Talk:LGBTQ rights opposition

What about parents wanting their kids to have kids?

The core reason why parents oppose homosexuality is because they want their kids to have kids. Parents do not despise their lesbian daughters as much as they despise their gay sons. The reason for this is because a lesbian daughter can still have kids that are genetically theirs but gay males cannot have kids that are genetically theirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.236.162 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Many same-sex couples, including male couples, have children through surrogacy, adoption, etc. Please provide a source for your edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Article title

I think using the word "rights", especially in the title, is inherently biased. It implies that we already have all of these god-given rights and some angry people are trying to deny us those rights. Look at the second paragraph here: Abortion_debate#Terminology: "Appeals are often made in the abortion debate to the rights of the fetus, pregnant woman, or other parties. Such appeals can generate confusion if the type of rights is not specified (whether civil, natural, or otherwise) or if it is simply assumed that the right appealed to takes precedence over all other competing rights (an example of begging the question)." We have the same situation here, the existence of certain "rights" is already assumed in the article title. (Yes it's currently specified in the lead that we're talking about civil rights, but that's not the point.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Er, so what would you suggest in its place? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If I had a suggestion I would have already offered it. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. I think the lead section makes it clear what the word "rights" refers to (laws, and possible laws).

Speaking of which, the lead section is a bit repetitive. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Reasons

@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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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." 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

@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)

Non-opposition

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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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

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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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.

@Zumoarirodoka:@Roscelese:

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 suggestion...as 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)