Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in the LGBT community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. A number of good arguments were raised on both sides, but I don't see how this discussion can be closed as anything other than "no consensus". As an editor, I would urge moving the article to Race relations in the LGBT community and would strongly urge more of a focus on what reliable secondary sources (e.g. sociologists) have to say about race relations in this community, rather than a focus on individual incidents of racism which, sadly, are common across all strata of society. But that's beside the point; for the purposes of AfD, this is a no consensus, defaulting to keep. MastCell Talk 22:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism in the LGBT community

Racism in the LGBT community (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Let me first explain that I think it is very unfair in that it singles out a community, allow me to ask, is there an "Anti-Semitism in the Black community" article? Or more on topic, "homophobia in the Black community"? No. Should there be? No. Because homophobia, like racism, appears in all groups, no matter how much you can document and find incidents to talk about, this is the truth. --Revolución hablar ver 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Nominator is obviously a troll. Did not place the AFD notice on the article page - attempting to get this article deleted by stealth. Delete this AFD and ban nominator permanently. 91.108.205.229 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Excuse me, but I had forgotten how to put the AFD notice. So please stop assuming. --Revolución hablar ver 06:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • You'd "forgotten" how the put the AFD notice on the article, but conveniently "remembered" how to list it here? Riiiiight, of course, how silly of me not to think of that. 91.108.229.63 10:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep too many sources for it to be deleted. I hate to be speculative, but I think the nominator is a member of this community, and wants to keep potential criticism down. Sasha Callahan 17:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am a member of this community, if it matters. The article is terrible. It is not a discussion of racism in the LGBT community. It is a catalog of a few incidents of racial bias or perceived racial bias within the American LGBT community. However, the topic of the prejudice of one minority group toward another minority group is clearly encyclopedic. I look forward to someone's taking this article in hand and improving it. Otto4711 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as topic is unencyclopedic, while Otto's comments on state of article makes me more firm in my decisionSqueakBox 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: While there are sources, this phenomenon does not seem particularly notable. So there's racism in the LGBT community... there's racism in all communities. But what makes this special? I don't see any reason to have this article. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is quite a bit of information that counters that idea.Racism Issues in Predominantly White Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Communities; North America - Europe - Australia (with quite a few sources and articles.)[1]
  • Delete. Two seemingly unrelated topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. The article does not assert the significance of its subject, simply saying that it exists and that it is not a surprise that it exists! It is not clear to me that racism in the LGBT community is so significantly different from racism in society as a whole that it warrants a article, consequently I go for delete. --Malcolmxl5 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There seems to be enough sources to establish the notability of this topic, but the referencing needs a lot of work - it seems to be largely attributed to blogs and the like. Come to think of it the article in general needs work - a lot of work - but I disagree with the idea that it ought to be deleted. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Just because something is sourced doesn't mean that it's something that should be kept. This is one of those instances - why is racism in the LGBT community so special that it needs to be set apart? To call this notable, in my eyes, is some sort of assumption that the LGBT community is perceived to be without bias towards other groups. Why else would racism in that particular group need special attention? fuzzy510 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not a question of whether this particular sort of racism is "special." It is a question of whether the topic meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Clearly it does. Otto4711 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Otto4711. Racism is everywhere so it should be ignored... that's a argument for willful ignorance. Ideally, the page should be transformed into something more like Race in the LGBT community, where it talks about the role race plays in the community and not solely just on racism, the way Ethnic issues in Japan does. In my college days, I've read papers by African American LGBTs who complain how race ignorant the community was in general, and such screeds should make plenty of good material for such an article. Also, see Shirley Q. Liquor—there's plenty of material there to get started with. hateless 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's important to remember here that LGBT is not an arbitrary method of classification. LGBT isn't a just a category that a person can fall into, but, as the article states, it is an actual community. If racism is indeed a prominent and notable issue within the community, then there is no good reason that we shouldn't include it, as it would relate directly to the subject of the LGBT community. Calgary 22:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as significant subject although, article would use some expansion with additionnal sources to make the topic more solid.--JForget 00:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't seem to have any particular merit. Is there really a case for saying that racism in that community is different from racism outside it? Adam Cuerden talk 02:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is. Just to be clear, we're talking about racism within the community, not racism from the community. While racism may be very similar wherever it appears, the idea is that racism is of enough significance within the community to merit it's own article. In summary, the article is primarily an article about the LGBT community that specifically discusses racism, not an article about racism that specifically discusses the LGBT community. Calgary 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge too much WP:SYNTH to keep a topic like this. Corpx 04:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm failing to see any WP:OR in the topic that suggests that subject isn't valid. Indeed many of the comments are clear that racism does exist within the LGBT community so where is the WP:SYNTH? Benjiboi 11:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • For this history in the US section, the article examines a "gay bar named Badlands" and allegations of racism there. Then it moves on to some alleged verbal assaults that occurred in the Castro. Then it moves on to Chuck Knipp. The article is tying all these incidents under the big umbrella of racism in the GLBT community - which, to me, is WP:OR Corpx 08:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Granted the article could do a much better job at presenting the material. That gay bar Badlands was brought up before the SF Human Rights Commission for dozens of complaints of racial profiling and discrimination, because of the race-based incidents a group And Castro For All was created and still exists to address racism issues in the LGBT communities. It should be noted that the Castro is probably the best known (and I believe still largest) gay neighborhood in the world.
  • Chuck Knipp's character Shirley Q Liquor is a prime example of racism insensitivity and made headlines for blackface stereotyped stand-up comedy - the character was disinvited to perform in several venues after protests. Both these incidents were covered in the GLBT national press so no WP:OR needed there. I can see how it could be interpreted that way. Benjiboi 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's well-sourced, and valid. I see no reason to delete it, and frankly, deleting the article won't make the issue go away. spazure (contribs) 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as asserting notability, being notable, and being sourced, but also having a really bad/WP:SYNTH intro. Antelan talk 04:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is certainly a fascinating phenomenon - seems to be well sourced, but could use some fleshing out - I'm a lesbian and it baffles me how a few people who will almost inevitably at some point be a victim of discrimination can then go about perpetuating discrimination themselves... Xmoogle 14:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This topic is important and I agree with User:Calgary above, racism or discrimination within a community differs from external racism or discrimination. I think the article could be improved, but let's put it out there and folks can edit and alter it.Kootenayvolcano 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an important subject in the LGBT community garnering headlines in many of the publications. The article is off to a good start and can easily expand in many directions including LGBT groups like Black and White Men Together and Castro For All that have formed to combat racism within the LGBT community. Benjiboi 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rationale seems to boil down to 'other stuff does not exist, which is not a reason for deletion. Yes, racism is present in every community, but it also manifests differently in every community. There have been various publications on this matter. Sourceable, notable. No reason not to keep. CaveatLector Talk Contrib 21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per CaveatLector.Biophys 02:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Corpx. The WP:SYNTH issues seem the most pressing. Bulldog123 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Otto4711. Wow. Bearian 18:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If this article were to stay, then an article disscusing racism in every community would have to have its own article (from latinos, blacks, whites, and asians, to nudists, goths, and punks..). Wouldn't that be alot of fun writing many articles about racism in many communites.. The history section is like a textbook example of racism, or in other words, what people already know about racism. The first sentance implies that somehow, someone would not know that racism in the LGBT community exists...and the "Racial bias in the gay media" section....I can think of many communites that have the same issues...systemic bias annoys me badly. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 07:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If enough sources were to support those articles then they certainly could be written. There are numerous sources writting about racism within the LGBT communities as well as books and taught as a part of LGBT and black studies in colleges. Double-minority status is not exclusive to these communities but this article is. You are free to start an article on other subjects as you wish and they will be held to the same standards. Benjiboi 07:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for WP:SYN issues. The concepts "racism" and "LGBT community" are quite vague; trying to create a coherent article dealing with both at the same time is bound to be an exercise in POV-pushing. However, I wouldn't object to merging any useful content into an existing article on one or both of those topics. Biruitorul 18:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what relevance the "flat earth" link has, but yes, those terms are rather subjective ("racist" being used by the new McCarthyists of the Left to silence large swathes of dissenting opinion they may not like; "LGBT" an obfuscatory umbrella term that seeks to couch its members' behaviour behind the banality of an acronym) and in any case, the only ones likely to be writing about either topic, let alone both in tandem, are radical leftist grievance-industry types, whose screeds need not befoul an encyclopedia that strives for objectivity. As an aside, this article seems highly likely to remain focused on attacks by white American (male) homosexuals against their black and Hispanic counterparts. As it will be some time before (if ever) before it starts to address racism by Afrikaaner bisexuals against Zulu bisexuals in South Africa, or by Fijian transsexuals against Indo-Fijian transsexuals, perhaps it could be given a more specific title. Indeed, the title is vague in another respect: does the article seek to address racism within the "community" (seemingly yes), or in the "community" but directed at society as a whole (this is how the title reads)? The questions proliferate, and with these, the keep rationale diminishes ever further. Biruitorul 21:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with this topic having a broad scope - the beauty of Wikipedia is that perceived or actual biases will be continually challenged as articles develop. So, I say, lets trust the collaborative process that is Wikipedia. If contributors want to address the Afrikanner/Zulu question you mentioned, they will. Kootenayvolcano 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, but on the other hand, that raises a further question: is there a single worldwide "LGBT community"? Maybe in a loose sense, but the term "racism" can have very different meanings in different cultures, and of course homosexuality itself is perceived quite differently around the world. So while a broad focus could cover everyone, let's keep WP:SYN in mind and try to avoid mixing apples and oranges when discussing the issue in (eg) advanced industrial ethnically heterogeneous societies (say the US) vs. developing, more homogeneous ones (like Somalia). Broad-focus articles are good because combining lots of little articles makes for more comprehensive coverage; at the same time, lots of little articles may be necessary if the topics in question are different enough. Biruitorul 22:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Not surprisingly the research and published writing on the subject that are up to WP standards have mainly been in the more developed regions of the world and the article (as, I think with almost all WP articles) will reflect that. As the article develops it would be interesting to note geopolitical differences and the responses and affects of same. Jamaica with its recent Murder Music attention to its LGBT community is an example that people who are LGBT in developing countries might have fighting racism as an interest but staying alive is a priority. Benjiboi 00:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Note to Administrator: The poster objects to both the terms "LGBT" and "Racism". Perhaps we should delete those as well? How's this for Wikipedia "consensus"? --George100 09:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment on above note What is that even supposed to mean? Biruitorul's personal and political opinions are not the topic of discussion here. He raises valid points in his comments, whether or not you agree with everything he says; and in any event, opinions and comments in an AfD cannot be dismissed simply because you don't like the commenter's political opinions. K. Lásztocska 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. What a weird topic. I'm always, as a general rule, against these types of splinter-articles. (I've never been a big fan of Balkanization in either the literal or figurative sense.) Perhaps some of the material would be worth merging into Racism; but this article is way too narrowly-defined for my liking. K. Lásztocska 23:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment The Racism article is quite large and although a summary section might be appropriate I think it would quickly be nominated for it's own article anyway. There is more than enough material to turn this into a good article, "weird" or otherwise.
  • Keep — topic is obviously encyclopedic, and article already has sources establishing notability. Future expansion could include discussion of African-American lesbians and the womanist movement; I know that at some points there has been friction between the African-American lesbian community and the white-dominated lesbian mainstream. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or move. This is a horribly written article with many problems. Mainly, per title, it lacks neutrality. Second, it isn't well sourced. Third, it is U.S. centric. I think the best solution is to merge it into something like LGBT culture in the United States or Racism in the United States.--SefringleTalk 06:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment No one seems to dispute the article needs improving. NPOV, Globalism and Sourcing are all easily fixed through regular editing. Possible renaming may be appropriate once AfD has been resolved. Benjiboi 13:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Is well documented issue with social significance. Furthermore, I believe that the deletion of this article will be tantamount to censorship. It is an attempt to cover up and condone a very real phenomenon. --George100 01:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Ace of Swords 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic topic, though article needs improvement. Needs improvement does not justify deletion. It does justify people working on it to improve it though. --Ace of Swords 19:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly encyclopedic. The LGBT community is not monolithic, even in one city (such as NYC), the LGBT community is not a category, and members are already oppressed by homophobia in many parts of the world, and in many states in America. To add racism is a double whammy for LGBT people who are also members of other minorities. Gay Asians and gay Jews haven't been touched on, for example, nor have most other racial, religious, or cultural groups. I believe notability has been established, as the issue is well documented. The article needs to be improved: expanded, made global, and re-written for readability. However those are not reasons for deletion. Other reasons to keep have been touched on. — Becksguy 04:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom vague and not written in neutral point of view . Harlowraman 20:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The topic is encyclopedic, it deserves a page. It has plenty of references. NPOV can later be corrected. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 22:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.