There are really two issues here: the specific content issue, and then
the issue of working courteously with others to achieve consensus.
1. On the specific content issue... "Homophobic hate speech" is a
clearly necessary and useful topic, and separate from the specific
example of this 'AIDS kills fags dead' example.
The title [[Aids kills fags dead]] was poor, and Axel has actually
gone so far as to apologize for it, although I think he didn't need to
do that, since it was a well-intentioned article all along.
Is the topic important enough to deserve it's own article? I think
yes, it is, especially in conjunction with a more general article on
homophobic hate speech. I would have said 'no, probably not' until I
actually read the article and learned a couple of things from it.
--------------- SIDEBAR -----------
For example, "everyone knows" that some Christian groups are outspoken
against homosexuality. But I generally assume that they are
_Christian_ about it, i.e. "love the sinner, hate the sin". And I'm
sure that most of them are. (I don't agree with their position, I
should say!) If people are referring to *these* groups as practicing
"hate speech" I think they're going overboard.
But for a Baptist minister to lead a protest at the funeral of Matthew
Shepard is really shocking. What's to protest? He was a victim of
really horrible and very un-Christ-like violence. And to compound
that with a slogan about AIDS!
------------END SIDEBAR----------------
So, I learned something. I had barely heard of Fred Phelps, and I had
never heard this slogan before.
So, I think that the way things washed out this morning is fine. We
have a short, non-political, NPOV article (I guess it could always be
improved in this regard, but people aren't fighting much over the
specific content, which is a good sign)
I SHOULD ADD THIS HERE: I generally don't edit because I don't want to
be involved with content issues *and* co-operation issues. My
opinions on content are equal to everyone elses, in this sense, it's
the wiki way. I only offer my point of view on this as a wikipedian,
not as a "ruling" of any kind.
2. On the "working well with others" issue -- I think that a certain
minimal amount of edit-warring is inevitable, but here's a couple of
tips that will probably be helpful: (a) let the other person win, for
awhile, and hash it out on the talk pages and (b) it should generally
be uncool for anyone (other than me, ha ha) to simply announce what
consensus is, in formulations such as "it has been decided"
So: try to relax, everyone. And that's a ruling. :-)
--Jimbo