Wikipedia talk:Anti-homophobic terminology

Obviously, I would like a specific policy that disallows anyone who, while violating other policy or not, refers to another editor as a "pouf", "homo", "buttfucker", "lesbo", or similar, as an insult, or otherwise uses phrases such as "cocksucker", "ass/arse muncher" or anything else that depicts the recipient as homosexual - in that homosexuality should not be considered or seen to be represented as being inferior to heterosexuality. I recognise that there is no policy for the disallowing of the use of terminology inferring that someone is Jewish, black or female (or disabled), but the cultural environment of WP is such that it is not needed - action will be taken under existing policy; this does not appear to be the case when inferring that someone is gay. This policy proposal seeks to redress it. Oh, and before anyone gets pointy, I suggest we also create WP:BREEDER and redirect it to this policy page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly unnecessary

With all due respect to LessHeard vanU, this page is completely unnecessary. We have a policy regarding personal attacks and we have a policy regarding civility. Making one-off exceptions like this is silly. It isn't appropriate to call someone a faggot, sure. But it's equally inappropriate to call someone a kike or a spic or whatever other term you want to use to denigrate someone. I don't see anything in this page that isn't covered elsewhere. And I see no reason to make LGBT-related terms their own special category. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo the above though. You seem to be saying that using racial insults is currently not considered acceptable while using homophobic insults is; that's obviously not the case, as neither kind is acceptable. Actually, I find the wording of this proposed policy slightly offensive: "sexual acts that, while not illegal, are considered less worthy or appropriate" - what?! While not illegal? Gee, at least it's not illegal. It's bad, but not illegal. Again, what?! --LjL (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LHvU, with considered respect and appreciation for what you're trying to accomplish (a more collegial and civil working atmosphere for all editors), I have to agree with both MZM and LjL above. The language you are concerned with is clearly covered by both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Everyone is already entitled to the same protection; homophobic remarks are no more acceptable than rascist remarks, and personal attacks aren't acceptable whether they contain such elements or not. I obviously know the circumstances that were the most immediate cause for your concern and I think I probably understand why you started this page, but I do feel it ultimately represents an unnecessary bit of "instruction creep". Doc Tropics 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Came in here from the link on WP:AN. The page title and diction being used on the page are so vague that I wasn't entirely sure what you were talking about, at first. In my experience, users making homophobic or racist attacks are already blocked as a matter of course; if anyone has some specific examples where this ought to be the case and isn't, more information would be helpful to discussion. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly pointless rulecruft, and bizarrely, seems to insult homosexuals in its own wording. Junk it now. MickMacNee (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my impression that casual references to perceived homosexual "vices" are not noted or even possibly recognised, when they do not form part of an attack; calling someone queer, a faggot or similar will be acted upon, but an adjective referencing gay sensibilities will not be. Put it this way, in deference to comments about the phrasing of the proposed policy, I might comment, "If it is a bit limp wristed I shall then work like a nigger to make it as tight as a Jews fist, so it doesn't sound so girly." If that had been my response I would likely properly be in trouble for the offensive references to blacks and Jews, and the demeaning reference to women - but I suggest that very few would believe that limp wristed was similarly imappropriate. In truth, it is, but it doesn't seem to register as sharply as racist, ethnic or sexist commentary. However, I recognise that I have also inadvertently poor in my choice of wording and will adjust the proposed policy accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the often used label 'drama queen' is a more realistic example. MickMacNee (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, the way you've phrased it now, you couldn't ever use words such as "gay" or "homosexual" even when neutrally discussing someone's sexual orientation for a specific reason. Also, WTH are "sexual acts relating to a homosexual orientation"? --LjL (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I would rather expand on my (limited, UK scene only) gay vocabulary knowledge elsewhere, but only if really necessary. Also, I don't understand the first sentence above; "you" as in "one", or as in "me"? What "specific reason"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You" as in "one". Say I write a message such as "since you're gay, you might want check the article about homosexuality" on the talk page of an editor who is openly gay. Your policy would prevent that. You've changed the wording a little, but it still says I shouldn't use words that "imply someone is homosexual". Why wouldn't I, within reason? I shouldn't insult someone, and that can be done in many ways, including (and not limited to) implying they're homosexual when worded in certain ways, regardless of whether or not they are. --LjL (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. I have amended the page - even if it will not matter in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep taking these suggestions in the narrowest sense possible, though. Having "other than encyclopedic concerns regarding relevant articles" as a get-out-of-jail-free card means I could say to someone: "since you're a darn faggot, you have a WP:COI in editing this homosexuality-related article", and according to your guideline, I would be in the clear. You're being too specific with this whole thing, really. Guidelines work well when they're generic. --LjL (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that WP:NPA already covers this. And yes, that includes "casual references", although I don't think I've ever encountered them around here. I cannot really come up with an example that would be both offensive and not acted upon based on our existing policies. --Conti|✉ 14:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is already dealt with thoroughly through WP:NPA. Comment on content, not editors. Racist or snarky asides as to "stereotypes" which are not straightforward PAs have long been answered with quick blocks for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All those concerned about homophobic slurs should take a look at the Matt Sanchez article and consider whether the opening paragraph to a person's opening biography they should include a statement tarring them with a comment made by someone else at the same conference using the word "faggot". This kind of hateful smear to tar someone who was in gay porn at one time makes Wikipedia look really bad. Are we now going to put nasty comments in people's biographies if we don't like them based on what other people at the same event have said in no relation to them at all? Pretty shameful. I have no problem with the issue being covered with appropriate context in the article's body. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel good/do naught rulecruft that's fatally flawed on a number of levels. Based on the input thus far, I suspect this will continue to WP:SNOWball until somebody swaps out the Proposed template for the Rejected one. Bullzeye ^contribs 08:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly - but there is no harm in harvesting a few more opinions and discussion for a few more days, so that consensus is rock solid. I feel the matter too important to consign as rejected just yet (although, of course, I would not revert if a neutral third party closed it sooner.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]