Talk:Homophobia

See the article for "hoplophobia" to see how this one should be written

It is funny that "homophobia" is largely treated as a legitimate term here, while "hoplophobia" is not, even though they both have the same degree of [il]legitimacy.

From the "hoplophobia" article:

"Hoplophobia is a pejorative neologism originally coined to describe an 'irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them.'"

Homophobia is also normally used as a pejorative (link), and it is also a neologism (it was coined in 1972 by George Weinberg in his book "Society and the Healthy Homosexual")

From the "hoplophobia" article:

"Hoplophobia is not a true phobia, and it is not recognized as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. The meaning and usage ascribed by Cooper falls outside of the medical definitions of true phobias. For example, phobias require that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual."

All of that also applies to the word "homophobia".

At least Cooper's term was constructed intelligently, using two Greek terms. Weinberg's term on the other hand was constructed from "homo" (which is ironically a disparaging slang term for homosexuals), and "phobia" which is from a Greek word for "fear". Neither the Latin nor the Greek terms "homo" have anything to do with homosexuality; they mean "man" and "same" respectively. The "homo" in "homophobia" references homosexuals (literally: "fear of homos", which is understood to mean "fear of homosexuals"), and the only time "homo" means "homosexual" is when it is used as a slang, a slang that is considered offensive no less.

The difference here is that the PC crowd likes the word "homophobia", but they don't like the word "hoplophobia". – MaximRecoil (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. An immense number of people have pointed out the problems with this article, but a trio who likes its current POV has delayed repair by chasing them away one by one, and embedding their argument in the header. Be prepared to be accused of all sorts of things in order to chase you off. North8000 (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I may be missing the point above but i've never heard of hoplophobia before. North, you've been told over and over for months to make changes if you like as long as they're reliably sourced and neutral but you've refused to so you can complain on this talk page instead. Read WP:NOTFORUM and do something. Also quit your "trio" claims again while you're at it, i'm getting quite sick of those accusations and i'll take it to admin if i see it once more. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixing it will require a few more sets of eyes staying involved. But the first step will be a review (with more eyes involved) of the truly elegant and total solution which would be to rename the article to "opposition to homosexuality" and then cover the term "homophobia" within that. What happens on that question is a fork in the road for the fix of the article. If it stays "homophobia" then coverage along the lines of "Hoplophobia" would be in order. Another early step would be to unembed the POV statements on the problems from the header, and then go to an RFC if someone puts it back in. I'm not up for that grief at the moment. North8000 (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's neither the most common name for this, nor neutral. We don't call arachnophobia Opposition to spiders or Islamophobia opposition to muslims/islam for the same reasons. They exist whether you agree or not. Homophobia encompasses a few things and would cover less with that name, also it would become a POV nightmare and you'd never find anyone supporting the rename you'd like because it is in breach of naming convention. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You could try a requested move anyway if you like but i'd also read WP:SNOW too. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For arachnophobia there is only one widely used definition and it is not contested. Further, the single and common definition refers to an actual phobia. None of that is true for "homophobia" or "Islamophobia". North8000 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia could be argued as being an "actual phobia" rather than just a word per some definitions and the basis of gay panic defenses and laws. Again though you won't request a move will you? (i'm hoping you will) And this question is already one of three answered at the top of the page. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In your first sentence you are making my point, which conflicts with how this article is written. Regarding the rest, I don't plan on any effort on this now. But when I do step one will get those arguments for one POV taken out of the header. They don't belong there. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Do what you like but keep in mind the relevant policies, which include WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutrality, WP:Reliable, WP:Weight. Also keep in mind that others can disagree with your changes, including me if they don't agree. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that the FAQ at the top of the page is neither a cited article nor policy/guideline, right? And you are correct, it could be and is argued as an actual phobia. That's the point that (apparently) North8000 has been correctly arguing for some time now. --Nouniquenames 05:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an absolutely ridiculous thread seemingly created by someone who not only hates gays, but is part of the gun lobby. North, you should know better than to show any empathy with the OP. Let's not go over the arguments about the meaning of homophobia again. Its common English usage is clear, and it is real. Hoplophobia is paranoid American political bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of your text is not only ad hominem, but it is ad hominem consisting of baseless assertions, some of which you apparently sourced from a defective crystal ball. As such, most of your text can be legitimately dismissed out of hand. With regard to the rest of your text:

"Its common English usage is clear"

Yes, it is most commonly used as a pejorative.

"and it is real"

It is no more "real" than hoplophobia is, that is, it is not real in a clinical sense.

"Hoplophobia is paranoid American political bullshit."

If that is true then the following statement is also true:

"Homophobia is paranoid American political bullshit." – MaximRecoil (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

So clever. Not. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your tacit concession is noted. Also:

—————

"Not"

R.I.P.

1988–1989

—————

MaximRecoil (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. HiLo, your statement was completely out of line, and in addition, was an attack on a people group. You need to understand that just because we're arguing that the word "homophobia," at least used in this context, is inappropriate, doesn't mean that we hate gays, or even have a problem with homosexuality. I'm simply agreeing with MaximRecoil; This is not an unbiased, universal term. Additionally, it can be used to paint a suspiciously negative picture of those who would disagree with the authors of this article. The talk page "FAQ" itself states that the term itself is a "faulty construct." This being the case, along with the fact that it's an unscientific term which can have multiple definitions, has a significant amount of disagreement as to the word's application, and is implicatory in and of itself, shows that this page is in an unhealthy state. —Maktesh ^(talk) 19:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Something must be done to stop systematic trolling on this page.--В и к и T 19:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Clear consensus has been reached on this word. Threads such as this are unnecessary, inevitably provocative, and never helpful. They give a platform for rednecks to abuse their right to free speech. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed here also. I find it strange that the page is very rarely vandalised, yet the amount of trolling on the talk page is higher than average...That being said i think we should engage with these editors a little, but not when it becomes obvious that what they seek is in violation of policies. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

North8000 has made repeated pleas for more pairs of eyes to evaluate his prolonged argument - if I may generously call it that - and more eyes have affirmed that, yes, Homophobia is the appropriate name for an article which appropriately and comprehensively defines the concept (with a plethora of sources). Nonetheless, I'm happy to offer my two eyes as well. One must be disingenuous in the extreme not to perceive that the common use of the word "homophobia" is to describe opposition to homosexuality, to homosexuals, or to equal rights for LGTB people. It only rarely is used in the sense of literal fear, although the extent to which prejudice against an identifiable group is based on fear of the other has been a matter of scholarly inquiry for quite some time. The aforementioned article on prejudice is a good place to begin one's research on the relationship of fear to bigotry. What is racism, after all, if not "opposition to (fill in the blank)" (predicated on fear of blacks, Asians, whites, etc.)? Or Islamophobia, "opposition to Muslims or the Muslim religion" (based on fear of Muslims or the ethnic groups commonly associated with Islam)? The rationale for the opposition is immaterial. It is the prejudice itself which is germane, which has historically been rationalised on precisely the same bases for ethnic and religious minorities as for homosexuals and homosexuality. Do your research. The pedantic nature of the tired argument that "homophobia" is a (forty year old) neologism; one that maddeningly and irrationally combines roots from two different languages roughly translating to "fear of sameness," is scarcely worth treating seriously. Why? Because that's irrelevant to what the word actually means in the English language - which, if the editors alarmed by such etymological anarchy actually were to crack a contemporary dictionary, they would quickly and decisively find out for themselves. fishhead64 (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Trolling is all part of a perspective. Creating a page from a biased point-of-view, and having a handful of editors defend it, while chasing opponents away. So, HiLo, you're going to call us rednecks because we disagree on your application of the word? You've got issues, bro, and have some nerve calling anyone else a troll. You also insulted Americans earlier, too. You know what? This is a the Gay Agenda at its best. ;) Look at this page's history to see that many eyes have seen -and disagreed with- what this page is. However, they keep getting bullied away. Regardless, homophobia is not supported by a universal dictionary definition. What you are attempting to do is redefine a word using Wikipedia as a tool to promote your agenda.

In addition, the fact that this page is not being vandalized shows that you have legitimate users and editors who are attempting to repair this page through the right channels. I said this before, and it was ignored: I think it can be rationally argued that the secondary meaning of the word "homophobia" is being used, along with the stigma of the word "phobia" to intentionally mislabel a particular group of individuals. As such, it is being held up by minority activists, who are puppy-guarding a page which directly relates to their motives. WP:CONFLICT Yes, I'm going to throw that flag. There is a COI here, and honestly, I feel that this page is reaching the point of needing administrative review. —Maktesh ^(talk) 21:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's an "administrative" view; what else would be the content of the page "Homophobia"? And what would be the title of an article on the general view of people who are opposed to homosexuality? This appears to be the main issue here. Someone said above that it was an American construct; well, I don't live in America, and the standard word used here for opposition to homosexuality is "homophobia". See this for a piece by the new leader of the Church of England just this week, for example. I work in education - see this and this both issued by the British Government Department for Education, this published by the largest teacher's union in the UK, and this published by a national newspaper. In fact I could go on and on - [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. etc. etc. Frankly, I agree with the above posters, the persistent back-and-forth by some people on this talk page is apporaching the levels of trolling. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your posts makes the argument that the "all opposition is phobia" definition exists. That is a given and not in question. What IS in question is that this article pervasively implicitly states that that is the ONLY definition, that the "phobia is phobia" definition does not exist. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a fundamental problem here, that the whiners about the word just don't get. Yes, homophobia IS a pejorative term. That's because being anti-homosexual is not a nice thing to be. It's got nothing to do with what the roots of the word once meant. Most people who routinely use the word word (NOT meaning fear of homosexuals) DO mean it as a negative term. So deal with it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@North8000. Hi. I don't think that that contention is supportable. If you look at the Origins section of the article it quite clearly delineates the original definition of homophobia as a form of fear. That the term's usage and meaning has evolved since then is another matter. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

@HiLo48 You've tacitly conceded my point. "Hoplophobia" is used in exactly the same way as you've admitted "homophobia" is used, thus the two articles should be written in a similar manner. Also, if you are going to assume that your following value judgment - "being anti-homosexual is not a nice thing to be" - is a fact, then I'll go ahead and proclaim the following value judgment to also be a fact - "being anti-gun is not a nice thing to be". You'll find that being anti-whatever is never a "nice thing to be" from the perspective of people who are pro-whatever. – MaximRecoil (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The two terms are not remotely similar. One is used immensely widely - worldwide in English-speaking countries and also has its equivalents in other languages. Its use in the manner which the article explains is almost universal. The other is almost unknown - it doesn't even appear in the OED, Collins, Britannica or Chambers - and practically every reference I can find to it is either a dictionary definition or being used by those very close to the gun lobby and its opponents (mostly, I note, in blogs). It also appears, where the definitions generally agree, to be an aversion to guns, not to people who espouse their use. A better analogy to "homophobia", as has been mentioned repeatedly on this page, would be "xenophobia". Black Kite (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"The two terms are not remotely similar."

I've already pointed out their similarities, so consider that claim dismissed out of hand. The only difference is how commonly used the term is. That's not a meaningful difference, because level of popularity doesn't have anything to do with how the word is most commonly applied. Both words are used as a pejorative, both words are neologisms, and both words are meaningless in a clinical sense, despite sounding like clinical terms. The "hoplophobia" article starts out:

"Hoplophobia is a pejorative neologism"

The "homophobia" article should also start out:

"Homophobia is a pejorative neologism"

The source for the "pejorative" part is already in the "homophobia" article (source number 105), as is the source for it being a neogolism (source numbers 11 and 16) – MaximRecoil (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't work. Using your argument then being anti paedophile is not a nice thing to be. Please re-examine your argument and then write a better one using Wikipedia policies for your point. Otherwise it will be ignored as forumtalk. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking to me Jenova20? If so, I'm not the one that came up with the "being a whatever is not a nice thing to be" "argument"; I merely illustrated the flawed reasoning behind it to the person who did come up with it. – MaximRecoil (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And that's just bullshit. Many words, including homophobia, are pejorative, simply because they describe negative attitudes. We don't have to emphasise that aspect in defining them. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works:

"[...] the construct of homophobia, as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality."

William O'Donohue and Christine E. Caselles, Homophobia: Conceptual, definitional, and value issues, Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Volume 15, Number 3, Springer Netherlands, September, 1993. ISSN 0882-2689

You don't get to simply proclaim that anyone who is critical of homosexuality in any way, has a "negative attitude", not legitimately anyway. – MaximRecoil (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum for discussing original research

The edits suggested by the OP are based on original research and emanate from false premises that the words homophobia and hoplophobia are related to the extent that the holpophobia article should be a model for re-editing this article. Black Kite (and others) have provided solid researched examples that completely refute this notion. More importantly, no reliable sources have been presented to support the theory, and until such sources are presented, there is no basis for a talk page discussion. If sources can be found to support this novel idea (and not just the individual components: neologism, pejorative, holpophobia, psychological fear, political correctness, gay puppies, etc.) then we can weigh the prevalence of those sources against other abundant sources to determine how to incorporate those ideas into the article with due weight. Pro tip: a fringe minority theory probably will not get top billing in the lede.

Continued discussion based on original research and trying to navigate this minefield of logical fallacies will not improve the article. We require reliable sources. General discussion about the topic that are not grounded in editing according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not acceptable because this is not a forum for general discussion. When several editors suggest that this may be the case, it would be wise to listen. - MrX 03:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"The edits suggested by the OP are based on original research"

False. The aspects of "Pejorative", "neogolism", and "no clinical meaning" are all included (with sources) in both articles. However, those things are emphasized in one article, and are buried in the other within an article which expounds on this word which in reality is used for nothing more than "name-calling".

My claim that it is original research has nothing to do with the individual concepts, but rather about your assertion that they should be presented in the homophobia article in a similar manner and with similar relative weight as in the hoplophobia article. If I've misconstrued your original premise, then please clarify it, because I'm probably not the only one who reads it as such. - MrX

"and emanate from false premises that the words homophobia and hoplophobia are related to the extent that the holpophobia article should be a model for re-editing this article."

You don't get to skip the part about proving that the premises are false prior to proclaiming them to be false.

Your original premise: "See the article for "hoplophobia" to see how this one should be written" is based on the fallacious claim that because the two words have similar attributes to their meaning, then the Homophobia article should be written like the hoplophobia article. First, its a fallacy of composition. It's also fallacious to suggest that the shorter, less referenced article should be the model for the longer, more referenced article, simple because it aligns with your personal preference. If I'm wrong, and this approach aligns with a broader consensus, or mainstream viewpoint, then please provide evidence of such. - MrX

"Black Kite (and others) have provided solid researched examples that completely refute this notion."

They have refuted nothing. Yes, this is mere contradiction, but mere contradiction is all that's required in response to a baseless assertion.

Examples have been provided, not mere contradictions. Perhaps click on some of the links in Black Kite's post? You may also find dictionaries to be helpful in this quest. - MrX

"More importantly, no reliable sources have been presented to support the theory, and until such sources are presented, there is no basis for a talk page discussion."

The sources are contained in the two articles themselves, as I've mentioned above. And it is not a "theory". – MaximRecoil (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sources exist for individual concepts. Your challenge is to find sources that tie those concepts together to support the edits to this article that you believe are needed. Perhaps if you make some specific proposals with corresponding sources, you will find more support for your ideas. Or you could just WP:BEBOLD and edit the article. - MrX 04:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"no clinical meaning". Tell that to the authors of the thousands of scientific and medical literature pertaining to (and using the term) homophobia. Arguing that something does not exist because it is etymologically wrong is idiotic. Is xenophobia, which applies to virtually all forms of prejudice (including homophobia, racism, antisemitism, misogyny, misandry, etc.), also a figment of our imagination because it implies fear when in reality its most prevalent manifestation is hate? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Enough

This is the textbook definition of disruptive. We have been over and over and over this from every conceivable angle, and these arguments are going absolutely nowhere. Over the course of more threads than I care to count and posts to at least two widely-read noticeboards, there's been input from a wide array of impartial, experienced editors, and the consensus remains that the claims being put forward about alleged problems in the article are without merit. To put it another way, the horse being beaten is dead and decomposed, and nasty little tatters of horseflesh are littering the ground. From a relevant guideline:

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

If anyone who has a problem with this article has anything new to say, by all means, say it. Otherwise, please rest assured that you have made your point. Making it repeatedly or more loudly is both an exercise in futility and a highly effective method of irritating those who disagree with you. I assume your intent isn't to disrupt, so I cannot help supposing that you will let the horse rest in peace at long last. Rivertorch (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, a user talkpage notice has been delivered to North8000 regarding this issue. Insomesia (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that further threads of this type be hatted and the thread starter pointed towards the FAQ and/or previous threads. Perhaps some of the longer threads could be added to the FAQ, in fact. This does not of course apply to genuinely curious editors, although they are starting to prove difficult to tell apart. Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. It's best to nip this in the bud before it wastes any more editor time. It's clear that no useful proposals to improve the article are likely to be made. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. Rivertorch (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Count on my support ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, there seems to me consensus there. Please feel free to do it yourselves, as I am not massively active (currently moving house and trying to find new schools for three children - great fun!) but ping me if there's an issue. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean adding longer threads to the FAQ? Is there something that the FAQ isn't addressing that should be covered? Let's add them in! (And good luck with the move and all!) Insomesia (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if linking to an archived thread or two might be less awkward. Rivertorch (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Which threads? Can we summarize them instead? They seem so rambly and soapbox-ish. Insomesia (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That was only a suggestion, I'm sure there must be some that aren't simply full of unsupported "this article is terrible" ramblings. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hatting anything that you disagree with is a recipe for making the problems with this article worse. The same goes for directing inquiries and comments about the problems to places where you make YOUR side of the argument. This type of abuse is already currently in the header and you are talking about making it worse rather than fixing it. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You've been specifically asked to back up your opinions with reliable sources to enact specific changes you seek. You have failed to do so repeatedly. We are now, collectively, tired of asking for the courtesy of collegial editing. If you have a specific edit backed by reliable sources, we are eager to entertain such ideas. Otherwise your general pattern has been disruptive. And hatting disruptive discussions is a reasonable reaction to disruptive interjections after many months of this activity. Insomesia (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have lost count of the number of times you've been asked to actually suggest how the article should change, backed up by reliable sources for those edits. Should you be able to do that, I think you'll find that the regular editors here will enter into discussion. Since you haven't done that in 260-odd edits to this talkpage, I think they're perfectly entitled to say "enough - come back when you've got something solid". Editors have better things to do than have to rebut the same things over and over again so in the end, without concrete suggestions for improvement, such repetition is indeed disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Like ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's over. Move on. - MrX 18:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's all been said. HiLo48 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Rivertorch (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Black Kite, see "proposed fix" section above. The problem is structural, so new sourced material is just a sidebar to the main issue/fix. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No. The problem is that you are being disruptive and tendentious, and wasting editors' time with your deadhorse arguments. Move on. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well looking at my post and Dominus Vobisdu's together pretty much shows what has been happening on this talk page. Accusations while always avoiding actually discussing the points in the post. I've heard those baseless insults a zillion times (plus the "add material" non-answer to the structural problems) but never "North, could you clarify what the structural problem that you claim exists is?" North8000 (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

...But you haven't learned from those zillion times ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There are things to be learned when a certain small group of people repetitively make false accusations and re-directs and avoid discussing the actual points of the conversation. I have learned those and they have been reflected in my characterization of what has been happening here. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And there's a bigger problem with a disruptive editor making accusations against a "trio of editors" controlling an article, even though they're not stopping him/her from editing, while generally being disruptive, ignoring consensus, being uncivil, making personal attacks etc.

Now either edit the article with reliable sources and respecting the appropriate policies or i'll push this to an admin to look at when i see a single post of forumtalk here again. You've wasted enough of my time, and that of the other editors here who've had to take time from editing to reply. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps asserting a bunch of false accusations, insults and attacks as facts as you just did is not the best way to truly try to end an unpleasant exchange. I will try to do something different than that. While the calls to "add sourced material" have been somewhat of a diversion from the actual fixes needed, upon a closer review I can see a way that such could be a next step. I am redirecting myself to make that my next post in the pages of this article unless someone feels the need to again explicitly or implicitly do what I described at the beginning of this post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Methinks you have too much time on your hands. You've not been successful in convincing other editors, who number considerably more than three, so just drop it. I, for one, am just going to ignore further posts from you on the subject. You've contributed nothing original since you initiated this campaign. fishhead64 (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

North, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You keep speaking of fixing something, but nothing is broken. That you think it is simply demonstrates that your view is a fringe one. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

North, please stop talking about what you think should be done or what you plan to do. If you want to edit the article, edit the article; your changes will either be accepted, modified, or reverted. I don't think anyone wants to discuss proposals here anymore. Rivertorch (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If I may suggest, I think people are interested in discussing actual proposals backed by reliable sources up to at least Wikipedia's standards that might likely be a part of this article. Hypothetical fixes without reliable sources remain of little interest. Insomesia (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Additions to the FAQ?

Is was mentioned that we might be overlooking some aspects in the FAQ. Are there any discussions or ideas that someone thinks is missing? If so I'm happy to dig a bit and see if we can find a NPOV way to include them. Insomesia (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI report regarding this talk page

AN ANI report regarding conversations on this talk page has been posted at User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia North8000 (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchiveNorth8000 Discussion. Insomesia (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

What does "to date" mean?

To me, it means "as of right now". It doesn't seem very accurate to say something to the effect of "this fact is true to date" in 2012, when we are backing that statement up with a source from 1999.

Here is the edit I'm talking about: [5]

Honestly, I can't think of any legitimate reason to revert that edit.

Now, maybe it IS true, "to date". But we need a more current source before we can say that in the article, regardless of what anybody would prefer to have the article say. Belchfire-TALK 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia as a psychiatric disorder?

Apparently the Swedish medical textbook Dynamisk Psykiatri (2003 ed.) by Johan Cullberg deals with the curing of homophobia as a psychiatric disorder. Previous editions (1993 ed. and such) dealt with curing homosexuality. I would like it to be included in the article somehow, but I lack exact knowledge. Perhaps someone with access to a copy could add more. --Auric 02:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the debates we've had here over the meaning of homophobia in English, I doubt if something in Swedish is going to be all that helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know more about the textbook before offering an opinion. What do you mean when you say editions as late as 1993 "dealt with curing homosexuality". Dealt with it how? Rivertorch (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No clue. This is the Google books page for the 1993 ed. This TV Tropes page on Categorism As A Phobia has some more info. For more, you'll need to get a copy, I'm afraid.--Auric 12:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

a single work is generally a sign of a WP:FRINGE theory, or at the very least WP:UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Google books shows the earliest edition published in 1984, and 6 editions since then.[6] Supposedly this is "one of the main psychiatric textbooks in Sweden." --Auric 13:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's "one of the main psychiatric textbooks in Sweden." then that's notable, but we'd need some evidence of what exactly that means. But Red pen is quite right when he says Fringe is an issue, especially as these are by the same author. Multiple people writing on a topic gives it more authenticity and authority, just one and it looks like they're either an expert or an obsessive person. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We can't do anything without knowing exactly what the book says. The TV Tropes description does say it is subject to a lot of criticism, which supports the idea that, whatever it says, it is something of a fringe view.--Trystan (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Judging from the author's article, he's a major figure in Swedish psychiatry, so either he he held a minority view—certainly a fringe one by 1993—or we're misreading this somehow. I guess I should say I'm a little fuzzy on why exactly the evolving viewpoint found in a Swedish psychiatry textbook would be noteworthy for the article on homophobia in the English Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Introduction and body incoherent regarding article topic/scope

proposal withdrawn; see new #Intro proposal #2 below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I find the current introduction to be incoherent relative to the body of the article. These are the first two sentences: Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred. Is the topic of this article the word "homophobia", or is it the topic which can perhaps be best described as "opposition to homosexuals and/or homosexuality"? The introductory sentences suggest the former, but the article suggests the latter. I propose changing the introduction to more accurately describe the topic and scope of the article. For example: Opposition toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) is commonly referred to as homophobia. It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear. Thoughts? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC) I like it! That opening has been bothering me for some time. HiLo48 (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC) No. The current introduction is good and supported by reliable sources.--В и к и T 19:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC) This feels like the ongoing effort to rename the article opposition to homosexuality which has been rejected for at least the past year. Insomesia (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC) I would support this change. Hey, for once I agree with HiLo. :) as I think it helps work out some of the kinks we've been discussing, as it is reads "commonly refers to" rather than "is." It's a step in the right direction, and I think it will help improve the article, as well as decrease the conflict on this talk page. Wikiwind, just because it contains "good sources" doesn't mean that it's the best lead-in to the article. EDIT: It changes the lead to an encyclopedic entry as opposed to a (can I say) dogmatic statement. —Maktesh (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Your new lede suggests the article is Opposition to homosexuality when it is in fact homosexuality. It is therefore not a summary of the article and not an appropriate lede. I cannot support it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 19:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC) i think you mean the article is homophobia -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC) I likewise think that the present lede is supported by the reliable sources, and that the proposed version above shifts the scope of the article. I therefore can not support it, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Right, it's been a long day for me. That's my excuse and i'm sticking to it. Any lede change on a controversial topic like this one really needs to stay on topic, and not simply be preparing it for a rename to a more POV title. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 20:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC) I don't think this is an improvement in as much as it is a passive construction and less clear. That's not to say there's not opportunity for improvement. Perhaps, as an alternative (not necessarily better than the current wording): Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings about homosexuality, or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Homophobia is typically expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred. - MrX 20:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC) I like it, but i think we're giving too much weight to irrational fear, which is a fringe theory put into gay panic defenses and rarely ever successful. I think the majority of cases now actually see it as an excuse rather than anything genuine. I can't even think of an example to give you but is that possible at all? I'm not asking you to remove it, just not put it on equal par, since i don't believe it is a genuine condition, so much as a dictionary definition. I eagerly await replies from whoever regarding this. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 20:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC) The new definition replaces "Range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality..." with "Opposition toward homosexuality..." which is not the same. I agree with Insomesia that this change would be the first step towards renaming the article to "Opposition toward homosexuality". I can't support the definition which would describe all antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred as simply "Opposition". Imagine this definition: "Opposition to people from other countries is commonly referred to as Xenophobia". Ridiculous.--В и к и T 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC) I agree completely. This is not at all aimed at improving the article, but testing the ground for a rename. There is good reason for an analysis such as that after the arguments at the ANI and seeing them appear here now as an attempt on the lede with the same bolded potential title. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 20:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC) do not support the proposed change - i do think however, that rather than basing the definition upon dictionaries, we base the lead on sociology texts' definitions (and make any changes that may entitle) because we are not writing a dictionary, but an encyclopedia about the sociologial use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC) And part of the problem is that the sociological usage of the term varies from society to society. The way I see it, the Lead is making a dogmatic statement, that although can be reliably sourced, isn't necessarily accurate. MrX had a good point when he said that it turns it into a "passive construction and [is] less clear." That defines the term. It's not clear, and for Wikipedia to take the liberty in defining it seems improper. To go into more detail, the problem I see is that it's easy to source professional opinions where a (read:any) term is used as "X" but it's hard to source it saying a term is *not* used as "X." I'll try to dig up some sources here, but the article's lead should explain that the term has a wide range of functions, which generally vary in nature, and have an unclear definition. —Maktesh (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC) i dont think that the academic sociological use does have the variability that you are suggesting. and as in all matters we should reflect any variations WP:UNDUE in the appropriate weight to any variations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For those who think this is a first step towards renaming... please reconsider...

For the record, I would never propose or support changing the title of this article. The current title, Homophobia, is the most common name used for the topic of this article, and this topic is clearly the primary use of that word. But let's not confuse the word homophobia (and all of its meanings) that is the title with the topic, which is not all of the word's meanings (see WP:NOTADICT).

That said, I understand the objection to simplifying the description of this topic to mere "opposition to ...". That's a valid criticism. Will give that more thought. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC) minor revision --Born2cycle (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC))

Intro proposal #2

Taking all of the above into account, how about just changing the second sentence to get rid of "definitions" and distinguishing "irrational fear" as a possible basis, and changing "is" to "encompasses" in the first sentence? Current intro:

Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred.

Proposed intro:

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Much better. I support that change.--В и к и T 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I would support the change. I don't feel that it's making a significant alteration to the article's meaning. Personally, I feel that it still somewhat lacking, although I'm not sure what I would change. I'll think it over, and make a proposal if something arises. Until then, I'd say this is an improvement. —Maktesh ^(talk) 22:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that that would be an improvement. - MrX 22:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Broadly agree with Maktesh, but small incremental improvements are still improvements. William Avery (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done [7] --Born2cycle (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is the phrase "irrational fear" instead of simply "fear"? Is there a "rational fear" of lgbt?NE Ent 02:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The rationalness would depend on the opinion of the individual asked. I'd rather the word irrational dropped. --Nouniquenames 03:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Some sources say irrational fear while others simply say fear. Irrational fear is perhaps a little more descriptive, but it may be redundant as NE Ent seems to suggest. - MrX 03:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm conflicted on "irrational". Obviously the fear is irrational, but does it need saying if it's invariably so? Suggest we find the best sources we can to see if it's justified. I'll look around a bit and see what I can find. No rush. Depending on what improvements we can make to the article, the whole lede may need to be significantly adjusted. I'd love to get this up to GA status. Rivertorch (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow; we actually got something done. In regards to irrational fear, I think that the word should stay put. I would say that there is potentially a "rational" fear of LGBT-related causes/movements/agendas, etc. The problem, once again, is that we're working with a very lucid term here. It's not an officially defined word as this article has applied it. I'd say, ultimately, that we need to plan out how this should further develop. Because there is an actual "homophobia" (irrational fear of homosexuals), being opposed for religious reasons would also be "opposition to homosexuality." I don't really support the "Christianity Section" topic above, but there are multiple reasons for opposition, and removing the word "irrational" makes this too much of a blanket. As a side note, that's why I think that the scope and title of this page are poorly presented. Also, if you don't play your cards right, you're going to have a lot of fundamentalists bringing a war party to this page. —Maktesh ^(talk) 05:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Now I wonder what that means. Fundamentalists are welcome to contribute to this or any article, as long as they adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as is required of all editors. If you're predicting that such contributors may argue that religious views somehow exempt certain people from being homophobic, well, that would be a non-starter. Religious dogma has long been used to justify prejudice against minorities, but prejudice it still is, and it still goes by the terms (e.g., homophobia) that it goes by in any other case. Incidentally, I'm not sure what you mean by "a very lucid term". Which term—homophobia or irrational—and did you really mean "lucid"? Rivertorch (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha; my bad! I meant non-lucid. Thanks for the catch. I'm saying that we could start a religious firestorm and edit war here. And none of us want that. I think what you're missing is looking at the problem from their eyes. You may see it as religious dogma, but they see it as God's clear revelation in morality. I'm not saying that within that homophobia doesn't exist. I'm saying that a lack of support through religious affiliation or otherwise doesn't necessarily equal homophobia or prejudice. For example, I'm not opposed to gay rights, but I see no reason to support gay marriage, simply from a naturalistic POV. That doesn't mean I'm prejudiced, or challenging their humanity. From a general standpoint, lack-of-support, opposition, and hatred of are three different things. Regardless, I think there's a distinction, and it seems that this article uses blanket terminology to cover a little too much. —Maktesh ^(talk) 14:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You say "...I see no reason to support gay marriage, simply from a naturalistic POV. That doesn't mean I'm prejudiced..." Ummm, yes it does. We're all prejudiced in one way or another,and that seem a very obvious obvious and extreme form of it. I know we're not here to debate the merits, etc, but that statement is very problematic. I hate having people rephrase my posts and tell me what I'm really thinking, but you really seem to be saying that gay marriage is unnatural. Hmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That would depend on a number of points, including the origin of marriage and its purpose (if any). This is not the place to debate such things; I'm only pointing out that there are multiple avenues from which to approach this. One could be opposed to "gay marriage" but not to homosexual activity in general. Would such an individual be prejudiced? Those with a view in strong disagreement might likely say so, but that doesn't necessarily make it the case. To say that everyone is prejudiced is a problematic statement from the start. --Nouniquenames 16:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There are people who would say that opinion was homophobic though because of how it victimises them. That's directly relevant. Going into personal opinions though is not a good idea as you say. I resisted replying to Maktesh simply because the conversation could not possibly improve this article and so was unnecessary. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot that I could respond to, but that wouldn't do much to actually work towards improving the article. All I'll say say is it's a stretch to claim that we're all prejudiced. One can vote to civil union rights/visitation rights/etc., without voting for gay marriage. I have only stated my personal POV in order to keep where I'm coming from clear. This is not a religious issue for me, nor is it a personal battle. You can think what you want, HiLo, but you're still wrong. You can't apply a lack of support for anything else and say that it means opposition. (Oh, I don't like watching Dr. Who, so I think that it should be banned for everyone? Not quite a fair assessment.) This isn't about judging my POV. This is just about me stating where my cards lie to avoid mischaracterization. Moving forward: I agree with Nouniquenames. I think that we need to be careful to avoid a tonality where we begin generalizing people groups, and labeling their reasons. It's a two-way street regardless of what side you're on. I think that the removal of the word "irrational" would be implying that there is no "rational" fear, which simply can't be proven, nor is it true, I would argue. —Maktesh ^(talk) 17:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

3rd sentence of Lead

The third sentence of the first Lead paragraph currently reads:

In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."

This seems a little off to me for a couple of reasons. First off, the beginning paragraph of the Lead is supposed to define the the subject generally without getting too specific. (WP:MOSBEGIN) This sentence is a very specific direct quote from a single person. (Unfortunately I don't know enough of the sources to know whether it is NPOV, but the "dehumanize" and "deny their humanity" bits seem a harsher than, say, what I get when I look up homophobia on Miriam Webster or Dictionary.com.) I think it also bugs me because the language seems rhetorical instead of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias (See WP:Quotations).

Second, per WP:LEAD, the Lead should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. I've read through the body of the article and I can't find anything in the body about dehumanizing or denying humanity. The only thing in the body I can find that resembles the quote in the Lead is in the "Distribution of attitudes" section where a study found that "hatred of gay people, anti-Semitism, and racism are 'likely companions.'" Even then, the statement in the Lead is much stronger than what the body is saying.

Anyway, I suggest that the 3rd sentence of the Lead should be moved to the body, possibly to the "Efforts to combat homophobia" section. I'd make the edit myself, but I seem to remember this being a fairly controversial article, so I figured I'd just propose it here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. It is somewhat UNDUE in the first Lead paragraph and can be moved to "Efforts to combat homophobia" or "Distribution of attitudes". Alternatively, it can be moved to last paragraph of the Lead.--В и к и T 20:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would agree it's out of place in the lead, but is a reasonably notable opinion to go in the body. William Avery (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Agree. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, how does this look? It's a direct copy-paste, but I tried to find the most relevant place to put it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That placement looks all right to me. If that section can be fleshed out a little more, I can see some mention of it (not necessarily King's words, specifically) being appropriate for the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm good with it. It always made me uncomfortable playing the race comparison card in the lead. —Maktesh ^(talk) 05:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but the "decision" to move vital info was not announced to all of the major contributors of the article, I being the author of most of the lead. The quote is specific to homophobia, nothing more, nothing less, hence its importance to and position in the lead. Consensus had been reached a very, very long time ago on this inclusion and the onus is on those who go against the consensus to read the talk archives. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the onus is on CJ Withers to point to a relevant discussion that demonstrates consensus and makes obvious how the reverted edit contradicts it). And there is no policy requiring announcing anything to major contributors. NE Ent 23:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:Status Quo might apply. Until North8000 came along this article was surprisingly stable, then the talkpages were rendered rather useless. Now that a campaign has been waged that there must be dire structural changes we're seeing a concerted effort to find problems even where few in any exist. All articles need, or will see, improving with time. I'm not convinced that it reaches the level of concern flailed about but why don't those who do remain here seek to act cordially and accept that just maybe the article itself has been free of drama is that is doesn't have major problems that require gnashing of teeth. Any reasonable request - as always - will be entertained. If it helps the article then great. Insomesia (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

@CJ Withers, Sorry about that, I'm quite new to the article and didn't know that you had written the Lead. Would you mind pointing me to the specific archive that has the old consensus, because I am interested in reading it, if it's not too long. Also, I would appreciate it if you would address the points that I made above (about how the sentence does not summarize the article, is too specific for the 1st paragraph, and is fairly rhetorical in tone, which isn't quite appropriate for the Lead section). ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Irrational fear in the media

Strange enough the Associated Press (whatever that is) just announced they are to stop using the word homophobia (link here) as they don't agree with the meaning of the word. Bit of a coincidence...Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, a shift in how a reliable secondary source uses the term is certainly notable, and I'd think a brief, neutrally-worded mention would be appropriate. Maybe not immediately; there's likely to be considerable controversy over the AP's change, so chances are it will be an evolving story. Rivertorch (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Update from second source - it looks like more of a political decision that someone at the associated press doesn't think it's a real phobia, or at least that's how it reads. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I had a little chuckle when I saw this today (Guardian commentary by Patrick Strudwick). FiachraByrne (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

faq #1 edit

"Also dictionary definitions are never more than a starting point for determining the scope of a given article. One reason for that has to do with the rapidity with which language evolves." should be removed from the first FAQ. It's unnecessary and makes it longer than it needs to be, and, given that three of the four inline citations in the article for the definition are dictionaries, a bit of a strawman. NE Ent 23:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That is tied to the fact that editors had been championing that the article should be limited to a dictionary definition. As it is just a FAQ to help those who bother to read it i think it should remain. It pertained to specific concerns raised frequently. And dictionary definitions are only a starting point for encyclopedic articles. That's how Wikipedia works. Insomesia (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning doesn't match the title of the faq "Why is/isn't the definition limited to a/my dictionary account?" NE Ent 00:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should tweak the title then? Insomesia (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of that sentence. Those who want to change the scope of this article are not "championing that the article should be limited to a dictionary definition", to the contrary, they are ignoring dictionary definition of homophobia and insisting that the word should be defined by defining two different words - homo and phobia (which would literally mean fear of the same). That is WP:OR and has nothing to do with dictionary definition of homophobia.--В и к и T 00:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Tweaked to try to incorporate both suggestions. NE Ent 00:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)