Talk:'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan/Archive 1

I can see no justification WHATSOEVER for this page. If some bigots had a slogan 'gas all jews', 'kill all Pakis' or 'fuck Palestinians' would we carry it too? JTD 22:30 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

No, of course not. The major difference seems to be that, grammatically speaking, "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" is not an imperative (as opposed to the examples you mention). Also, to me it seems perfectly NPOV. --KF 22:41 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Could we delete this page if we mentioned "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" on both the Sebastian Bach and Westboro Baptist Church pages?

Hey, User:AxelBoldt, since you created this page... Want to tell us what the point is?

The point is an interesting connection between corporate America, heavy metal music, christian fundamentalism and hate speech. What more do you want from a six-sentence article? AxelBoldt 18:24 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Hold it, ladies & gentlemen. Aren't we supposed to enter any page we'd like to see deleted in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page and wait for one week? KF 22:49 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

There was no deletion. I moved the content to hate speech. An anonymous user restored it for reasons unknown to me. Now it's redundant. --Eloquence

I think the content is perfectly fine, but should be incorporated in hate speech (as I did) or another similar article; phrases should usually not have their own articles but be mentioned where appropriate, as people are unlikely to search for a specific phrase or link to it (but the redirect can stay). --Eloquence 22:49 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

NPOV? You have got to kidding. Whatever about the content which is NPOV, the title is blatent encitement. If someone used a slogan 'kill pakis' it would not be used as the title; an NPOV title would be used linking to the page. NPOV doesn't simply mean content of a page, it also refers to the article title. And you can hardly find an article title more POV and less NPOV than this. If this belongs anywhere, it should be on the Sebastian Bach or Westboro Baptist Church, not on its own with a title like this greeting Wiki users. I agree with Eloquence's argument. JTD 22:56 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

There is no reason we can't move it AND remain NPOV. If you just redirect it to hate speech you are exercising judgement and failing to be neutral, specifically you are making an editorial decision that this is hate speech. Instead, let the reader decide for themself. If the only two "significant" times this phrase has been used have been related to Sebastian Bach and the Westboro Baptist Church, then why not just quote the phrase on those pages, and let the reader judge for themselves what the motivation of the person who used the phrase was?

It is not possible to write anything at all on any subject whatsoever without "exercising judgement". The phrase is undoubtedly offensive, does not offer any prospect of becoming an enclycopedic topic, and the content belongs, if it belongs anywhere, in the entries on hate speech or particular prominent figures (if they are indeed prominent) who used it. Tannin

---

I don't know what everybody's problem is. I found an interesting bit of information and wrote an article about it. Would it help to put the article's title in quotes?

Where does the information come from that the t-shirt incident with Bach was in 1989? I couldn't locate the precise date, and in fact the Rolling Stones article implied that it happened in the 1990s. Furthermore, the article on the band claims that he wore the t-shirt on MTV, is that confirmed? AxelBoldt 23:06 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Quotes might help. AIDS, it might be noted in passing, kills heterosexuals dead. AIDS kills women dead. AIDS kills Africans dead. AIDS kills people dead. Is there an article in Wikipedia about the logical fallacy of seeing the misfortunes of others as evidence of God's disfavor? If so, a link might help. -- Someone else 23:11 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I don't see the problem either. No one would suggest removing slogans like "Ein Volk - ein Reich - ein Führer" from an encylopaedia article on the Nazis. I can very well imagine someone coming across this phrase and wondering where it originated. If they then google it, a separate entry on Wikipedia will give them all they need to know. --KF 23:13 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

This article has been placed on the Votes for Deletion page. JTD 23:17 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Well, even if I disagree as to where this info should go, I agree that it doesn't need to have a page of its own.

Yes, it should have a page of its own because, as I just pointed out, it will be easier to find that way. Haven't you all become victims of the use-mention fallacy? KF 23:25 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

If it is deemed that a redirect rather than a link to hate speech helps the reader in any way, then fine, but the information from this article needs then to be added to that article. It took me a while to research, I find it interesting, and it is NPOV. Alternatively, suggest a better title for an article to hold this information. AxelBoldt 23:19 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I've reverted the Hate Speech page to the version produced by Eloquence which included the information formerly contained on this article page. So the information is there, unless our anonymous contributor decided to revert that again (and this page) to return it here. (In which case, all of us busy reverting both pages will have to do re-reverts again, I suppose.) JTD 23:39 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

C'est buono, Jay:

Quoting KF:"No one would suggest removing slogans like "Ein Volk - ein Reich - ein Führer" from an encylopaedia article on the Nazis. I can very well imagine someone coming across this phrase and wondering where it originated. If they then google it, a separate entry on Wikipedia will give them all they need to know."

Yeah, well, the basic problem with this is specificity: What is it? 'It' is -a slogan, and a t-shirt, under the category of "Hate speech/Forms/Events/Details/" The idea of seeding a whole encyclopedic area of research into hated or discrimination of homosexuals is valid, and it doesnt necessary have to be from top down... but in this case, the specificity is highly suspect - and your premise that "no one would object" KF, you assumes that you knows where the boundaries of what's objecitionable is, yet the article itself is an perfect example of what is potentially objectionable: conclusively demonstrating that you're not in tune with the incidental notions of NPOV and encyclopaedic content. -'Vert

So whereas I just think I know what might be objectionable, you actually know what is and what isn't -- is that what you're trying to say? Apart from that, is there anything you are not accusing me of? --KF 23:56 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

ON the subject of the Use-mention distinction, maybe this (if it stays) should be [["AIDS Kills Fags Dead" phrase]], with quotes. Maybe any other articles about phrases should get similar titles. -- Tarquin 23:43 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think you can have quotes in article titles. A single quote -- 'Aids Kills Fags Dead' phrase[?] works, I think. Tuf-Kat

I was just going to ask the same thing, since the original article is about the slogan as a slogan. I just saw part of the movie about the Laramie goings-on last night, and noticed that particular slogan in the background in a couple scenes, so when it appeared today in Recent changes, I was instantly interested in reading about it. Wikipedia already has article titles like fuck that are thoroughly offensive to large percentages of our intended audience, so somebody has already decided that the space of acceptable article titles is pretty broad. Stan Shebs 23:54 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Its really unneccessary, especially in the balance of issues. Consider the basic idea: Does this phrase, carry enough meaning to warrant an article? Is a whole essay on Hate speech toward homosexuals to be titled : "Aids Kills Fags Dead' phrase" - certainly not, Toker. What if i were to write: "Death to the Kikes", with the content:

BOOBY-TRAPPED ANTISEMITIC SIGN INJURES WOMAN TRYING TO REMOVE IT. However, not only progress but peril, too, was dramatized during President Bush's visit to Russia. The day after he attended a Russian Orthodox service and spent time in a synagogue, a booby-trapped poster with an antisemitic slogan exploded and seriously injured a Russian doctoral student, Tatyana Sapunova, 28, who lost sight in one eye and needs a series of surgical procedures. According to local media reports, upon noticing the message "Death to the Kikes" daubed in large black paint on a sign, she pulled to the side of the highway 20 miles southwest of Moscow, near a turnoff to Vnukovo Airport. She got out of the car and tried to yank the sign out of the ground. The blast triggered by her touch had the force of 100 to 200 grams of TNT, according to the Russian news agency Interfax. Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov said he would take the case under his personal control. "All incidents of extremism or racial intolerance will be handled with the maximum strictness allowed by law," he told Interfax.

'Nuf said: -'Vert

Don't misinterpret me. I'm not trying to take a side here, as I don't care too much about whether this is a separate article or not. I was just pointing out that double quotes don't work in article titles, so that isn't an option. Tuf-Kat

---

I see two separate issues here:

1: Some people think this deserves an entry of its own. 2: Other people think it should be merged somewhere else. 2a: Some prefer merging it with hate speech. 2b: Some prefer merging it with Sebastian Bach or Westboro Baptist Church.

I am in am camp 2b.

Well, I'm still in camp 1, since the article is related to at least: Sebastian Bach[?], hate speech, Matthew Shepard, LC Johnson[?], RAID, Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church[?]. All these articles need to link to the article covering the phrase, and this is unnecessarily complicated if the information is arbitrarily added to one of them. Simply put quotes around it and be done with it. We don't even have quotes around fuck, even though our article is about the word and not the act. AxelBoldt 01:23 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Ironic it is, that you, Axel point to several "articles", at least three of which are empty,... WBC might barely qualify as a stub... hate speech.... RAID refers to a way to link hard drives... Need I go on? Indeed, your valid service of dropping stone in pond- has long since been done, and dealt with. -'Vert

RAID is an insecticide that gave rise to the phrase; I didn't claim that all the articles exist, I only claimed that they "need to link to the article", which is correct. AxelBoldt 02:08 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

---

This should not redirect to "hate speech". There's no guarantee that the hate speech entry will discuss the specifics of this phrase in the future. Therefore it is inadvisable to redirect this phrase to that entry. --The Cunctator

Why does that possibility exist? Are you trying to say that hate speech directed at homosexuals will be removed from the article? -- Zoe

No, I'm saying what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that the specific discussion of this phrase may be removed from the hate speech entry. --The Cunctator

The Cungcator is right about one thing: 'There are no guarantees."-豎眩

There's no guarantee that the hate speech article will mention this particular example of hate speech only in the same sense that there is no guarantee that the article will not be replaced by "fffdfdfdsfdfioj". I would hope that if a conscientious Wikipedian were to see a piece of factually correct, verifiable, NPOV information removed from an article, then they would just put it back in. (Or, if the article in question is not the right place for it, find a more appropriate article to put it in, and divert the redirect accordingly.) So there should never be a problem with the information on the phrase disappearing forever. -- Oliver P. 17:44 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that Cunctator's argument is not particularly strong, but how about this: the principle of least astonishment requires that somebody who clicks on AIDS Kills Fags Dead or maybe better 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' phrase[?] gets to an article which discusses the specifics of this phrase, certainly including a link to hate speech. Right now, these people are immediately redirected to hate speech and have to wade through two screenfuls of only marginally relevant discussion of academic hate speech codes before they find the information they're looking for, if they ever get that far down in the article. AxelBoldt 18:24 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not convinced by any of the arguments about where the information should be; I'm not sure it matters whether this phrase gets an article all to itself or not. (But if it does, I think the phrase should definitely be put in quotes and labelled as a phrase, or - more precisely - a slogan.) A counterargument to what you're saying about linking would be that hardly anyone is ever going to link to such a phrase. If a different article wants to mention the phrase, it could always be reworded to say, "The phrase ... (an example of [[hate speech]])". -- Oliver P. 19:09 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

The articles on Skid Row, Matthew Shepard, and Fred Phelps currently link to this phrase; in the future, Sebastian Bach[?], Raid, and Westboro Baptist Church[?] probably want to link to it as well.

Your suggestion "The phrase ... (an example of [[hate speech]])" is not good enough, since it doesn't tell the reader that hate speech has specific information about the phrase. AxelBoldt 19:21 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, good point. "... (discussed in the article on [[hate speech]])" might work, though. -- Oliver P. 19:46 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

A suggestion: replace the automatic redirect with See contents of [[hate speech]]. JtdIrL 19:58 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Nooo... A ten-word sentence effectively just saying "go away" is just going to annoy everyone. Links should always take the reader to some useful content, and if they don't, we have to rearrange things so that they do. The page should either have some useful content, or it should be a redirect. Until this argument has been sorted out, I'll make it a redirect. -- Oliver P. 00:49 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Well, then what exactly is the argument against making 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan, putting the material there, and linking from hate speech and all the other locations mentioned above? That way, every link works as expected without strange constructs as "discussed under hate speech". There's even a NPOV issue involved: apparently some people deny that hate speech even exists. AxelBoldt 01:15 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I think the arguments are that:

1. Phrases shouldn't have their own articles. (Well, a detailed discussion of a single phrase might look out of place in a general article, so perhaps they should only be briefly mentioned in the general articles, and discussed in more depth in their own articles.)
2. People are unlikely to link to the phrase. (You have disproven this above.)
3. People are unlikely to search for the phrase. (Maybe true; maybe not. But they can still follow links to it.)
4. The "specificity is highly suspect" - perhaps a more general article on homophobic hate speech would be better. (Indeed so, but it needs to be written first...)

So, as I said above, I'm not convinced by any of the arguments. Any others to be added to the list, anyone? -- Oliver P. 02:32 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Oliver says: "a more general article on homophobic hate speech would be better." Yes. Good idea. Tannin 02:34 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

So it seems argument 4 is still standing. I don't quite understand it though "perhaps a more general article on homophobic hate speech would be better". What would that article contain, and it what sense would it be better? We would have precisely the same situation as now: several places link to the phrase, and people would be redirected to an article that discusses a general topic and then at the end gives an example pertaining to the phrase. Wouldn't it make more sense to have homophobic hate speech link to 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan as an example? Also, the new article title would still prejudice the question if the phrase is indeed hate speech, which is apparently contested by some, as is the whole concept of hate speech. AxelBoldt 18:02 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

It is not. This page should be deleted. It violates our policy of offensiveness. Second, its a question of proportion: The notion that this should be an article about a slogan, would (once again) depend on the merits of the material - does this slogan warrant a serarate article? I dont think so, and my lack using expletives should not be seen as compliance or complacence but as the slightest degree of politeness; perhaps developing into respect should such respect be warranted. -豎眩

Our policy on offensiveness regards usernames, not entries. Noone would be allowed to have this entry's title as a username. --The Cunctator

There are a lot of entries on wikipedia that are short and stubby. Also, we have an article on fuck so your argument about offensiveness doesn't get you far.

Be as subjective as you want - we have a nigger article as well, as well as a fag article... Encyclpedically written... but this is beyond the boundaries, and y'all know it. Either you're trying to make some kind of lame, propagandist hate speech message with this, or your just trying to be a pain in the butt (Which is, ironically, the basis of a psychological theory about why...:) Thats what I think, I could be wrong. As far as stubs - they either seed a larger article, or are cut and incorporated into larger articles, like this one was. The argument you make about stubs is, essentially, based on a static concept of the Wikipedia: Its completely disigenuous if you understand, at all, the elementary notion that Wikipedia is not static. -豎眩

---

>Presumably, people who seriously use this slogan believe that the misfortunes of others can and should be interpreted as punishment from God.

This sentence is pure speculation, with no basis in fact, so I was compelled to delete it from site/sight.

Why do you claim it has no basis in fact? Did you research the issue? From Phelp's faq:

Why do you say "Thank God For AIDS"?

Because God is a sovereign God, and should be thanked for all of His righteous judgments, whether you like them or not. Everyone who gets AIDS gets it as a direct result of God's will (including babies and people who get it from blood transfusions), and He should be blessed for it. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" Galatians 6:7. You should follow Job's example: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." Job 1:21.

As far as innocent people who get AIDS, God isn't bound by your humanistic standards of justice. Throughout history, He has killed innocent people to punish those people who are still living (e.g., the innocent first born of Egypt). And He's doing it today. God's wrath is being poured out on this world in many forms, including AIDS, and part of that wrath is the destruction of innocent people (including babies).

AxelBoldt 01:50 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Quite simply because not everyone who uses or has used the phrase will have a belief in God. Birchtree

I agree with Stevertigo. I think it is nothing short of outrageous and disgraceful to have this 'article' here. If it belongs anywhere, it should be in a hate speech page, Under no circumstances, even simply described as a 'slogan', should this be given an article under this heading. It is in no way comparable with a page like fuck. Fuck is a non-specific word, with a literal meaning that can in different contexts can be used 'deliberately' as an expletive or in some cases as method in particular contexts to add emphasis, as in 'it was fucking brilliant'. But this phrase is specifically targeted at one group in a naked expression of hatred. Calling it a slogan is questionable. But also a legal point. In many counties, using this phrase would actually amount to a criminal offence, as incitement to hatred. What is wiki's position if printing this so-called slogan as an ARTICLE TITLE actually breaks the law in many countries, by being seen as incitment to hatred? JtdIrL 21:01 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Well-meaning bullshit, but still bullshit. I'm queer myself and don't find the article offensive; I find Sebastian Bach's attitude offensive. If I believed we should remove this article on the basis of Bach's attitude's offensiveness, then that would leade me to the conclusion we should also expunge all text from slavery and Holocaust.

Lets get this straight - no offense: You think that what some aging prettyboy lead singer of a cheezy 80's hair band once wore - constitutes valid material for an article? LOL... And whoever You are, hehe, (assuming the story in the article is about You) Im sorry you lost tenure, man, but you shouldnt have been so unprofessional, given the environment. Clearly your loss of tenure came as a result of other factors as well, namely a big ego...-豎眩

yes, it was very controversial at the time. Don't let your personal scorn for him get in the way of your writing, that's not NPOV. And what are you talking about in terms of tenure? No, the story in the article is not about me, and you shouldn't try to discredit me personally just because you disagree with what I'm saying. That's not logical, though I'm sure it makes you feel better to have someone to patronize.

Im not patronizing, Im clarifying... If you, yourself are 'Sebastian Bach' - or (sadly) were limited in inspiration to his music - and now are trying to enter the world of literacy late in life... you will not get discouragement from me... But your characterization that it was "very controversial" is suspect if not smelly. -豎眩

Both of you please stop the personal attacks. --mav

Apologies, Axel - I missed that you had agreed with my "argument 4" as "standing" - In keeping with what seems to be a decent compromise, I moved this to a more general, but not overly general title...Hugs and smooches.-豎眩

Nice page rename. Now that the ugly Two16 thing is over I'm respecting your judgement more and more each day Steve. :) --mav

What is the basis in law for the claim that the phrase, in quotes in an article title, could be construed as incitement to hatred in some countries?

Why is this article titled "Homophobic hate speech", yet it only contains one example and no further discussion of the concept in the title? AxelBoldt 01:36 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

I totally agree. There are plenty of examples of homophobic hatespeech out there, yet from the article, it seems like we are dealing with just one. This should also link to gay bashing and give more examples, as well as an overview of the phenomenon. Danny 01:41 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

The old title was offensive given the subject (Homophobic hate speech). Other cases can and should be added. See the 'Don't Overdo it' section on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The other page title would be like having the homosexual article at fag (which is the home of an article about the use of the word - which is fine). But the old title made an express POV statement. --mav

Agreed, I just think that this article is sorely lacking. Danny

The old title had the phrase in quotes; how could that possibly be offensive? The subject of the article is not homophobic hate speech as everyone here seems to agree; the subject of the article is the slogan. The article's subject does not agree with the title. Whoever renamed needs to justify the name change. AxelBoldt 01:57 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Then Homophobic slogan[?] would be a better title for this subject area. Slogans are designed to carry a specific POV message in and of themselves. How does 'George Bush kills babies' or 'AIDS kills niggers dead' sound? It causes a reaction in and of itself. We needn't have a single article on each of these slogans. The general rule we follow here is that we do not have articles on specific terms. There are a few exceptions but only for the most famous examples. --mav

Is there any historical context for the slogan "George Bush kills babies" or "AIDS kills niggers dead"? They don't appear anywhere on the Web. --The Cunctator

The article has just begun. Instead of complaining that there's only one example, why not add more? -- Zoe

Cunctator, why did you unilaterally move this article despite objections here on the talk page? And have you seen Jimmy Wales's comments on his talk page? -- Zoe

Clearly Axel agrees with me, so claiming that my action is "unilateral" is a mischaracterization. I hadn't seen Jimmy's comments. Thank you for pointing them out. They are, and I quote:

I'm not familiar with that page. I really don't care one speck about censorship laws around the world, but I can't imagine that a page with a title like the one you mentioned is the least bit consistent with our mission anyway. I'll look at it (if it hasn't already been deleted) and take appropriate action.

Note the "I'm not familiar with that page" and "I'll look at it ...and take appropriate action". Jimbo did not confirm, as JtrdL claims below, that it runs contrary to Wikipedia's own rules. --The Cunctator

Whatever. I've taken it to the mailing list and put a comment on Jimmy's talk page. -- Zoe

---

There is no place for this kind of crap in Wikipedia. IT DOES NOTHING BUT DRIVE PEOPLE AWAY. Move the text as a sub ibn an article on discrimination or wherever appropriate. Then delete the damn page so that vistiors to Wikipedia arent't subject this kind of language. User:Black Widow

Actually, as a gay person myself I found this article to be quiet informative and in not at all offensive. I find the thought of people sanitising history, especially gay history, for the sake of saving people's feelings even more offensive. People have used this slogan and, for all I know, continue to do so and denying this doesn't make it go away. In many ways publicising this helps the case for the gay rights movement, rather than the other way round. -- Axon

Cunctator, you've totally mucked up the redirects with all of these moves, and have violated the agreement worked out on the mailing list that "Slogan:" goes first. -- Zoe