Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:57, 28 October 2012

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Homophobia FAQ Q1: Does this category apply for all LGBT people, such as trans people? A1: Yes, although strictly speaking, trans people are covered under transphobia. Q2: How do we define 'homophobia' as a category? A2:There are two main ways in which 'homophobia is used', as psychological motivation, and in practice homophobia. Q3: What are the guidelines for applying 'homophobia' as a category when dealing with the biography of a living person? A3: Biography of living persons and Reliable sources apply in the application of this category, and it should not be applied unless it can be verified that the individual is referred to as homophobic in a reliable source, or has themselves made statements that contain words that are clearly homophobic in the traditional sense of the word. Q4: What is the psychological meaning of homophobia? A4: This is a narrow definition of homophobia used by psychologists, as an irrational phobia or aversion to homosexual people. Q5: What is the 'broad' meaning of homophobia? A5: This is a definition of homophobia that relates to how the term used socially, which includes the denial of equal human rights to homosexual people. Q6: What are human rights of LGBT people? A6: These are the same rights that are associated with heterosexual people, as described in a document like the . Q7: Does inclusion in this category imply that the subject is homophobic? A7: No. This is a broad category that includes individuals and groups whose personal or professional lives are connected in some significant way to the topic of homophobia. For example, organizations working to combat homophobia are included in this category.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homophobia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Homophobia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Homophobia at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Homophobic" is a Political Slur

This article does NOT present a balanced view, but rather the views of extremists who use the term "homophobic" as a political slur in an attempt to silence meaningful debate. Those who hold this agenda take a page from Hitler's Fascist playbook, labelling anybody who accepts the moral view of Natural Law that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore both evil and immoral as a "homophobe" even if such individuals intend no harm whatsoever to those who adhere to homosexual lifestyles. A balanced article would acknowledge this reality in its introductory paragraph. -- Norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.71.187 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Norm. Your definition of "reality" is at odds with the consensus of editors here, and you offer no evidence to support it. If you have a specific recommendation—e.g., new wording, supported by reliable sources, that you think should be inserted—please feel free to make it. Otherwise, it looks like one more original research-based variation on a perennial proposal for this article. (Btw, I think you're the first person I've seen fulfill Godwin's law in the first post of a thread. Wow.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you didn't even mention the futility of the "natural law/behaviour" argument...Bigotry/homphobia = choice. Sexuality = innate feature ツ Jenova20 19:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No, an immense number of people have said the same thing about the article, and the trio keeps running them all off. To the trio here, the more people who say it the more they consider that a reason to not fix it, the reverse of reality. North8000 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Gay Cabal theory has already been tried, by you, and failed many times on this page. The answer remains the same and has been mentioned to you numerous times. If you have reliable sources to support your assertions, we would love to see them. In fact there is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard so you don't even have to post here to get a fair hearing. In the absence of those you're repeating the same discussion without WP:LISTENing to the feedback that many editors have shared on this subject many times. Insomesia (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A complete misstatement of the situation and my argument, which is that the article makes and implies an unsourced assertion that the "all opposition is phobia" definition is the ONLY definition. And from that policy-violating launch pad it builds the problems that an immense number of people have complained about . North8000 (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Norm. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I'm sure we would all welcome your contributions to this article, and especially your information on natural law, Fascism, homosexual lifestyles and political slurs, which I'm sure all come from highly reliable sources. Everyone is free to edit articles on Misplaced Pages, however you should realize that Misplaced Pages is not a debate site, nor is it a forum. — MrX 20:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, you've asserted that position repeatedly, in several venues I believe, yet it has gained no traction. And no reliable sources to bolster any changes have been presented. If you have a specific improvement in mind and the reliable sources to back those up then we can go forward from here. Otherwise you should expect the same answers you were given previously. Insomesia (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The old "you need a source to discuss lack of sourcing" trick again. Probably works well for chasing away people who don't know any better. And no, what I said it hasn't gained traction with the POV trio that has been blockading the fix. But the discussions here will probably help coalesce things to get it fixed despite them. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No trick. Just adhering to policies. If you gain consensus for any changes I will, of course, abide by the decisions made. Insomesia (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see precisely what improvement to the article is being discussed here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Errm . . . yes. That was sort of the main thrust of my reply. All it takes is one drive-by IP, and we're off. I feel as if I keep shutting a door that blows open every time there's a gust of wind, but the latch is broken and and there's never a calm day and we're all doomed to endless repetition. Over and over and over and over and over and over . . . we might as well redirect Infinity to this talk page. Hey, anybody have a proposal involving actual letters forming words that lead to coherent sentences—you know, the sort of thing that actually might go into or come out of the article? If not, we're wasting our time. Again. Rivertorch (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, this is due to the same editor over the past 3, 4, or so months. Insomesia (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed fix

The problem and the potential fix are knitted into /throughout the fabric of the article. So listing the details of a fix would be very lengthy. An overview would be a good place to start. There are two definitions of homopohobia, in shorthand they are:

#1 The "all opposition is "phobia"" definition

#2 The "actual phobia" definition

#1 is obviously controversial (for example, continuously in the talk page of this article since the moment of its inception) look at the talk page for the #1 is in some dictionaries, #2 is in every dictionary. In short, the overall problem article pretends that #2 does not exist. Not only does it not cover it, but throughout it tacitly includes statements (as fact, in the voice of Misplaced Pages) that every form of non-phobia opposition to homosexuality is "homophobia."

There are three broad choices for a fix:

#1 One is to cover the term as a term as the homosexual agenda article does. The shortest way to get there would be to reduce this article to as stub build it using the homosexual agenda article as a guide. Of course this includes including both definitions.

#2 One is to rename this article to a NPOV title for what 95% of it's actual current content is, which is Opposition to homosexuality'. As a secondary matter, There are a few choices of what homophobia would then link to, probably to a disambiguation page or to a homophobia definitions section of the renamed article, or an article just on the term. Someone said that this was considered once before; it's probably the easiest and best fix.

#3 The is the most complex and probably the least desirable. Which is to list both definitions. And provide context / attribution for all explicit and implicit statements that non-phobia opposition to homosexuality is homophobia. For example, it would preface the listing of such with something like "proponents of terming all opposition to homosexuality as being homophobia cite the following as examples of homophobia:"

#1 and #2 might inevitably become one and the same. #1 could cause a "Opposition to homosexuality" article to get created, and #2 could cause short article covering homosexuality as a term to get created. So they could lead to the same place, which may be the best. A substantial article: Opposition to homosexuality covering that, and a short article covering Homophobia as a term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition #1 is by far the common one in the circles where I mix, and a major one of which is a pretty conservative part of Australian culture. HiLo48 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Both definitions are in the article and both are discussed and explained. I still dont see the issue here other than the editor accusing a "trio" of stifling discussion. Thanks ツ Jenova20 17:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Responding to HiLo48, I think that a breeze through the major dictionaries would indicate otherwise, I think one would see that #2 is in all of them and #1 in only some of therm But, even if that were true, it does not support the claim knitted in throughout the article it is the ONLY definition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

North8000, I think your argument is based on a series of false premises. First that there is a problem to be fixed. At the moment, consensus disagrees with that assessment.

The next false premise is that "the overall problem article pretends that #2 does not exist". This assertion is erroneous. In fact, fear as a cause, and by extension, definition of homophobia is examined at several points in the article. Do you not see them?

Finally, your proposed solutions to the (perceived) problem are in themselves problematic, and not just because they are based on false premises.

• Solution one attempts to diminish the impact and importance of homophobia in society, essentially seeping it under the rug.
• Solution two recasts the subject of homophobia in terms that you find to be NPOV, but consensus finds to be very POV.
• Solution three attempts to address what the article has already adequately done with 110 source citations, with appropriate WP:DUE weight.

There is nothing stopping you, or any one else from finding reliable sources that support the idea that homophobia actually means fear of homosexuals, and that opposition to homosexuality should be explicitly excluded from the definition, although I'm sure you would acknowledge that that would be a minority view. If those sources exist, then you are free to add that viewpoint to the article in due proportion. On the other hand, broad, sweeping generalizations about how biased and wrong the article is, or how poorly sourced it is, without specific examples, simply will not gain any traction here. — MrX 19:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that. Insomesia (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be problems with the article first before proposing "fixes" and currently, there are no agreed-upon problems with the article. I'll address your concerns anyway.

1 The "all opposition is "phobia"" definition 2 The "actual phobia" definition

1 is obviously controversial (for example, continuously in the talk page of this article since the moment of its inception) look at the talk page for the #1 is in some dictionaries, #2 is in every dictionary.

• According to the lead of the Homophobia article right now, the definition of homophobia is: Hatred (antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion are just more synonyms) and irrational fear toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). That is the definition of homophobia, backed up by many reliable sources. Just because the suffix -phobia is attached to the word does not make "homophobia" literally only about the fear. See Etymological fallacy.
• Also, there is no "controversy" surrounding this term and if there was, it is being created by people who have something against homosexuality disliking being called "homophobes".

In short, the overall problem article pretends that #2 does not exist.

• "Irrational fear" is listed in the lead with due weight. The article is not trying to hide anything.

Not only does it not cover it, but throughout it tacitly includes statements (as fact, in the voice of Misplaced Pages) that every form of non-phobia opposition to homosexuality is "homophobia."

• That is the definition of the word backed by reliable sources. Deal with it.

There are three broad choices for a fix:

1 One is to cover the term as a term as the homosexual agenda article does. The shortest way to get there would be to reduce this article to as stub build it using the homosexual agenda article as a guide. Of course this includes including both definitions.

• Well, someone has an agenda (and it certainly is not a homosexual one). Is this proposal trying to eliminate or hide "homophobia" and make it seem like it does not exist? Sorry, but Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTCENSORED. This article is backed by many reliable sources, and it is not going to get trimmed down because it offends those who have something against homosexuality.

2 One is to rename this article to a NPOV title for what 95% of it's actual current content is, which is Opposition to homosexuality'. As a secondary matter, There are a few choices of what homophobia would then link to, probably to a disambiguation page or to a homophobia definitions section of the renamed article, or an article just on the term. Someone said that this was considered once before; it's probably the easiest and best fix.

• Again, are these proposals trying to make the homophobia concept not visible? I went ahead and copy-and-pasted someone else's response because it is getting tiresome repeating the same thing over and over again because someone here just can't WP:LISTEN.

So would you re-title Xenophobia as Aversion to foreigners? Clearly not (I hope). WP:COMMONNAME is policy here, and it states "Misplaced Pages ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." And as will be seen by looking at the article or by a simple Google search, by far the most frequently used name in reliable sources is not "aversion to homosexuality" but "homophobia". I don't see why we're going round in circles here. If someone - anyone - can present multiple reliable sources that the article is mis-titled, or that it is biased in some way, then fine but that has not happened yet - all we are getting is unsupported assertions that "there are massive objections to this" and "it's not the majority view". There is a whole section in the article - Homophobia#Criticism_of_meaning_and_purpose which deals with the alternative views; any more than that would be WP:UNDUE. What, exactly, do you want this article to present that it doesn't now? Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

3 The is the most complex and probably the least desirable. Which is to list both definitions. And provide context / attribution for all explicit and implicit statements that non-phobia opposition to homosexuality is homophobia. For example, it would preface the listing of such with something like "proponents of terming all opposition to homosexuality as being homophobia cite the following as examples of homophobia:"

• Both definitions are already listed in the lead: Hatred (antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion are just more synonyms) and irrational fear toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Reliable sources and dictionaries are not "proponents" of anything.

There is not a problem with the article at its current state or anything unneutral about it. I thought I made my points clear at the noticeboard a while back. North8000, if you are not going to argue the same things on islamophobia, xenophobia, and antisemitism as you did on homophobia, then please keep your unhelpful biased ranting somewhere else. It truly seems like you have an "opposition to homosexuality" but dislike being called a homophobe, so now you're trying to change the homophobia article (since you can't redefine words in actual dictionaries or encyclopedias) either by giving undue weight to "fear" or hide the concept all together to fit your non-neutral point of view. Sorry, but Misplaced Pages does not work that way. Twøcents (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict—concurring with MrX, replying to North) I concur. As I've stated before (repeatedly), I think that your premises are faulty. A specific note: 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. There are many dictionary entries for usages that are downright rare; eventually they will be labeled "obsolete", but this can take many decades. This article is primarily about a phenomenon that is widely referred to as "homophobia" (almost exclusively so in both academic writings and popular culture, as far as I can tell). Rivertorch (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Twøcents. If nothing else, this recrudescence has prompted me to return once more to the OED which gives a usage example that couples the word tellingly: "There is no such thing as the homosexual problem any more than there is a black problem—the problems are racism and homophobia." That was from the Globe & Mail of Toronto in 1975. William Avery (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The guardians of the "all opposition is phobia" assertion woven deeply into the fabric of this article have avoided the points in my discussion. There is no real conversation going on here; folks on such a fervent quest will not be convinced; the fix will need to come from more eyes. Signing off on this thread. North8000 (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition 1 includes definition 2. Misplaced Pages does not limit defintions but tries to remain broad and encyclopedic. This argument is about making definition 2 "homophobia includes fear" legitimate. It is about deligitimizing defintion 1 which has tons of sources. I would admit it would definately be wrong if this article dosn't mention irrational fear as being homophobia but it does.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Also see Gay panic defense for more irrational fear. Thanks ツ Jenova20 10:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I looked, saw once again that no reliable sources were presented for the rename proposal, among other things, and immediately stopped caring. Seriously, North, it's been stated time and again and you should know this from every other Misplaced Pages article, it's all about the sources. If you don't have any to present, then your argument has no weight whatsoever, it's just an argument to original research. Silverseren 02:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for using a neutral name for the article? I was just trying to put what hundreds of people have said here into wiki-terms and propose a solution. Of course the same group that blew them off and/or chased them away is not going to be convinced to fix it. Folks are still "mishearing" my argument and pretending that I am trying to present new material (which I am NOT) so that they block the conversation absent sourcing on non-existent statements. Again, my complaint in wiki terms is LACK of sourcing for the statement "Definition #1` is the ONLY definition" which 80% of this article is built upon. Unless someone misrepresents what I said again (as Silver seren did by essentially saying that I was making unsourced claims) I'm signing off on this thread. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The article has a "neutral" name. Funny how you never proposed calling the Straight Pride article you worked on "Opposition to Gay pride" or changing Heterophobia to "Opposition to heterosexuals". It's because it's biased in such a way that no one could take you seriously and would call your neutrality into question as i am now. Biased much? ツ Jenova20 08:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Jenova20 The Straight pride article already IS what my proposal #1 is for this article which is an article about the term. And there is no heterophobia article, so I could not argue for change on a non-existent article. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You've never proposed changing Racism "opposition to other races" either while we're on about it. The editor just wants to push an agenda and finds it easier by accusing "a trio" without mentioning names so it can be taken to admin ツ Jenova20 08:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

First, there are millions of articles in Misplaced Pages which I've never even seen much less proposed changes on, so it is not meaningful that I have not done anythign at any one particular article that you select. But, on that article I would not propose such a change because it is not a case where there are 2 commonplace definitions of the term, nor is the article built upon a selected controversial defintion and in a way that denies the controversey and 80% of which denies the existence of the other definition. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what it was. It had no notability and asserted itself as a real term, despite being nothing more than a "me-too" victim tag used by homophobes claiming that the gays are victimising the straights with their wanting equal rights. It had little mention of anything and isn't a real term with any definition, it's just a word that was used a few times by people. All exactly why it was deleted, no notability.

The 80% argument is bull, it's down to WP:WEIGHT and what the sources say, not misrepresenting them.

Your request for rewriting the article with no sources isn't working, your assertion the article is unbalanced hasn't worked. New approach or another 4 months of WP:IDHT? ツ Jenova20 11:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't propose it when it did exist and before it was deleted for notability though. North, it's a new month but the same argument with you. ツ Jenova20 11:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. I can't even tell what you are trying to say. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a reply in response to your reply in line with what it itself is in reply to (if that makes sense) ツ Jenova20 11:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I felt that the comparison to the other 2-3 articles would be useful and informative and so I responded on that. The rest is nasty mis-representations of what I said and what the situation is. I realized that even responding on each new mis-representation would make this a perpetual thread so I'm going to break that cycle. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

North, if you were trying for the legitimization of definition 2 I would be completely on your side. But you are not. You are trying to say that definition 1 (which by the way includes irrational fear) is deligitimate, depite tons of sources that state otherwise. So as long as the 80% of the article you are talking about can be sourced it will remain. However if you do find a source that says 1) homophobia is only fear and 2) this fear does not cause any of the characteristics of defintion 1 then we would be forced to list it as an alternative view. However you will not even then be able to deligitimize the so-called 80% of the article which defines using defintion 1. we understand that people may not like being called homophobes but thats not our call. On your statement of homophobia being a political slur, is it really any more of a political slur than any other word for discrimination (racism, sexism, antisemitism)? I would think not. But we are not going to change an already established name of an article because it may or may not hold certain political connotations. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. Maybe what I'm saying to say is easily misunderstood. I'm saying that BOTH definitions are legitimate. And the core of my complaint is that 80% of the article is tacitly a statement that #2 does not exist. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

1. 2 is mentioned in the article because that it fits into #1. If you want me to look to see if I can find stuff about fear of homosexuals I can definately look for information. But I won't use it to say that any definition discludes anything. Most people who use the phobia is only a phobia concept don't understand anything about the english language and how you can't follow the literal meaning of the term all the time. I would be glad to research information on fear of homosexuals especially fear connected with the false stereotypes of homosexuals with children or the fear propagated by the lavender scare. Those could be great contributions to the article.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find a lot of this covered in Homosexual panic and Corrective rape where the work off the premise of irrational fear and it leads to violence. Thanks ツ Jenova20 10:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Rainbow, thanks for your efforts but I think that you are still missing my point. The core of the problem is that 80% of the article categorically calls ALL opposition to homosexuality "homophobia". When it does that it it uses only one of the definitions and pretends that the other does not exist. And, as such, the 80% weighs in on one side of the controversy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's homophobia for you North. If 80% of the sources consider All opposition homophobia then that's what we have to go with. That comes down to WP:WEIGHT, manipulating references and misrepresenting them, WP:NPOV too to an extent. IS there any point saying this though when you will reply by telling me i have misunderstood you? Thanks ツ Jenova20 14:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is getting no where and is turning into a disrupitive dispute over unsourced information. North my suggestion to you would be to drop the subject and move on to more constructive editing on another page. I will also like to point out that this is called beating a dead horse and to remind you North that Misplaced Pages is not a forum for you to talk out your debates on the subject. You must have reliable sources to prove your claims and it is a standard on Misplaced Pages. It is not something that people are making up that is how it goes on here. So please drop the subject North and move on. You are being a disruptive user and I suggest to anyone if this continues to report him to the ANI. ^_^ Swifty* 18:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've participated in these discussions in the past and I've been monitoring them as a lurker for quite some time. I'm afraid that I must agree with Swifty. North, you have long since crossed the line into both tendentious editing as well as disruptive editing. Everyone here has been very patient with you. It is time to stop. Move on. Find a constructive outlet for your time and energy. It is clearly not productive here. I'd rather not go the ANI route, but it's justified at this point. Henrymrx (t·c) 21:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's abundantly clear that North is not going to contribute constructively to this article, and should move on to others where he may be of use. Otherwise, a topic ban seems to be the next step. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I was already signed off on this thread. I jumped back in to clarify something for Rainbow who is one of the few civilized folks in this debate and the only one who has tried to understand and respond to what I'm saying vs. the trio who keeps "mishearing" so as be able to attack it. BTW, lose the bogus accusations, of which there were about 6 in the last few posts. The particularly novel one is accusing someone who hasn't edited the article of "Tendentious editing" North8000 (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Norm that this article comes across a little unbalanced. The problem as I see it is that the introduction fails to make clear that the term homophobic is used almost exclusively by one side in a political debate. The idea that it may be a slur is relagated to a small subheading at the end of the article.

It is true that the word homophobic is now broadly used to characterise disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle. But, I don't think it is ok for the article to use it in this sense. Such use reflects the view of the gay rights movement that criticism of the gay way of life is motivated by irrational fear.

Don't get me wrong, homophobia does exist. For example, I have known men who saw the very existence of homosexual men as a threat to their own masculinity. But for Misplaced Pages to adopt the rhetorical of the gay rights movement and label all criticism of the homosexual lifestyle "homophobia" would be non-neutral.

Chappell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't redefine, we just report where there is reliable sourcing available. Homophobia is used in multiple ways, even as an attack on some gays and lesbians who don't conform to the ideals of the rest. The problem with have with personal opinions here is that many do consider any attempt to attack them for anything to do with sexuality as homophobia. Andthat is one of the definitions.

It's often equated with racism for this very reason. Some people do consider some things offensive and others don't. That's just how it is and because it is how it is and can be cited reliably - we include it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 14:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine. The only way to achieve that in less than a decade is nuke the article to a stub and start over. It's riddled end to end with implicit assertions that there is only one definition, which is in direct conflict with sourcing. North8000 (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Many false premises there, Chappell. The term is not "used almost exclusively by one side in a political debate". There's no such thing as "the homosexual lifestyle" or "the gay way of life" (although, interestingly enough, those phrases are often used by—wait for it—one side in a political debate). And homophobia as it usually manifests doesn't involve fear per se. So it's hard to take your assessment of the article seriously when it's based on a thoroughly faulty foundation. Rivertorch (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back. First off, I support North's proposition here. I feel that it is a healthy compromise, which does not place one side of the debate significantly over the other. Furthermore, Rivertorch; You're wrong. That's really all there is to it. You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't just say that those terms aren't used by one side in a debate, yet say that "your" term is universal. If there is "homophobia," and that's a justified term, then I have all right to claim that there's a "homosexual lifestyle." Am I incorrect in this assumption? —Maktesh 23:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You are deeply mistaken, yes. Rivertorch (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As a preface, 99% of the time I am in conflict with Rivertorch regarding this nightmare POV of an article, which is a witchunt promulgation of the controversial characterization of any opposition to homosexuality as a "phobia". But, regarding the "lifestyle" question, I must side with Rivertorch. I believe that the body of evidence indicates that homosexuality is an embedded attribute, which is much more than a lifestyle. IMHO folks with that attribute should able to lead good normal lives without hostility. Articles that promote the POV of villainizing (rather than a dialog with) people who believe otherwise (such as this POV mess of an article does) are delaying the day when that can happen. Sorry for the soapbox. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This thread will go nowhere. The title suggests that something needs fixing, but a large proportion of editors see nothing broken, and won't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont see how anyone using the term "homosexual lifestyle" can edit this article neutrally and unbiased. I would rather get administrator assistance to finally end the use of this page as a forum for people unhappy with being called homophobes elsewhere. Thanks ツ Jenova20 16:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A total mis-charactizaiton of the issues raised here (which include rampant policy violations throughout the article). and of of most of the people who raised them. And an ad hominem argument, and personal attacks as well. You're really doing well. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Says the person who has a lot of spare time to accuse "the trio" of editors of controlling the page...Instead of sitting here forum shopping and making veiled insults, personal attacks and accusations how about you actually try improving an article with reliable sources? Thanks ツ Jenova20 14:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying anarticle or this article? North8000 (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Any ツ Jenova20 23:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, that means that you are implying that such would be a first. Add that ridiculous insult to the previous three offenses. You are too uncivilized to carry on a discussion with. I'm signing off on this thread. North8000 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Phobia ?

If a person of one sex has a clinical, psychical phobia against other persons of the same sex in general - what kind of word would be used, then ? I do know from the area of sociophobia that this actually exists, both with women (who have a real, clinical, psychical phobia towards women in general) and men (who have a real, clinical, psychical phobia towards men in general). How would this very specific kind of ... sociophobia ? - no, this isn't the right word, because it is not socially oriented - be called, then ? The problem is even greater : If I say "sociophobia", is this - citing from the article, reworking it a bit - "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward social situations" ? My complaint is that the word "phobia" is used here in an non-clinical sense, thus effectively shutting out all women and men who have clinical psychical phobia disorders towards the same sex. To put it cynically, the excluding of these people (by not allowing them to find a specific psychological term for their real phobia) is as if a real, clinical, medical, almost sociophobia-like phobia towards people of the same sex should not exist. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Alrik Fassbauer, would you please make new posts to the bottom of the talk page, and no offense, but your post seems to drift off the topic of how to improve this article on homophobia. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM for more information. — MrX 23:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition clairification

So if I understand clearly, people that don't want to allow marriage and adoption for gays are considered homophobe? Because I personally am opposed to give homosexuals those rights but that doesn't mean that I'm homophobe. I mean I don't hate them, I actually have a friend who's gay and she knows that I don't agree with her lifestyle but she doesn't call me a homophobe. People that are homophobe are the ones who hurt gay people because they're gay. Your definition implies that half the world's population is homophobe? Please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.49.47 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There's 3 questions at the top of this page answering this. You have your opinions and others have theirs. Some will agree with you and others will disagree. You might want to check your closing statistics also. Thanks ツ Jenova20 14:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I read the article and it doesn't say that opposing same-sex marriage/adoption is homophobic. A large majority of the world do oppose those things but in the Western world it's less than half. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Christianity section

Speaking, again, as the user who wrote the bit that this section is based on about how there's significant scholarly debate over the historical context and the meanings of particular words, I'm still not sure this is where it belongs. Since this is the article on homophobia, not a general treatment of the Bible/Christianity/Judaism and homosexuality, I think we should focus on the parts that are about homophobia; some contextualization of such views with scholarship is necessary, as I tried to do with "historical context and interpretation is more complicated," but in the article on homophobia, I'm not sure the particulars of how the interpretation may be incorrect are relevant because we're writing about the bias that people use the interpretation to support - ie. we're already at one remove from the subject of the interpretation. Am I making sense? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As the information is routinely used to justify violence and killing of LGBTQ people I'm more inclined to leave it in unless reliable sources refute what we have. Insomesia (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the material is incorrect! It doesn't need to be refuted. I'm concerned about relevance. I'm also not sure what is gained on the anti-violence front (RIGHTGREATWRONGS aside) by expanding what I wrote about how the history of those passages doesn't necessarily support condemnation of LGBT people (=article topic) into the whole scholarly debate itself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe it provides focus on the core beliefs that fuel homophobia. We likely should expand the section to discuss the rise of the Christian right from Anita Bryant and delve into how anti-gay hate groups propagate anti-gay myths including spreading lies like that Jesus in some way condemned LGBTQ people. And that their anti-gay myths fuel violence against LGBTQ people. Insomesia (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You're definitely right that there's so much more to say about Christian political movements against gay rights. My concern, again, is that that is the topic of the article, but that including all the nitty-gritty about conflicting interpretations is making this into an export of The Bible and homosexuality, which intersects it but doesn't totally overlap. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, in many ways it is the propagation of these lies that feeds homophobia so perhaps it needs to be made more clear. For some religious people, the basis of their homophobia is based on these lies. And these same myths are regularly featured in American politics and media like Fox News, and Christian right outlets. There is even a major church movement to bring a Supreme Court case via the IRS whereby churches explicitly tell their congregations how to vote. The traditional mantra of the Republican party is Guns, God, and Gays to drive voters to the polls. I have little faith that the The Bible and homosexuality and similar articles are up to par on these issues. They seem to be the nexus of extreme POV editing whereas this one is surprisingly stable and watched. Insomesia (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting really off-topic. Please, let's stay focused on the present content discussion - whether the scholarly debate over the interpretation of the passages that homophobic religious people use to justify their homophobia needs to be re-debated in full here. (We should also not conflate some statements with others - the statement that Jesus condemned homosexuality is a flat-out lie as far as all the evidence we have, the statement that Paul did is more nuanced and actually does depend a lot on the translation of rare words/nonce words.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

To me it seems we're debating how to improve the section detailing the basis of homophobia in Christianity. This is a huge topic so I think it's worth exploring how to best serve our readers. While it's fair to point out we should have this content/context neutrally presented in other articles i think it's also fair to say we can do better at presenting a reasonably concise overview here why this topic is central to this article. Insomesia (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we do detail the basis of homophobia in Christianity. It's those passages (we don't cite them all, but we allude to there being more). You're quite right that Christian homophobia is central, but the fact of its not currently being so won't be solved by adding in the textual debate - we need to write more about how homophobic Christians act on their interpretation of these verses. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

For anything approaching in neutrality, we'll need to delete the entire article and start over. But other than the problem that is present with 90% of the article (implicitly defining all lack of approval of homosexuality as a "phobia") that section doesn't seem bad. North8000 (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we stop way too short on the homophobia core in Christianity, I will think on it a bit more what i think matters most to this article and see if I can find some good supporting sources. There are plenty to choose from, but finding something concise may be the key. Insomesia (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just stick "main article: The Bible and homosexuality" above the section. Problem solved. Thanks ツ Jenova20 08:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've explained already, there is no such thing as "(dis)approval of homosexuality", just like there is no such thing as (dis)approval of rain. You can avoid getting wet, but it's still going to rain whether you approve of it or not. Similarly, one can disapprove of homosexual relationships, but a homosexual person will still be homosexual, whether celibate or not. Supporting or disapproving of homosexual relationships ultimately boils down to recognising or denying rights of homosexual people to have a non-clandestine relationship - which is what homophobia is usually understood to mean. Surtsicna (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You've put it better than i could ツ Jenova20 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That is correct for folks like us who believe that it is usually or always an embedded attribute rather than a choice / behavior. But that is just a belief, not a decided fact. For folks who believe that it is a choice / behavior, or that in some cases it is, there certainly can be disapproval. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles