Talk:Homophobic hate speech/deletion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
Old discussion from vfd
Article kept on April 13, 2004
- There is already anti-gay slogan, and calling anything hate speech is POV and contentiously controvercial. Sam Spade 19:32, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Inherently and irredeemably POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the article needs expansion and more context where claims are made, but I think it is a legitimate topic. Even if the article were only to explain what some people considered homophobic hate speech and why (plus information from detractors, including accusations of thoughtcrime), I think it's a topic which is of enough interest to warrant inclusion. I also think it's distinct from anti-gay slogan given that some countries openly legislate against homophobic hate speech and not anti-gay slogans, per se. Hate speech is more directed and representative of a specific agenda than is a slogan. -- Matty j 21:23, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Even the word 'homophobic' is POV in the sense it is used in this article. Speech is not homophobic. Sam Spade 21:59, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- One can argue that not all homophobic speech is hate speech. Nevertheless, I believe it's clear that some hate speech is homophobic in focus. -- Cyan 00:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I argue that the concept of 'hate speech' is offensive to intellectual dignity, and a sign of newspeak taking control. Also the term 'homophobic' is a gross misuse of a psychologuical term. True homophobia is repressed homosexuality, not saying 'fag' alot. Sam Spade 22:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- It has been argued that saying 'fag' alot is a result of repressed homosexuality. Also, the American Heritage Dictionary lists homophobia as "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men." -Seth Mahoney 23:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I argue that the concept of 'hate speech' is offensive to intellectual dignity, and a sign of newspeak taking control. Also the term 'homophobic' is a gross misuse of a psychologuical term. True homophobia is repressed homosexuality, not saying 'fag' alot. Sam Spade 22:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- One can argue that not all homophobic speech is hate speech. Nevertheless, I believe it's clear that some hate speech is homophobic in focus. -- Cyan 00:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Even the word 'homophobic' is POV in the sense it is used in this article. Speech is not homophobic. Sam Spade 21:59, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep BCorr|Брайен 22:05, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. "Homophobic hate speech is now a criminal offence in many countries." That's a pretty notable fact. -- Cyan 00:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. POV title and unnecessary. 80.255 10:12, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Just because homophobia is socially unacceptable doesn't make the term POV - some things still are quite accurately described by the word, and the same goes for "hate speech". -Seth Mahoney 18:09, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Content should be put into Hate speech. Otherwise we would also need Anti-disabled hate speech, Anti-christian hate speech and so on. If it is not deleted there should be drawn a distinction between hate speech and political and moral opposition to homosexual behaviour, practices and policies. --Benedikt 18:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- And if such specific forms of hate-speech (though I certainly have never heard of anti-disabled person hate speech) are expandable they would merit such entries, and also point toward the larger umbrella article on hate speech. Lestatdelc 22:56, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)~
- Don't you have sayings like You cripple, You idiot, etc. At least such wordings are originated in hate speech. --Benedikt 22:00, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- And if such specific forms of hate-speech (though I certainly have never heard of anti-disabled person hate speech) are expandable they would merit such entries, and also point toward the larger umbrella article on hate speech. Lestatdelc 22:56, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)~
- Keep - as noted above, this is a topic that can be expanded and has relevance, particularly since there are laws and political/legal battles being fought over such things within the context of such issues as hate-crimes legislation. This is a very usefully stub for further expansion and no need for some arbitrary time criterion expansion. Lestatdelc 22:52, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep The article is, as far as I can see, correct, although expandable. It should also be noted that Mr Sam Spade is currently on a crusade through the Wikipdeida, to "defend normalicy against horrors"", so he might not be in a position to judge POV or NPOV. -- AlexR 23:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like a classic ad hominem. Please restrain yourself. Sam Spade 00:10, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Its not ad hominem if its relevant. -Seth Mahoney 19:28, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Let every person have his own crusade, Alex. --Benedikt 22:00, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like a classic ad hominem. Please restrain yourself. Sam Spade 00:10, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
