Talk:UK Parliamentary report: homophobia in sport worse than racism

Neutrality
Just a heads-up to whomever might review this (even if that's me).

I recommended on the water cooler (last year, was it? in modern times, anyway) we should avoid political uses of the -phobia suffix in our own voice, just as we do the US terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice", and the term "terrorism". The political -phobia suffix was explicitly introduced (with the term homophobia, apparently) for propagandist purposes; whether we as individuals approve of the cause is, of course, irrelevant to Wikinews neutrality.

In this article it's a very tricky balance. The report itself uses the term, and so we need to carefully pick out those cases where we're effectively quoting the report, where the term is correct, and where we're describing the phenomenon in our own voice, where we should avoid the -phobia term. The headline is fine, for example; the use in the lede can probably stand with a word-or-two explanation inserted, with some thought to what the explanation should mesh with treatment of later instances in our voice. Not a big deal if handled smoothly. --Pi zero (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been through the article eliminating the ones in our own voice. For the most part, they dropped out quite smoothly.  (It does involve more syllables here and there; I looked up "phobia" in the AP stylebook, on the off chance they might have some useful advice, but all they said was it's a medical term so don't use it in a political or social context, such as homophobia or Islamophobia; no suggestions how to phrase things neatly without.)  --Pi zero (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)