Search the Kids Internet

 
 

Encyclopedia > Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'

  Article Content

Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'

Old talk archived at Talk:'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan/Archive 1 by Oliver P. 13:47 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

See also Talk:anti-gay slogan

Opinion poll

This was once a vote, but is now just an informal poll. See Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/Voting rules.

Please add your vote with ~~~, either for or against the deletion of each redirect.

from votes for undeletion

  • AIDS Kills Fags Dead slogan, AIDS Kills Fags Dead, AIDS kills fags dead
    • given reason: "unused redirect that inappropriately shows up when people search for "AIDS")".
    • People are searching for AIDS. This article is related to AIDs. It's scarcely inappropriate. Martin 08:55 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • It is simply an excuse to include offensive content of no value whatever. It should never have been created in the first place, let alone undeleted. Tannin 09:16 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      • Actually, that isn't the reason that they were created. Indeed, AIDS Kills Fags Dead is how we would normally title the page. -- Toby Bartels 14:00 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • How is a redirect offensive? Martin 09:19 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • The phrase is offensive. Full stop. The very worst and most offensive place you can put an offensive phrase is in the title to an article. If you want to discuss usuage of the phrase, by all means, do that in the appropriate place (the body of an article). Making it into the title of an article (even a redirect) serves no purpose whatsoever, except, of course, to offend people. Tannin
    • There is still no consensus then. I'm going to undelete and list on VfD, so a wider discussion can take place. Martin 14:33 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • Good idea, Martin. Tannin 14:37 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
end from votes for undeletion

from votes for deletion

  • AIDS Kills Fags Dead is a valid redirect. No need for it to be deleted. -- Oliver P. 16:34 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Doing searches I keep finding AIDS Kills Fags Dead turning up on AIDS links and it makes wiki look like a bigoted homophobic site. Given its sensitivity we should have no redirects that do not explicitly include the word 'slogan' to make it clear to the world that this isn't some repulsive attack on gay people but a proper encyclopædic article. As far as I am concerned, AIDS Kills Fags Dead should be binned as soon as possible. FearÉIREANN 20:06 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • I support deletion of at least some of the redirs. These are the result of extensive moving around, and excessive -- they all show up in a search for AIDS, which may make us look like a gay-bashing website. --Eloquence 19:13 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • I agree. They make wiki look like a repulsive bigoted homophobic site. Wiki cannot afford to get that reputation though poorly worded redirects. FearÉIREANN 20:06 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • I said delete some of them, not necessarily all. The AIDS Kills Fags Dead redirect should stay in place IMHO because that one is actually useful for linking. --Eloquence 17:49 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Argument in favor of deletion of these unused redirects: people searching for "AIDS" currently get 17 title matches, with 6 of them being about this one article. The current title (with "Slogan" in front) is the clearest and least offensive. AxelBoldt 21:59 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Considering that AIDS Kills Fags Dead is the title that writers would naturally link to, that (recognising this) it's what our naming conventions would choose if not for the exception made for offensive slogans, and that this exception is inherently POV (since it judges slogans for their offensiveness), it seems patently obvious to me that Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' ought to redirect to AIDS Kills Fags Dead. However, I'll settle for the other way around in the interests of harmony with other Wikipedians. The other titles were never used for other than a brief period in each case and can safely be disposed of. -- Toby Bartels 08:03 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • I agree: delete this -- keep the one with "slogan" in if you must (although I would delete that too, if I had my way) -- The Anome 09:01 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • I also agree that most of them should be deleted. -- Minesweeper 20:00 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
end from votes for deletion

from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (slogans) If we are to have slogans at [ [slogan 'blah blah blah'] ], or whatever, then I guess I can live with that, provided that we can continue to have redirects from the obvious accidental linking places. Martin 14:43 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

9. AIDS misconceptions and conspiracy theories (2433 bytes)
1: Because the worldwide spread of '''[[AIDS]]''' has had such a tragic effect on millions of ...
5: ...ng sexual intercourse with a [[virgin]] will cure AIDS has gained considerable notoriety. This myth has...
10. AIDS Kills Fags Dead (43 bytes)
1: #REDIRECT [[Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead']]
11. AIDS Kills Fags Dead (slogan) (43 bytes)
1: #REDIRECT [[Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead']]
12. 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan (44 bytes)
13. Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' (1788 bytes)
1: The slogan '''"AIDS Kills Fags Dead"''' has been used in the [[United...
3: ...]] [[Raid]], appeared during the early years of [[AIDS]] in the United States, when it was mainly diagno...
5: ...many gay friends. For years afterward he wore an "AIDS Kills Everyone" t-shirt, after being confronted b...

Selected part of search results for "AIDS", internal search. Eloquence believes that this "may make us look like a gay-bashing website". I don't see that people are likely to come to that conclusion from these search results. Martin 15:52 22 Jun 2003 (UTC) 

  Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' - Wikipedia
  ... Printable version. Not logged in Log in | Help. Slogan 'AIDS Kills
  Fags Dead'. (Redirected from 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan). The ... 
  www.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 'AIDS_Kills_Fags_Dead'_slogan - 12k

Similar selection from a google search (position number two). Note how "slogan" is clearly present in the article title. Martin 16:02 22 Jun 2003 (UTC) end from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (slogans)

Vote moved from here to top of page

I'm not sure how to declare the winner: perhaps a 2/3 majority required for deletion? -- Tim Starling 07:02 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Or perhaps we realise that the whole vote is a sham if most of the people that took part in past discussions aren't involved? and if much of that discussion itself aren't even linked to from the voting page?? or that NPOV outranks votes??? -- Toby Bartels 18:55 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1. Advertise. 2. DIY, I didn't protect the page. 3. Everyone is interested in maintaining NPOV, but there is conflict over its interpretation. A vote is one way of resolving that conflict. -- Tim Starling 01:14 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'll try to contact folks who previously expressed an interest, if they don't spot this in a week or so. And add a few links here, where appropriate. Oh, we should set an end date for the vote. 1st August ok by everyone? Martin 20:11 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

More importantly, set a majority threshold for determining the outcome of the vote. --Eloquence 16:59 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's probably not appropriate to discuss the threshold now, since the vote is already in progress and we already have a good idea what the final ratios will be. How about we leave it at 2/3 for this vote, and discuss now what it should be for the next vote. -- Tim Starling 05:53 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A vote needs rules, otherwise the result won't be accepted. I've added some, based on what I think was closest to the understanding of the people who have voted so far. If anyone thinks these rules are unfair, say so within the next few days, so that we can scrap the vote and start over. -- Tim Starling 06:25 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why should these redirects get any special treatment (and no, I doubt anyone's offense is sufficient reason, whether it's my own or my mother's or anyone else's)? Our policy so far has been to keep redirects because they're small and keep links live. ... Anyway, this would be a nonissue if redirects by default did not show up in searches. Koyaanis Qatsi 06:36 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

These redirects get special treatment because lots of people say they need special treatment. That's democracy for you. Policy is not set in stone, it is decided by general consensus. If you think deleting redirects is a violation of policy, then consider this to be in some sense a vote on policy change. As for the software change you suggest, you're free to discuss that here or elsewhere. If the software is changed after this vote is concluded, the discussion can be restarted. -- Tim Starling 07:02 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think it shows a disheartening intellectual wimpiness, for lack of a better term, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. NPOV would hear someone say "I find this offensive," then go add that to the relevant article, with attribution. Instead, this is a case of people saying "I find this offensive" and then the response: "oh, I'm so sorry, let's change it." NPOV, I think, would say "I've registered your complaint." Period. FWIW, I do find the homophobia implicit in the slogan both ridiculous and laughable, but I don't think my opinion of it is of any consequence to wikipedia, and I also don't think it should be. Koyaanis Qatsi 07:13 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, and you're welcome to express it at the bottom of the page. By placing your comments here, I'm assuming you are attacking the validity of this vote, and that is something I intend to defend. I don't have an opinion either way on the issue itself, I just want to see it settled. BTW, I think the word you're looking for is "apathy", rather than "intellectual wimpiness". -- Tim Starling 07:32 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, a few points: 1) your use of "attack" indicates you consider challenges to the validity of this vote irrelevant. They are not. If the majority of wikipedians voted to throw out NPOV, Jimmy would step in and invite them to leave. Some principles here are sacrosanct. I maintain that deleting these redirects simply because some people are offended by them is a violation of NPOV. That deserves to be discussed. 2) Having the issue settled quickly may not be in our best interests long-term. Points need to be brought up, hashed out, discussed, rebutted. Democracy is not simply a vote, it's also a process of discourse, communication, and education. As a proponent of democracy, you understand this. We should decide whether deleting relevant redirects to an article can be considered a violation of NPOV. (I of course have no problem with deleting irrelevant redirects to a subject: e.g. redirecting cow to dog can and should be undone.) 3) "Apathy" is not the word I am looking for, but thanks for suggesting it. Rather, the word I am looking for is more like the opposite of "apathy": "I can't handle that, take it away." Koyaanis Qatsi 08:03 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1) NPOV requires points of view to be contextualised. Since the redirects in question do not properly contextualise the point of view expressed, outsiders may incorrectly assume that Wikipedia condones such views. The current naming of the article itself contains much better contextualisation, and hence it is more NPOV. The current debate is centred around removing ancient POV detritus.

2) What do you mean "quickly"? This article has been discussed since February, it first hit the mailing list in March, and redirect deletion has been discussed since at least early June. Plus you've still got a month left! The problem with stalling forever is that you get your way until someone finally does something about it.

3) Oh okay, you mean my motives for starting this vote in the first place. I said on VFD what my reasons for that are: oscillation annoys me. It seems to me that a small group opposing deletion may not be enough to halt the deletion, but it is enough to get an article undeleted. I think that wastes time: people have to repeat their arguments over and over. The side that stays motivated the longest wins, not necessarily the right side. I think an issue has to be decided by the community, while there is passionate and active discussion, not by a single proponent who is left on their soap-box after everyone else has drifted away. I feel the same way about Right Back, but I wanted to start with an easy one.

-- Tim Starling 09:48 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just to clarify (3), Tim, I presume you set up the vote because you were concerned it would oscillate and waste time in the future, rather than because it oscillated in the past? I'm not aware of any previous discussion on redirects, but if there is some, it'd be good to cross-link, at a minimum. Martin 10:29 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's about right. It doesn't matter now anyway, since my lack of forethought has destroyed the entire effort. See Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/Voting rules. -- Tim Starling 10:51 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In addition, I vote for merging the material in this article into "anti-gay slogan". The Anome, me too, jimfbleak. Me three, Tannin, me four, Someone else.

Outrageous! There's plenty of material specific to this slogan on this page now. It's disgusting to see the number of attempts at bowdlerising Wikipedia that have come along in the past few months. -- Toby Bartels 18:55 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's not an attempt at bowdlerisation, it's for the same reason we don't have separate articles about each and every Simpsons character any more. There's very little in "anti-gay slogan", AKFD is the most famous anti-gay slogan, there are other less well-known ones which also belong in the same article. Then make "Slogan:AKFD" point to the "anti-gay slogan" article. -- The Anome 13:40 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

By that logic, we'd make Leni Riefenstahl a redirect to propaganda film. Koyaanis Qatsi 17:35 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No: the slogans actually belong together, with appropriate redirects. Together, they provide an insight into the homophobic world-view. Otherwise, they are mostly little bits of unintended PR for Phelps and Co. -- The Anome 17:45 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, if at all, simply because most of the people on this page seem to be reacting to emotion and not logic, but whatever. I still think that one could make similar arguments about combining e.g. foley artist and stand in into terms about film[?] or somesuch, which I would oppose as well. As far as I'm concerned, if it's more than a sentence or two, and certainly if it's as long as this article, it should be a separate article. But I'm not going to start an edit war over it, I just think this specific merge is probably irrational, and the general sense I get in reading this page is that people are not thinking past their own offense. Koyaanis Qatsi 17:59 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually, as a person who almost never gets "offended", I think the merge is pretty much OK. In general I prefer long articles to shorter ones that have little potential to grow. (There's been a long mailing discussion about that, I shall one day formulate the results of that discussion into a position paper.) --Eloquence 18:07 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing that summary. The "ideal" length of articles has been an issue at least since I joined wikipedia in Apr 2001. But bear in mind that notions of "ideal" article length will shift over time. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

If someone showed me a meaningful and well-organised merge that made Wikipedia a better encyclopedia (rather than merely a less offensive one), then I could be convinced. That's what really matters, I think. Martin 20:11 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have made a start on an attempt at this. It's remarkable how much of this seems to be an echo-chamber for Fred Phelps and his supporters, who are referred to in most of the news reports on this topic. There's a lot of duplication here. -- The Anome 17:43 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This should not be merged. --The Cunctator

I like your confidence, Cunctator :)

As a temporary compromise, perhaps Anome&co could edit anti-gay slogan to demonstrate how they think it could be merged to become a beautiful article, but we could leave this article (Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead') as a standalone article. After a week or two, I think it'd become obvious which was the better route to follow.
What do y'all think? Martin 19:40 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Considering that we went through this two months ago, I see no reason to repeat the experiment. It's quite evident what people's opinions are on this topic, and that at least some of those involved will never change their opinion. --The Cunctator

Sure, but IIRC, last time we mostly had a revert war and some shouting till everyone got tired - I was thinking that this time we could try a different, more experimental, approach.
Anyway, my two cents, and enough spent already. Martin 20:15 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think Cunctator should be ignored until he presents any arguments for his position. --Eloquence 19:45 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think Eloquence should be ignored until he reads the archived discussion at Talk:'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan/Archive 1, the discussion at Talk:anti-gay slogan, and the discussion on the mailing list. Axel Boldt in particular clearly explicated reasons for not merging the entry. --The Cunctator 20:04 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you think the arguments have already been dealt with and are applicable, you should have said so. You did not; you merely said "this should not be merged." Comments like this, without even a reference to an argument, are simply noise. As for past arguments, Axel Boldt's argument focuses on the linkability of the slogan, using a merged article "hate speech" as an example. This argument is valid; linkability should be retained. However, in all of the articles that currently link to AIDS Kills Fags Dead, a link to anti-gay slogan would be perfectly appropriate (e.g. ".. used the anti-gay slogan Aids Kills Fags Dead" or "invented the slogan Aids Kills Fags Dead (see anti-gay slogan)". Locating the correct section within that article is trivial since it focuses on a very narrowly defined subject, and it will be even easier with my automatically generated table of contents feature. In addition, a redirect is already in place. Lastly, it is quite likely that direct linking to individual sections will soon be possible. --Eloquence 20:47 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So The Cunctator is all worked up about the merging. Again. *sigh*. And I still have heard him offer any logical argument put to justify his 'issue' here. Just yet more unilateralism again. Is it at all possible that sometime this decade The Cunctator could say more than 'this article should not be merged' and then go ahead unilaterally to demerge them? But then as was often said in the endless arguments the last time (and the time before, and the time before etc etc) The Cunctator will just go ahead and do what he wants anyhow. Why are we even wasting our time voting on it? Cunc will just do his own thing anyway. (BTW full marks to Martin for contacting people for the vote.) FearÉIREANN 00:49 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The merging is really a seperate issue to the "surplus" redirects, so I don't see that we need to conflate the two. Martin 15:03 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why the two-thirds majority rule? This was just picked out of a hat, and is biased in favor of keeping the links. I will change this to an absolute majority, with keeping the link in the case of a tie: if you want to change it back, please justify your change here. -- The Anome

All is explained at Talk:Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'/Voting rules. -- Tim Starling 10:44 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to vote to keep all the redirects if and only if someone/s commits to write, test, and implement a change to the Wikipedia software so that search results are decluttered from multiple redirects to the same article. Heck, I'll offer ten wiki-kisses to anyone who does so. :) Martin 12:20 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have to say, if you find this article disgusting and NPOV you should really all go along and check out gay disease and causes of sexual orientation. They're not quite as explicit as this page, but far more offensive and biased, IMHO. BTW, I vote for deleting this article and merging it with anti-gay slogan. -- Axon I second. FearÉIREANN

By deleting, do you mean simply removing its content and redirecting it? Or actually deleting? Seeking clarity... Martin 23:38 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I mean removing its content and redirecting it... there is nowhere near enough content to justify its own article. Cannot speak for FearÉIREANN. -- Axon

Alright, unless there are any further objections, I'll get rid of the redirects "'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan" and "AIDS Kills Fags Dead slogan". --Eloquence 04:35 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I object - there's no rush. Give it a month. Martin 23:46 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What's the rush? The vote only began five days ago. -- Oliver P. 04:57 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What is the rush? And I have the same objections that I had previously, namely that the redirects are relevant and do what redirects are meant to: direct accidental links to the actual location of the article. It is not at all like redirecting X to Y. The redirect titles are incomplete; they direct the reader to the location of the article with a title that is complete. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:55 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your objections are noted, but most people here think that at least these two redirects are unnecessary, as the possibility of accidental linking is minimal in these cases, and that they are annoying, as they show up a search for "AIDS". In the interest of compromise, I think you should accommodate those who wish to delete some of the redirects by choosing the two you think are the least likely to be used. A failure to seek compromise, on the other hand, would make it more likely that such questions are simply settled by majority rule in the future. --Eloquence 22:03 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1) Most people who have voted != most people, so I think what you mean is "most people who have voiced an opinion," which again is not the same as most people who have an opinion, whether that opinion is weakly or strongly held. 2) I think that the problem is with the search returning irrelevant results, not a problem with the redirects themselves. 3) I do value compromise, except in this case I think it would be misguided. I don't see people clamoring to delete redirects to Man with a Movie Camera (the first possible example I thought of) or anything else with more than two redirects, nor would I support those efforts either. Best, Koyaanis Qatsi 22:17 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1) True, that's why I added the word "here". Feel free to point out this discussion to others. 2) But are they irrelevant? If we filtered duplicate redirects, we'd have other problems, e.g. a spelling error showing up in the search results, but a legitimate variant being hidden. 3) You will find it hard to name any example that has as many redirects as this one. They are not the result of deliberate creation for accidental linking, but the result of lots of moving around during the naming discussion for the article, where each move leaves behind a redirect. What most of us want is to simply clean up the mess. --Eloquence 22:28 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1) Fair enough. I have no idea who to point towards the discussion, as I imagine that most people who know about it and are willing to voice an opinion have already done so. I recognize that my opinion on it appears unpopular, but I'm not interested in stumping for support, either. I'm interested in discussing the case's merits, not in who supports what, but rather in why or why not. 2) I'm talking about the default search behaviour, which currently clutters results rather than streamlining them. I imagine--and maybe I'm wrong--that the average user is less interested in which articles redirect where than in what the article actually says. I think a page view/unique view/editing history analysis would support this speculation, but again, I may be wrong. 3) I don't consider the mess especially bad, though I recognize its origins. Koyaanis Qatsi 23:26 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If we filtered duplicate redirects, we'd have other problems, e.g. a spelling error showing up in the search results, but a legitimate variant being hidden.

As I've suggested before, the solution is to show the name of the target of the redirect, rather than showing the redirect itself (and then remove duplicates).

This could lead to quite confusing results, especially when the titles are entirely different and the person searching knows not that the result is relevant. IMHO the redirects should be listed, but in small font and nicely formatted below the main article title. --Eloquence

You will find it hard to name any example that has as many redirects as this one.

Osmosis demonstration has five - as many as this one. That was off the top of my head - I'm pretty sure there are others with more. Martin 23:46 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

And ugly it is, as well. --Eloquence

Telling people what they will find hard is never really advisable, Eloquence. I can easily think of an article off the top of my head that has more redirects than this one. Welly wanging. :) I don't know if that's where the article is, but I don't need to, because I know that if it's not, it will at least redirect you there. :) That's what's so great about redirects - you don't have to bother remembering exactly where articles are, off the top of your head. If they clutter up the search results, then it should be the search function that is changed, not the policy on redirects. I think it's ridiculous to change a policy that makes editing the Wikipedia easier just to fit in with an unsatisfactory technical function. We should just change the search function. There is no reason that I can think of to make all redirects appear in the search results. We could do something like Google's suppression of results that are similar to others, with a link to the full set of results for anyone who wants it. Here's how it could work: a person searches for the word "X" (e.g. "AIDS"), and the program does the search, but for each page that has "X" in the title, it suppresses the redirects to that page, because they add no useful information. (This would suppress all of the redirects we're voting on). For each page that doesn't have "X" in the title, the redirects which do have "X" in their titles would still be shown, since they do add useful information. How's that for a solution? -- Oliver P. 02:08 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)


All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

 
  Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!
 
 
  
  Featured Article
Christiania

... name of Oslo, from 1624 to 1925. The Free State of Christiania - a partially self-governing neighborhood in the city of Copenhagen. This is a disambiguation page; that ...

 
 
 

River FM Country Radio | Dictionary | Encyclopedia | Thesaurus | Childcare

Link to Kids.Net.Au | About Us | Buy Halloween Costumes | Wedding Celebrant | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

© 2024 Kids.Net.Au - kids safe portal for children, parents, schools and teachers.

 
This page was created in 26.8 ms