violates WP:NPOV, see the above discussion. The example that you cited is your opinion, not a fact. Lincean (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The following two comments are pasted from User_talk:Lincean. Lincean (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to repeat the same arguments. For example, you keep mentioning the word "bigot" but the word in question is "bigotry". Those words have different meanings, and the content you wish to remove is the latter. It is a widely-held view among those who study the LGBT rights movement that bigotry is one of the reasons why some people oppose LGBT rights. A few sources:[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. It's rather absurd to assert that bigotry is not one of the reasons for opposing LGBT rights, when organizations like AFTAH and Westboro Baptist Church exist.- MrX 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

If it seems that I repeat the same arguments it is because they were misunderstood and not as of yet dealt with. To repeat it again so as to be clear: opinions should not be stated as facts. Moral views are opinions. Using "bigotry" involves a moral view, and therefore should not be used in Wikipedia's voice.
As for the difference between "bigot" and "bigotry," that is a distinction without much practical difference. "Bigotry" came from "bigot," and is defined as that which is characterizes a bigot. Even still, "bigotry" is still a value-laden word. It is highly subjective, imprecise, and contentious. It is a term of abuse. It connotes a value system from which to pass moral judgement from. Take a look at WP:LABEL, and you can see "bigot" listed as an example. Take a look at the other words as well and it is clear that "bigotry" would not be out of place on that list.
I do not see how citing those sources helps your cause here. Academic sources can and do contain opinions. These opinions can be cited in Wikipedia even, but they need to be cited as opinions, not facts. Especially if they involve a value judgement.
Regarding the two groups you cited, please see WP:OUTRAGE. Even if a group may seem morally offensive, you still have to be neutral. Many people say Hitler was evil. That, however, does not justify Wikipedia taking a side as to what counts as "evil."
Additionally see WP:IMPARTIAL. By using such words with normative implications, one necessarily engages in a dispute. Even if you think there is no normative implications, the tone of "bigotry" does not pass the test. You might want to take a look at this essay Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Examples. Lincean (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Religion is a value laden word when used to justify opposition to various rights, and I can think of few things based more on opinion than religion. Yet you don't push back on that word in the lead. Why? I agree that generalizations like "good" and "evil" are value laden, but bigotry is an irrational state of mind. It is an identifiable trait. Scholars such as Stephen Bronner obviously thinks bigotry is a factor in LGBT rights opposition, as he wrote in The Bigot: Why Prejudice Persists. I've provided other citations. Your argument seems to be largely strawman based: are we discussing bigots, bigotry, or Adolf Hitler?- MrX 01:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@MrX: How is "religion" a value-laden word in this case? "Religion" is a term for describing a class of beliefs and values, it does not pass a value onto what belongs in that class. "Religion" is like "political beliefs", for example, in that it describes a class for beliefs. I don't see what your point is here.
Not only moral related terms like "good" and "evil" are points of view, but also modes of moral reasoning. There are many different views on how to reason on morals and values, and even disputes as to whether such thinking is even reasonable. So taking a stance on any particular value reasoning violates the principal that "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." Words that carry normative meanings are to be avoided as that takes a point of view. Furthermore, it still is a term of abuse and still takes a POV tone.
Citing a philosopher as having truth on a matter is problematic. It raises the issue of which philosophers do we take. Do we accept Plato or do we accept Kant? I believe it is Wikipedia's policy to not take any side, but rather describe the opinions of Plato, Kant, and yes, Stephen Bronner. Believe it or not, there are many different, and conflicting, views held by philosophers, and many "rationalities." Especially when it comes to normative issues.
What exactly am I "strawmaning"? If I am misrepresented any of your views, just let me know. As for "bigot" and "bigotry," there is no substantial difference between these words. It still is a value-laden word. There is a good reason why its variant is listed as an example in WP:LABEL. I do not know why you think we might be discussing Hitler. My whole point of mentioning him was for an example in discussing the problem of using the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. in your argument. My point was to illustrate that just because many people value something or that they hold that value strongly, that this is not justification for taking a point of view in a Wikipedia article. Lincean (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Jumping in here since there is some much repetition of arguments. The word "Bigotry" means "intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status."[1] NOTE, @Lincean:, @MrX:, and others involved, that this is a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE that says that BIGOTRY is intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristcs, such as ... SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Now, I'm sure that you are both grown adults and that you are both aware that sexual orientation is synonymous with homosexuality, i.e. same-sex attraction, and is linked to gender identity for transgenders and transexuals; hence we have a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE that states that Bigotry is involved in opposition to LGBT groups which would naturally follow on, with a mild step of logic, that those that are bigoted are opposed to LGBT Civil Rights.
Now, since we have a Wikipedia Article on Bigotry, which renders your arguments of WP:LABEL fairly moot since we are not saying that any particular person is a bigot but instead saying that the bigot attitude or mindset, aka Bigotry, is opposed to LGBT Rights in general; as well as the fact that there are various news articles] from various sources around the world that support the view, as well as various studies that show that the attitude of bigotry does form opposition to LGBT rights.
I'm glad that someone has had the decent sense to keep Bigotry as a reason for opposition to LGBT Rights
User:Drcrazy102 User talk:Drcrazy102 01:08 2 July 2015
@Drcrazy102:, Just because there is Wikipedia article on some idea, that does not mean it is not still value-laden. There are many articles that are about value related ideas and topics. Wikipedia is to describe values, not apply them.
Even describing "attitude or mindset" with this word is still takes value-laden stance. See above. A bigot is someone who practices bigotry. Saying "bigotry, is opposed to LGBT Rights in general" is your opinion and not relevant here. Regarding your sources, please read what I wrote above, just because a value is held by many, that does not make it a fact. Lincean (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Lincean:, Ok, this is article is turning into argument ad nauseum and since you seem to be basing your entire argument (correct me if I'm wrong but read through what you have said earlier), your entire argument is based on the basis of WP:Label. Let's point out something that you have seemingly forgotten to mention in any earlier posts which is, and I quote from WP:Label, "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". There are sources out there, I have included some of those said sources. Would you still object if someone were to put in-text attribution or references to said sources, in regards to the Bigotry being a reason for why a person opposes LGBT Rights?

@MrX:@Rosceles:@Zumoarirodoka: have been notified since we are having a discussion that they also seem to have been involved in with you. I may have missed some users, so if you could ping them in your reply that would be appreciated.

User:Drcrazy102Talk 00:45 08 July 2015
  1. ^ [1], Use in introduction and overview of term "Bigotry"

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Drcrazy102: No, my argument is not all on WP:LABEL, this issue is more of a WP:NPOV issue among other reasons stated above. No, I do not object to in-text attributions of opinions. This is something that I already wrote about due to misunderstandings. Nothing was forgotten. Just an example of what I said: "it is clear that you can cite opinions that have words like "bigot" in them. But opinions are to be described as opinions." I have already also cited WP:YESPOV to make this point. We can cite opinions, but they need to be described as opinions, not facts. Opinions must be attributed to their specific holder in-text. Lincean (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The use Bigotry is a reason for opposition since even it's own article says as much, though I can certainly understand why you are raising the WP:NPOV issue, after having a refresh course.
Might I suggest that instead of trying to 'blanket ban' the use of Bigotry as a reason outside of quotes, that we try to find a more neutral way of saying that bigotry is a reason for opposition? Perhaps by simply stating "Such opposition can be motivated by religious beliefs and moral beliefs. However, controversial personal beliefs such as homophobia and bigotry may also affect individual judgement"? Or if you can think of another way of stating it that is neutral, I'm sure that it could be accepted with minimal fuss.
I must admit though that the several screens-length of arguments is centred solely on the use of the word "bigotry" and not also debating the use of "homophobia" and "animosity" as loaded language does entertain me a bit, though it is a serious argument/debate.
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 06:35 09 July 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 06:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not see how that article says what you claim. Bigotry is still a value-laden term. Furthermore, that list (some of which is not included in the source it cites) are examples of contexts in which people use the term and are not topics that controversy about which can be used to descried positivity as such. I do not think your suggested sentience is any more neutral. Using 'bigotry' is as much of an NPOV issue as using 'perversion' (when talking about human behaviour) for example. The neutral way is to fairly describe the different viewpoints. Yes there are other issues with some words used in this article. Lincean (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, since you "do not see how that article says what [I] claim", then let me explain it clearly using quotes taken from Bigotry. "In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status." Quoted directly from the Bigotry article. Now, since you haven't seen the line that says "intolerance towards a group of people in general based on ... gender ... sexual orientation", I have extracted it so that you may see it, noting the fact that Bigotry refers to intolerance towards gender and sexual orientation, something that makes up discrimination, hence opposition, towards LGBT Rights.
Unless you are only using the British definition which is much more generalised: "a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them" which still allows for LGBT discrimination, and hence LGBT Rights opposition.
Please note that both definitions allow for LGBT Rights opposition based on discrimination, much like homophobia and religion.
Now that the use of the Bigotry article has been explained, in detailed definitions, as a mentality that allows for LGBT Rights Opposition, lets also explore the reasons why I said '"instead of trying to 'blanket ban' the use of Bigotry as a reason outside of quotes, that we try to find a more neutral way of saying that bigotry is a reason for opposition?"'. This was an attempt to resolve the ongoing Ad nauseam argument that has sprung up around the use of 'bigotry' as a viable reason for LGBT Rights Opposition. If you cannot try to resolve an issue, i.e. help to create a NPOV that does include Bigotry since it is a viable reason through it's inherent attitudes, than I believe we should call in a mediator (I think that is the Wiki term) to try and create a neutral statement and break the four-month stalemate. Articles have been included from myself, and the other editors that do state bigotry as a reason for LGBT Rights opposition.
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes I have read the article. It does not support your claim, I gave a reason above, but let me explain it further here. This is not a list of things about the use of this word is a fact, rather, this list is examples of contexts in which the word is used. Take a look at this dictionary and see it lists a couple of contexts in which the word is typically used (race and religion). It does not follow that dictionary listing how words are used means that it can be used in an neutral or even factual way in those uses.
Here is an example to illustrate: "Perversion" and "pervert" are often used in contexts about sexual immorality, that does not mean though that there are cases of sexual immorality and even that there is any object morality. Like "perversion" there is no neutral way of using "bigot." To use either of those words in Wikipedia is to take a stance on human values, and thus violate a pillar Wikipedia WP:5P2.
In sum: the description of how words are used does not mean the use of those words are facts or neutral.
Furthermore is the fact that the word "bigotry" does not simply or only mean "intolerance." Stating that a point of view about human value is "irrational" or "unfair" is to take a point of view and is a value itself. Also, take a look at what this dictionary entry says here right by the word: disapproving. That is saying that the word is expresses a judgement. Such words violate WP:NPOV because they take a side in a contentious issue. It is a term of abuse, an insult, subjective, all signs of a POV. See above about what I wrote regarding sources listed in this discussion.
I will file a request on WP:NPOVN eventually. It is preferable to settle issues on talk pages, but I will file on WP:NPOVN if need be. Lincean (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
This article, based on the name and the subject content, is about listing the arguments and counter-arguments used in opposition to LGBT Rights. That is why I am not arguing about the use of the word "bigot" but instead arguing that the mindset of a 'bigot', i.e. bigotry, would form a reason of opposition and hence can be argued to be neutral since we are talking about the mindset and attitudes which, like religious values and mindsets, form opposition based on values and hence would have both arguments and counter-arguments based on the mindset. There is a fine line to tread with the WP:NPOV in terms of context and discussion due to the connotations of 'bigot' and the implied judgements, but a case could be made for the inclusion of bigotry as a reason, due to personal values, with reasonable and verifiable sources.
I certainly agree with putting the request up, and will do so myself in a week if that is agreeable to those who are and have debated this issue, as well as yourself Lincean.
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Applying the word "bigotry" to just mindset and attitudes, does not, I think, changes anything. Of course "bigotry" is applied to people's mindsets, that does not make it neutral though. This is about the use of the word, by not having it attributed as someone's opinion. I have given many reasons why this word is inherently an opinion word above. If there is serious doubt as to whether a word expresses opinion, then chances are the safest thing to do is cite it as an opinion. Lincean (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not "applying the term "bigotry" to just mindset and attitudes" as you put it, that is just the inherent nature of bigotry as a clinical definition. I.e. that Bigotry is not about a person or people, but about a particular mentality and/or set of attitudes and values (Oxford Dictionary - Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself, see also this article that discusses bigotry in terms of racial bigotry, but still applicable to LGBT bigotry). As a mindset and as a set of attitudes, bigotry is a value system and is comparable to religious value systems, and to moral value systems. Hence, as a value system (however personal), bigotry can be shown and has been shown, to be when someone is intolerant of differences between themselves and a group of people, in this case it is the LGBT community and their rights.
However, since this argument is turning into a game of Pong, perhaps we change the use of Bigotry to perhaps "personal values, possibly including bigotry" or a variation of such a line. Please don't just shoot this down, as I am trying to reach a reasonable compromise between the inclusion of Bigotry and WP:NPOV, following the policy WP:NEGOTIATION, not to create an Argument to moderation. I will put out a RfC and a Third Opinion request by tomorrow.
"Bigotry" is not a value system, and even if it is, it is not a NPOV classification. Making it a class is still using it anyway.
If "bigotry" is just simply "Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself" then we can say the Polish resistance was motivated by bigotry (likewise the African-American Civil Rights Movement). As these movements had many people that were not accepting/tolerating of different opinions. We can say many people and movements that opposed contrary viewpoints were motivated by bigotry. This seem like awkward language and inappropriate to me, because "bigotry" is more than just "not tolerating" something. It is a loaded term that also means that what is described by it is "irrational", "unfair" among other things. It expresses disapproval on what it describes as I have shown above. Wikipedia must be neutral in its tone as well as content. This cannot be done as "bigotry" is understood in terms that are either highly subjective or value-laden. I have already explained this above.
If what you are trying to find a word for is "not tolerating another view point" then a better word would be "opposition." "Opposition" is neutral, it does not cast what it is describing in an approving or disapproving light. It does not suggest nefarious motives. It is as precise, non-loaded term you can find for this situation. And it is already in the title, so it goes without saying. Lincean (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I feel like you are trying to bait me with your references to the Polish_resistance_movement_in_World_War_II and African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) as being "motivated by bigotry". Unless your only purpose in that was to try to demonstrate that bigots can exist in both spectrums of opposition and supporting a social movement and the related change in rights, then I think you may want to rethink what you have written, as it comes across very offensively to those that were part of those movements by merely saying that they were motivated by bigotry. However, I commend you on realising that bigotry is a reason for opposing something, so there is a silver lining.
As for the second half of your response, I feel like you may have missed something when I was using the word "reason". I was not looking for the word "opposition" since, as you so kindly reminded me, it is in the title but instead I am looking at how to describe why a person, group or institution may be opposed to the advancement of LGBT Rights. Now, while I disagree that opposition is a "precise" term since opposition can be caused by many reasons, since opposition simply means [[MASS NOUN Resistance or dissent, expressed in action or argument and 2) A contrast or antithesis]], I believe the LGBT Rights opposition page is an article that is based on discussing the reasons as to why a person, group or institution may be opposed to the advancement of LGBT Rights. Surely that must include the personal values associated with Bigotry, just as a person's values can be associated with Religion.
I will put up the RfC within a day or two maximum, as I do not have much time at the moment. I would like to ask if this article would go under RfC|Pol, RfC|Soc or RfC|Pol|Soc?
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Those references are just a thought experiment to illustrate a point. I did not say any anyone or any group was "bigoted" nor that that "bigotry" is a reason for anything. Please read what I wrote carefully. What I wrote was to show the problem of using the word "bigotry," that is is not a neutral word. If this example seemed offensive, then I just proved my point. Which is, "bigotry" is more than just merely "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself", that it is also an insult. While words that are used as insults are not necessarily violate NPOV if used in the right context, it is more often that not, that it is bias, non-neutral, value-laden language.
Descriptions of peoples motivations (the "reasons") cannot be described by opinions or POV language. Lincean (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
"Thought experiment" it may have been, but it was said in a way that implied that those movements, I might even say social justice movements, were motivated by bigotry. "If this example seemed offensive, then I just proved my point". No, no it doesn't, it simply makes a mockery of the events, which is why I found it offensive.
Please see this SBS Insight episode on Same-Sex marriage and see what happens when Monsignor Woods uses the "Natural Order" argument or when Dr Van Gend argues against Same-Sex marriage using anthropology and against same-sex couples creating children, as well as single parents. That is "bigotry" in the sense that is being discussed. It is when someone stubbornly holds onto their beliefs in the face of 'superior' (I use the term loosely) arguments that disprove the original arguments made. It is not necessarily when someone is hateful or spiteful, but it is when someone holds onto values and beliefs that are disproven purely because that is what the person believes in, hence the 'intolerance towards those who hold a different opinion', though I would like to add the Merriam-Webster definition that is closer to the contexts in which we are using the word, which adds the words "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." Note that it says stubborn, something that separates the term "bigotry" from "opposition" due to the fact that the person will defend their beliefs, even when they are proven wrong.
See this article about Dr van Gend's opinions about forced adoption and homosexual surrogacy, and the aforementioned SBS Insight Episode, and it becomes pretty apparent that bigotry as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own" describes the actions and beliefs of Dr van Gend, and I am sure that there are other examples, I simply have the van Gend resources at hand.
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What I wrote did not imply that those movements were motivated by bigotry nor mocked anything. Please read what I wrote carefully. I did not say anything was motivated by bigotry, as I only laid out a conditional, and further I wrote "This seem like awkward language and inappropriate to me" indicating that the conditional that I set up is to be rejected, and gave reasons to do so.
Proclaiming one set of values as "superior" to another is to take a stance on values. This clearly violates WP:NPOV because it takes a side in a dispute. What defines someone as stubborn is contentious and value-laden, as it passes judgement on that which it is used. This and the other ways you have been trying to describe "bigotry" have all been either indicative of a POV or highly subjective. This all points to "bigotry" being a POV term.
What you say about the views of Monsignor Woods or Dr van Gend is your opinion. I am not interested in your opinions or feelings, this is not a forum for such things. Lincean (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


There's still stuff here that isn't about opposition (eg. xanith). How can we make sure we provide the full perspective (not giving the impression that some country, culture or religion totally opposes homosexuality when they don't) without including extraneous information? (Overhauling the structure may be helpful, as I have suggested in the past - so that it's not by geography or by group, but by forms of opposition or by the type of argument.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that reordering the structure will help improve the article, but I'm not sure what to do about not including extraneous information; I know that wikilinking to certain terms, pages etc. may help but apart from that, IDK. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, in regards to the Xanith in particular, if they are made a "See Also ...". E.g. the Xanith paragraph would be almost entirely deleted and made as a reference that there is an 'acceptable' form of homosexuality in Islamic culture, preferably after the HRW/Amnesty paragraph (just for flow-on clarity), with a "See also Xanith"? Just an idea to help but a restructure is probably needed as you are both indicating, but I don't have that much experience at making/reordering wiki pages, so I'll leave that with you.
If there are no objections within a week or so, I will go and change the Xanith paragraph and have a more thorough read-through to find other areas of discussion that aren't directly relevant to LGBT Rights Opposition
Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:50 06 July 2015
I've changed the "Xanith" paragraph to "Khanith" to a) better reflect the related article (it's kind of a stub BTW), and to cull off some of the unnecessary parts.
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Creation of a LGBT Rights Support Page or of a LGBT Rights Topical Arguments Used in Debates[edit]

I know that LGBT Rights Opposition page is flagged as being biased, and was wondering if it would be possible to either expand the page to LGBT Rights Argument Basis (would include both opposition and support) or to create a page for Rights Support and link the two pages? I'm not currently aware of any page that lists JUST the supporting arguments, in the same way that this page lists just the opposing arguments. Considering the fact that there are countries that are struggling to make up their minds (cough, Australia, cough) as well as the fact that there are countries that have had to have serious debate, such as America, it might be useful to collate arguments that support the LGBT Rights movement. Thanks, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:30 07 July 2015

Hmm, sounds interesting. I still think that if a "LGBT rights support" page were to exist, that there would be enough content for that to be a seperate article, but I'm not sure. What do other editors think of this? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I think a combined article on the model of Abortion debate (or, not necessarily on that model, the article has issues, but you know) could work. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
So as a brief summary of change:
a) name change to LGBT Rights Debate?
b) creation of sections relating to Supporting Arguments
c) a lot of debate about what should and shouldn't be included? (See Reasons above) ;P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcrazy102 (talkcontribs) 00:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan to me. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Might want to ping one or two places (at the very least, WP:LGBT studies) for more input before doing that kind of overhaul. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I've put up a message on the LGBT studies' talk page. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Coming from this note at WP:LGBT, I see no need to change the article title to LGBT rights debate, which is a narrower title and makes it seem like the topic is any one particular LGBT debate. Even if we changed "debate" to "debates," I'd still oppose. I also see no need to unnecessarily split the article. See WP:Spinout and WP:No split. Also, if this is an official move request, a WP:Requested moves tag should be added, so that wider opinions and not just members of WP:LGBT will know of the discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: In regards to the WP:Requested moves, this is just a discussion to see if the article should be made bigger and provide a more balanced view on the arguments of LGBT Rights Debate/s by including the common arguments that support and oppose LGBT Rights; or if a new article should be created to list and explain the common arguments that support LGBT Rights in a similar manner to that used on this article.
However, we are not splitting the article since, the first idea of creating a page dedicated to showing both sides of the debate/s would simple make this article a sub-section and would become integrated into the discussion; and the second idea would be to simply create a yang to the yin of this page (my personal opinion, but it would still aim to balance nevertheless), and I fail to see the point of the WP:Spinout reference unless you are referring to WP:POVFORK, but both types of ideas seem to be more WP:SUBPOV.
I'm certainly interested in why you don't want to create an article that also lists the arguments that support LGBT Rights, in a single article; as well as why you don't seem to have read the relatively small discussion that has already happened?
If you still have objections to creating a new article that either:
Discusses the arguments used on both sides of the LGBT Rights debate/s in a single article and would likely feature a merge of this article, or,
A new article that discusses the arguments that support the LGBT Rights debate/s in a similar manner to that of LGBT Rights Opposition.
User:Drcrazy102 User talk:Drcrazy102 02:05 9 July 2015
This article is not just an "opposition" article; it also counters opposition arguments, as it should. If more countering of the opposition aspects are needed, then we should do that...with WP:Reliable sources and WP:Due weight. I noted WP:Spinout and WP:No split because, in my opinion, you would essentially be splitting the topic by creating an "LGBT rights support" article. It had nothing to do with not having read the discussion. I did not have WP:POVFORK in mind, but, now that you mention it, WP:POVFORK is clear that "[t]he generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Why exactly do we need an article about people supporting LGBT rights when that is already somewhat covered in this article, can be expanded further in this article, and when there is an LGBT social movements article? The LGBT social movements article is the actual LGBT rights article, which is why the LGBT rights article (which is currently titled LGBT rights by country or territory) points to that article in its WP:Hatnote; it should be titled LGBT rights. And, of course, we also have the LGBT community article, which goes over some of the same things. I am not against "an article that also lists the arguments that support LGBT Rights." And if there was any suggestion in your question in that regard that I have something against noting pro-LGBT rights arguments, that is a silly my track record editing this site shows. I am against unnecessary splitting of content, WP:POVFORKS and WP:REDUNDANTFORKS. As is clear from looking at this other talk page, I always am.
Also, your WP:Ping didn't work on me. I haven't yet checked the talk edit history to see if you pinged me after you signed your post, but WP:Ping only works with a fresh signature. I don't need to be WP:Pinged to this talk page, though; it's currently on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
If people feel that we should rename the article, then I suggest LGBT rights support and opposition as the title. This bit gave me that title idea. Flyer22 (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I apologise if I sounded like I was questioning your desire to note arguments that are pro-LGBT, that was not my intention. I was just a little confused as to why you seemed so against creating a summary page similar to the current opposition article. I also don't often check the background of other editors unless they seem to be really dodgy, which was why I was unaware of your "track-record" as you put it.
I was, and am, referring more to an article that lists the arguments used to oppose or support LGBT Rights, in a single article, though it would by necessity require "see also ..."'s to the various articles that discuss the organisations, and the behaviours that support or oppose LGBT Rights. When I was referring to it being in a similar style to the current article, I was meaning in a layout format, with Religious Opposition, Health Opposition, Legal Opposition, Family Opposition, and an overview of Countries that are debating about LGBT Rights and (if needed) what specific aspect of the Rights they are debating.
I can certainly understand your worries about WP:POVFORKS and having WP:REDUNDANTFORKS, but the proposed changes would be about creating an article with sections of discussion about the arguments used by both sides. Not necessarily a more historical approach that seems to be used in the current Rights Opposition article.
I'm certainly open to adaption and discussion about any changes since this would be a fairly large task either way and I would have no clue how to do any of the 'technical' aspects.
User:Drcrazy102talk 06:13 9 July 2015
I could support a name change for this article, since it is a bit misleading.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk)

Edit War and possible POV-style around the /Religious/ Christian opposition?[edit]

Is there currently an edit war occurring around this section? Also, the wording of the section seems to be POV, at least from my view. I felt like a discussion should be opened to at least discuss the constant editing changes. User:Drcrazy102 talk

Oops, forgot to put in a signature, well that's been amended, but I can't find the time, so my apologies.
Since most of the reverted edits seem to be based on anonymous users creating edits and resulting in reverts, should we consider WP:SILVERLOCK?
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Will need summary of content in The Bible and homosexuality and Christianity and homosexuality.

Changing Section based on WP:NPOV and adding information[edit]

In my opinion, opposition to LGBT rights by the Christian Right is more based on a desire to advocate Complementarianism and Biblical patriarchy within nuclear families than opposition to LGBT people per se. -- Callinus (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why you have included the WP:SS(summary) since that is dealing with leads, unless you are suggesting that the Christian opposition section is in need of expansion, which would make some sense as there seems to be a lack of balanced arguments. I would like some clarification as the statement is a bit confusing.
Again, some clarification would be appreciated, mainly since the reasons are used to oppose LGBT rights, whether it is to keep "Biblical patriarchy" or not. However, Complementarianism is essentially the backbone of all of the various religion's arguments against LGBT rights, and I would like to bring your attention to this SBS Insight episode where several religious 'mentors'/'leaders' were present and debating Same-Sex Marriage. They all use the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" debate, though one clever atheist points out the 'natural' world's tendency to include homosexual animals. (That atheist bit is my POV, but hey, it was a nice and fairly civil episode and I learnt a few things) So whether it is to advocate within the nuclear family or not, it still forms and can fuel opposition to LGBT rights.
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I meant that the full text of Christianity and homosexuality § Critical views has to be summed up here.
For non-Australian editors, Insight is an Australian opinion panel program for general audiences. Opinions of individuals given on opinion programs are not published by a fact checking organization, so don't meet reliability standards as secondary sources. Opinions of inidividuals can be quoted in statements that attribute their opinion but synthesis by interpolating quotes or editorializing over them should be avoided.
There may be academic sources saying this, at the moment I've only found activist groups saying it and academic feminist sources responding. John Piper and Wayne Grudem in 1991 railed against evangelical feminism as leading to acceptance of homosexuality, and academic works respond to that. None of this meets NPOV or RS.
In short, I don't have any proposed improvements to the article, and I don't think my suggestion helps. -- Callinus (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Huh, so it's just called Insight on Wiki, that explains why I couldn't find it using the linking tool. I was not intending for it to be used as a source, but merely to raise the point that Complementarianism forms a basis for almost all religious debate about LGBT rights, though again, that is currently just my POV since I can't be bothered going a Google-ing. I think the United Ecumenical Catholic Church's Position Statement on Homosexuality may be a good source as it is a religious organisation arguing a religious debate using the common passages that are used against the advancement of LGBT rights. (Short form, it 'debunks' the passages, but POV to phrase that way, sorry) That may help in improving the section but *shrugs* who knows if the IPs will accept it? Maybe if they came onto the talk page and discussed their issues.
I've just moved the paragraph around since there now seem to be two areas: firstly the POV-style correction and secondly the possible protection of the article
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I have deleted the word ""clobber"" as a) someone put it in quotations but never sourced it, and b) WP:NPOV of these articles would require either a source/citation or to take a more neutral stance other than saying: "These passages are used by Bible-bashers, let's call them "clobber" passages". I may be wrong in my insinuation and I'm not casting aspersions on the user/s that wrote that particular line, but that change needed to happen to remain neutral.
I have changed "God hates" to "God is against" to better reflect WP:NPOV, something this article has been tagged as being deficient for Wikipedia.
I have changed "same passages condemn" to "same passages refer to" to better reflect WP:NPOV, and seems to have been written in the same vein as ""clobber" passages" (^see above^)
I have changed the line referring to LGBT-affirming Churches due to WP:Clarity, though my edit may still need some citation of history. I don't know much of the history of the LGBT-friendly churches, so I will leave sources to whoever has more knowledge. Edit: I have also changed the link to go directly to the article in question, i.e. LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations.
If anyone has any issues with these edits, please discuss and provide reasons instead of starting a WP:WAR of reverts. That is why I asked for the LGBT rights opposition to be semi-protected, and evidently NeilN agrees with my reasoning.
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Protection of LGBT rights opposition in response to potential WP:EDITWAR between IP/s and Users (Resolved)[edit]


On the original point, one week of semi protection may be useful unless any better options are offered.-- Callinus (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I've put up a request on on the request page, here but I've asked for Pending Changes due to the low traffic that the page experiences and that it is only between IPs, yourself and @Rosceles over the Christian Opposition section.
I've moved a section, read about it above ^ ( Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC) )
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I think semiprotection would help due to the IP-hopping, yeah. (I requested it a few weeks ago, unsuccessfully, and this is obviously the same person.) The addition this person is trying to push through is both incoherent and factually wrong, and I wish they'd stop wasting time like this. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Semi-protected 2 weeks. No comments on content, but reverting without participating in discussions is not on. --NeilN talk to me 20:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC for the inclusion, or exclusion, of Bigotry as a reason for opposition towards LGBT Rights[edit]

The debate has lasted for several months now and has, at its core, been based around whether the distinct definition of Bigotry (not bigot) can allow for WP:NPOV or if the term is in violation. @Lincean has argued, through various policies, that Bigotry cannot be NPOV due to its derivation from the word bigot. Various others users, myself included, have argued that Bigotry be included as a reason due to its inherent beliefs and sources have been found to support the claim.

At the moment, the article contains Bigotry as a reason due to the ongoing discussion, but little in-article discussion revolves around bigotry.

Please leave a comment on whether Bigotry can be NPOV or if it should be taken down or found in-quote/attributed. See discussion here, for the full debate.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a fair characterization of what I wrote. Lincean (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to correct me then, as I was writing a summary, not the entire 6 months of arguments which seemed to centre around WP:NPOV and other policies.
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is using "bigotry" here express a point of view?[edit]

"Bigotry" is retained. As a point of order, can I ask RfC participants to be extra careful with their grammar in formulating these RfCs? Small things matter, and bigger things matter even more. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this article "bigotry" is listed as a reason in the opening, is the use of this word value-laden, opinionated, or otherwise violate the principals of WP:NPOV? See this discussion. Lincean (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see why you have created a second WP:RfC when you could have edited or corrected the first RfC? I also asked for further input on where to place the original RfC but you seem to have taken it upon yourself to create a second instead of trying to create a single discussion area. I will amend the first RfC to be included in RfC Soc and RfC Reli noticeboards.
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What do the reliable sources that are talking about resistance to LGBT rights reporting on the issue. We know what the opposition has to say about it but what is the reporting on the opposition? --Adam in MO Talk 21:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So, here goes, this is going to be loooong. I did a search using term "bigot" to find related areas, and I have set out my response as follows:
Support/Oppose bigotry as a reason
Quotes relating to bigotry - Article about a US Supreme Court decision (I didn't catch which one, probably DOMA or Prop 8 though)
"Three Colorado cities - Aspen, Boulder, and Denver had enacted ordinances that listed "sexual orientation" as an impermissible ground for discrimination, equating the moral disapproval of homosexual conduct with racial and religious bigotry. See Aspen Municipal Code 13-98 (1977); Boulder Rev. Municipal Code 12-1-1 to 12-1-11 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV 28-91 to 28-116 (1991)"
"'But the Court today has done so, not only by inventing a novel and extravagant constitutional doctrine to take the victory away from traditional forces, but even by verbally disparaging as bigotry adherence to traditional attitudes. To suggest, for example, that this constitutional amendment springs from nothing more than "`a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group'" - Article about the three big monotheistic religions.
"On the other hand, Jewish forces of bigotry are still active:

In 2012 Jan, the Jewish Free School (a UK faith school) led its students to a website offering "cure gays" via "Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality"."


“The Catholic Church in Scotland sent out more than 100,000 postcards to its parishes recently. The cards were protesting at proposals of the Scottish government to legalise gay marriage. Parishioners were asked to sign the cards and send them into the consultation that the Government was conducting. 14,000 of the postcards have now been received at Holyrood and the Catholic Church is hailing this as a great success and demanding that the Government must now drop its plans. Except that it only represents less than 14% of the cards they provided. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the RCC's bigotry.” National Secular Society"

"the case eventually went to the European Court of Human Rights, where, on the 15th of Jan 2013, they also found that anti-gay bigotry was not excused in the public sector, not even by domineering Christians. She reinforced her irrational and prejudiced opinions with constant references to her belief in Christian beliefs, and the press have widely reported it as "Christian persecution""
"The case eventually went to the European Court of Human Rights, where, on 2013 Jan 15, they unanimously found that anti-gay bigotry was an adequate reason to suspend a counsellor who may well end up with gay clients, and the case was again lost. Despite the facts, the press have nonsensically reported it as "Christian persecution" without apparent irony."
"Many traditional religions reject the scientific, medical and psychological knowledge that we have gained about sexuality and regard homosexuality as "unnatural", a "choice" or a "moral evil". These religions are themselves immoral and evil in their attitude, causing hatred, bigotry, violence and oppression in the name of God. Homosexual communities have become accustomed to the ranting of religious fundamentalists and traditionalists, and this causes a strong anti-religious resentment amongst them." - Article about the Boy Scouts of America's decision to exclude homosexual men from leadership positions.
"If Boy Scouts of America insists on standing for bigotry, then it should stand alone--without the support of our public institutions."
"The time has come for individuals, government, public schools and United Way to stop supporting the bigoted Boy Scouts of America."
This was from most of the online resources (so around 3 out of 70-ish) since I couldn't access some, though I also haven't checked the textual references. I may get around to that soon, but I'm not sure when as I'm fairly busy at the moment.
I found that is no longer a domain and is up for sale, so this will have to be removed from the reference list, unless I am the only one experiencing this?
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on what the online sources quoted by User:Drcrazy102 above seem to say, I disagree that "bigotry" as a motivation is a POV term, overwhelmingly support the use of "bigotry" as a term which may be a reason for LGBT rights opposition and its inclusion in this article, although I thoroughly oppose calling anyone who opposes LGBT rights a "bigot", unless quoting a reliable source. (Comment: Perhaps some people's defense over the term "bigotry" should also be included as a compromise, provided it can be reliably backed up in an encyclopedic manner? And no, I can't accesss either). Zumoarirodoka (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm deleting the link from the reference table then since it has "died". RIP WayToCare! ;) (No offense is meant)
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Source reliability is not the issue here. These sources may be reliable for describing the opinions of certain persons or groups (see WP:RSOPINION), but that does not make it a reliable source to use in Wikipedia's voice. It matters not only what the source is, but how it is used. Sources can be reliable in a particular context, but not in others. These sources clearly express opinions, and must be cited as opinions, not facts. Lincean (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Three statements: I don't think the use of the term is categorically bad, and its inclusion in the current list doesn't say that all rights opposition is motivated by bigotry, while insisting on its removal seems to suggest that rights opposition is never motivated by bigotry. - It's possible that it's redundant to "homophobia" and "transphobia", but we could also say "homophobic or transphobic bigotry". - Gotta use reliable non-partisan sources to survey the use of language. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, "homophobic and transphobic bigotry" would be a better way of wording it. Zumoarirodoka (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Not having the word there does not "suggest that rights opposition is never motivated by bigotry." It does not follow that not having it listed there means that it is not the case. If a word is takes a point of view, then the word cannot be used. There are many points of view, some of them may be correct, but Wikipedia can not take any side or point of view. Not taking a point of view on a issue does not mean that no side is correct. It just means we describe the points of view and the reader can decide for himself.
Here is an analogy: the word "sinful," for example, is not to be used in describing things in Wikipedia's voice. This is because that word expresses a value, just like the word "bigotry." Not using it does not mean that there is anything that is or is not "sinful," just that Wikipedia is neutral in human values related disputes. It not Wikipedia's job to preach morals to people.
I have given reasons above why "bigotry" is value-laden. I have also addressed your what you have written here already back in April above. Please read my response to you there. Lincean (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Using "bigotry" is OK - Saying that opposition to LGBT rights "can be motivated by bigotry" seems pretty self-evident. Almost any political view out there can be motivated by bigotry. NickCT (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
If almost any political viewpoint can be motivated by bigotry, then why not add "bigotry" as a motivation to other political views/movements? Say, LGBT_social_movements, for example. Or see my comment above about the Polish resistance and African-American Civil Rights Movement. If "bigotry" is a fact, it should be consistently applied in order not to be bias. Lincean (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Lincean: - Haha! A fair question! Ok.... Let's see. I'm sure there were a few folks who could have probably been considered bigots among those other movements you mention. I guess if we could find sourcing for it, it would be OK to use the word on those other articles too. NickCT (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with what NickCT is saying, as well as Lincean (that is, unless you were making a rhetorical question). – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 12:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I second NickCT's comments above. Bigotry is as good as any reason, the same way as being an extraterrestrial will probably preclude you from understanding German. Why not? This term has the added benefit it does have coverage from both sides of the notional spectrum. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
To add NickCT's comments: "Such opposition can be motivated by religion, moral beliefs, homophobia or transphobia, bigotry, animosity,[1] political ideologies, or other reasons." This whole line seems mostly redundant then. Homophobia and transphobia are also self evident reasons for opposition. As for the RFC question, bigotry is an apt description of the opposition to LGBT rights, see bigotry article defining it as: " can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwinian Ape (talkcontribs) 01:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I've used that argument before, but Lincean does not feel that the bigotry article has much bearing on the use of the word in this article.
"Yes I have read the article. It does not support your claim" to quote Lincean's response to my use of the article to describe bigotry as a mindset. Just so you are aware @Darwinian Ape. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Does Lincean care to elaborate as to how it does not support that claim? It's right there in the lede, it says it can be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as gender and sexual orientation. How much more clear does it have to be? Opposition to LGBT rights(they don't claim special rights mind you, basic human rights.) fits the description of bigotry. I don't even think we need an RS to justify the use, it's just a descriptive word in English language, it's just like calling Einstein a genius. Darwinian Ape talk 05:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Note that If lgbt rights were to include eating babies, then the opposition to that "right" would not be bigotry. And if there is an opposition that is not based on intolerance towards lgbt, they shouldn't be called bigots. But the article doesn't say that, it says "Such opposition can be motivated by bigotry" which is completely fine, if not a bit obvious. Darwinian Ape talk 06:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Darwinian Ape, you can read why using that article in this way does not support the use of "bigotry" here. In short, descriptions of how a word can be used does not make the use of that word a fact or free of POV if used in the way described. There are many articles on Wikipedia that are about point of view terms or concepts (e.g. Fasiq). We are to describe these concepts, not use them. Just because there is an article that describes a concept, such as Perversion, that does not mean that we can use it in Wikipedia's voice.
It is very interesting that you write: "If lgbt rights were to include eating babies, then the opposition to that "right" would not be bigotry" as this, I think, helps highlight the crux of this debate, which is: "is the use of this word value-laden" as this is what this RfC is about. You seem to indicate (correct me if I am wrong) that the proper use of "bigotry" is dependent on some kind of moral quality, as you state that opposition to something you say is immoral (eating babies, presumably you are using this for an example of something immoral). If what I state is correct in understanding your explanation, that there is a normative aspect to the usage of "bigotry", then I agree with you in this respect, that "bigotry" is value-dependent (that is, it is used on people who presumably have "the wrong values" such as baby eating). But it is this reason that the usage is a problem, as taking a stance on normative issues, issues of human value, violates WP:NPOV. For an explanation of this, please see this essay and notice how any statement with normative implications are "opinions."
Also, you said that LGBT rights are basic human rights. If by human rights, you are referring to the concept of universal human rights, that there are rights independent of any law prescribing them, then this is a value-laden idea that cannot be used as a reason as it is a particular value set and point of view and violates WP:NPOV. Human rights, in this sense, are a much debated human values issue, like religion, and so describing opponents as bigots, is even more contentious. The issue at hand here is: is bigotry neutral? If you are trying to make the case, then it is best not to use POV concepts to make a NPOV case. Lincean (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
"You seem to indicate (correct me if I am wrong) that the proper use of "bigotry" is dependent on some kind of moral quality" No, but I can see how my example can be seen like that. I used that extreme example because everyone could see that opposition to "eating babies" can't be seen as intolerance towards lgbt. Let me give you another example, let's say some people oppose lgbt rights because they believe if they allow LGBT, human's will extinct. However misguided, that would not be considered bigotry either. Because the opposition does not stem from intolerance towards LGBT. Let me ask you something, would you be opposing if our sentence was something like this:
"Such opposition can be motivated by religion, moral beliefs, homophobia or transphobia, intolerance towards LGBT, animosity, political ideologies, or other reasons."
We are allowed to use the term "sexist" if something can be described as sexist, why would bigotry be any different? As long as we are not attributing it to specific individuals, there is nothing POV about using a word to describe something. "Also, you said that LGBT rights are basic human rights." that was a minor digression, and not related to the point I was trying to make. Darwinian Ape talk 21:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes to the original RFC question - using "bigotry" here does express a point of view. That whole line comes off badly. WP:LEAD says to define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points. This line comes off as just asserting motives in a kind of squishy 'can be' 'or others' way. Markbassett (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that you copy the entire sentence except for "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." (emphasis added) I would have assumed putting in controversial reasons as counting towards "any prominent controversies".
I don't deny that the paragraph/line needs editing but everyone has become hung up on the use of one word to the detriment of the article. Having a look at the article edit history, the only notable recent edits have been my removal of a dead link found because of source checking for use of "bigotry" using term "bigot" and Ctrl+F and a recent reverted edit because of transphobia being taken out. Everything else is back in mid-late July and that was the end of a saga mainly around an Edit-War focussed on Christianity and more recent Source Check on Scientology.
The editors that were originally here have made their points and now let the article page sit stagnant because the argument has become ad nauseam to them and myself, and the article is still suffering from poor quality in various areas. I have tried engaging both sides and reaching a compromise but we have had to resort to a "double" RfC because of Lincean's refusal to attempt to work towards a solution that isn't exactly what they want.[1] I am sure Lincean would actually like to helpfully edit the article instead of being pedantic about one word and forget the original rule: WP:IAR, but this is me late at night responding on a page that is vexing because of one word, raised by one editor has now become a mountain. Can we just tally whatever the results are, discover what the consensus is and then move on to the rest of the article?
The "controversial reasons," if are opinions, need to be stated as such. So pointing that out is not a good reason for your case. If you want to improve this article, then remove the POV language. WP:IAR is only relevant if something prevents the improvement of Wikipedia. Having POV language in Wikipedia does not improve it, it opens the door to more points of view and compromises a pillar of Wikipedia. The solution that I am wanting to work for is neutrality. I will keep editing until this objective is accomplished. There have been no good arguments for the inclusion of "bigotry." The many issues that I have raised have not been answered successfully. Lincean (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Can I please ask for you to list these reasons in a non-TL:DR fashion then so that editors can view your arguments succinctly? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I move to close due to a lack of traffic.
Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
To clarify since I don't seem to have said this earlier in this RfC; I support use of bigotry as co-proposer. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • To sum the votes as they currently stand, as indicated by users, for the question posed by User:Lincean: "[I]s the use of [bigotry] value-laden, opinionated, or otherwise violate the principals [sic] of WP:NPOV?" where Support is for "in violation of WP:NPOV and Oppose is for "suitable usage"
Support (Editor of article) Support (Uninvolved) Oppose (Editor of article) Oppose (Uninvolved)
User:Lincean - Proposer User:Markbassett User:Drcrazy102 User:NickCT
User:Zumoarirodoka User: FoCuSandLeArN
User:Roscelese User:Darwinian Ape
This places the votes at Support (2) to Oppose (7). I propose that general consensus is to keep bigotry as a reason.Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ I asked on 24/07 for input on the RfC, I receive none and did not until 26/08 when I posted first RfC and receive a reply an hour later just minutes AFTER Lincean has already created a second RfC without seeking to edit or change the first, and without even the slightest attempt to provide any guidance beyond "This is not a fair characterization of what I wrote." to which I replied (40 mins later) "Feel free to correct me then, as I was writing a summary, not the entire 6 months of arguments which seemed to centre around WP:NPOV and other policies." before seeing the second RfC about the same topic on different pages to the original before I edited to move the first onto the same pages as well as maintaining the original post on RfC/Poli.
  • Retain "bigotry" - Although this RfC is not neutrally (or grammatically) phrased, bigotry is the appropriate word to use in the context of this article as one of the reasons for opposition to LGBT rights. It is a widely-held view among those who study the LGBT rights movement that bigotry is one of the reasons why some people oppose LGBT rights. A few sources:[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19].- MrX 00:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is a brief summary of the usage of "bigotry" in the presented sources.
  • The Politics of Gay Rights uses Bigotry 3 pages on pages 201, 361 and 363. 201 presents opinion of public sentiment, 361 and 363 are quotes from Congress Records and "Senior 1997"
  • The Bigot: Why Prejudice Persists does not have an online version to search. The preview however uses bigotry 35 pages in a variety of ways.
  • Culture Wars and Enduring American Dilemmas uses bigotry on pages 25 and 73. Page 25 uses bigotry in reference to reverse discrimination against the views of the opposition;

    On the right, there is concern that the gay movement has succeeded in defining a reality that makes opposition to homosexuals appear to be bigotry (Editorial 1998c, 16)"

Page 73 echoes the sentiment in a bi-partisan and inter-institutional manner discussing left and right wing and religion.

@MrX:, I have already responded to what you wrote in this discussion on 4 June 2015.
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. This is a Wikipedia policy. Part of what this means is that we "describe disputes, but not engage in them" and "avoid stating opinions as facts." Human values are highly disputed, and for the purposes of Wikipedia, are opinions.
So sources like an ethics book: "Gay Ethics" that makes value claims are no different than, say, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Both have disputed claims and opinions. We must list morals/faith claims as opinions and not facts. The concepts and terms that philosophers and theologians in such sources define can described, but not applied in Wikipedia's voice.
Appeals to a authority are only relevant here for facts. Authorities can an do have opinions (say, religious authorities) which can be cited, but not used in Wikipedia's voice. Widespread values are still values. Lincean (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully, @Lincean: Considering that I have 580 times as many edits on Wikipedia as you do, you're not in a credible position to lecture me on the neutral point of view policy. I also don't see that you have presented any new arguments, so my previous arguments will have to stand. Let me know if you come up with sources that refute that fact that bigotry is one of the causal reasons for opposition to LGBT rights. - MrX 16:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Lincean:, I would like to again ask for you to create a summary list of your arguments against the use of bigotry, especially considering the current minority consensus for deleting bigotry. The Reasons thread is a small essay & with the current layout of Wiki's text, makes it very hard to read through the arguments and actually digest what is being said besides your recurring argument of NPOV, despite reliable sources being provided supporting the usage of bigotry as opposition towards LGBT rights. There are now around 15+ sources being proffered and yet somehow none of them seem to pass your judgement as being reliable enough to put on Wikipedia. Yes, some of them are opinion pieces, I can't and won't deny it, but others are political pieces that relate exactly to the reasons for opposition. Both types can still be used within reason. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.