Talk:Homophobia

Homophobia as distinct from rational or moral critique

This is a great article, but I do think it needs to make the distinction between the irrational nature of homophobia and the wide range of legitimate rational, moral, practical, philosophical and sociological critiques of homosexuality that exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.18.12 (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

POV check tag

I have added it to the article so a neutral editor can address the glaring bias 71.204.179.212 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What glaring bias? You must be specific. Otherwise, it's just your bias on display in a sweeping generalisation. Never helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. You need to be specific. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a specific! "Among more discussed forms are institutionalized 'homophobia' (e.g. religious and state-sponsored[5])". The footnote refers to the International Lesbian and Gay Association. There's no way that's a neutral or scientific source. PaulSank (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

But it is a reliable source. ILGA is an UN accredited organization. I see no need for an NPOV tag. --Scientiom (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliability is not what's in dispute at the moment. We're trying to make this article neutral. As far as I can tell from its website, the ILGA is at least in part an activist organization. Activist organizations do like to make definitions, but their definitions are designed to support what they're doing. Activists often use definitions to re-frame the debate. I wouldn't use Focus On The Family, either, even though I agree with them on many points, because, again, they're not a neutral source. Activists, regardless of which side they're on, should never be used as sources for definitions that are supposed to be neutral. PaulSank (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the WP context of the word "neutral," neutral on WP does not mean that subjects are presented uncritically, or that wikipedia treats all sides of a subject equally. Neutral means that the reliable sources of any given subject are given the appropriate weight in an article based on their prominence as sources. We as editors have to be neutral, which means that our opinions are not put into the article. Sources only need to be reliable and mainstream. Because this source is a UN accredited organization, it meets our standards for reliability and thus is acceptable. If you disagree, you're welcome to get a second opinion on the reliable sources notice board. N^oformation ^Talk 05:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Unless someone else wants to take up the issue of neutrality re this article, I say it's time to remove the tag. PaulSank (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is the defnition of neutral, why is it that a link to homophobia on Conservapedia was immediately removed? This site represents the views of a significant portion of the population and, whether people like it or not, the views expressed on that page are mainstream as well. 142.151.202.168 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Because Conservapedia is the antithesis of what WP regards as a reliable source. AV3000 (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Treatable phobia?

I notice that this is labeled as a "phobia" as though it were treatable. The treatment might be of interest. Perhaps victims (phobics) are shown pictures of men copulating and if they react negatively, they are given a mild shock? Anyway, the treatment for this condition would be of interest. Student7 (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many sexual therapists around, more information here would be great for those who suffer homophobia and would like to no longer be gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.o 203.198 (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I in fact challenge that the usage of the word Homophobia is simply wrong. As has been mentioned before, a phobia is an irrational fear, a treatable mental illness, not a simple dislike or hatred (which is not). It is another example of the language being further corrupted by common use of incorrect terms. A telescope for instance is called a telescope for a good reason, it makes sense. If everyone started calling a window a telescope, maybe it "kind of makes sense" but would still be vastly incorrect, but if enough people do it, it makes it legitimate? I don't think so. 109.149.173.232 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Welcome to English, the most rapidly evolving, clumsiest and illogical language in common use. And that last term is the key here. Homophobia means what common usage says it means, not what historical language analysis says it should mean. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is a battle to try to brand any disdain for, opposition to, or opposition to the societal normalization of homosexuality as a "phobia". The opposing side says that such is incorrect. This heavily POV'd article weighs in on just one side of it by pretending that the assertions of one side are fact and writing on that basis. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that regarding homosexuality as not part of normality these days IS homophobia by its common definition. And people who want to suppress homosexuality in society must be scared of something. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(As a sidebar, I didn't have "suppress" on that list.) But it's quite a reach to say that disdain for or opposition to something automatically means fear of it. North8000 (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

And that's not what I said either. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well either way, that is what the POV promoted by this article is saying. North8000 (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not! Homophobia does NOT mean fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. That view is an incorrect, POV approach taken by people wanting to deny that the word applies to them. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You are stating one side of the controversy, just as the article does. Essentially saying that it is valid to apply a "phobia" term to any disdain for or opposition to homosexuality. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm just telling you that mechanical definitions of words don't work in our language where common usage is what counts. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There's one of these arguments on this page every time i see it...

Read the article North8000, phobias do not always mean "an irrational fear", that is the way English works, sometimes words don't mean what you expect.

Denying Homosexual people equal rights, equal treatment, or just stating that it is an illness that is treatable are all homophobia. It has nothing to do with being scared of gay people.

If you can swap the word gay for black in your argument and it seems offensive, then it's homophobic. Thanks Jenova20 11:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Phobia" certainly does mean phobia. That is why folks on one side of this controversy are working so hard to promote use of a "phobia" word to apply to all disdain for or opposition to homosexuality. And again, this article weighs in heavily on only one side of that controversy. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

In saying that you're arguing against what the article says, what common usage says, and what most dictionaries I've looked at say. Dictionary.com says "unreasoning fear of OR antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality". (My capitalisation) You have a big job ahead of you. HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

North you're not going to achieve anything here, your argument won't change common meaning and usage of the words "Phobia" or "Homophobia", please read both articles to see why.

If you disagree with the meaning of the words then i don't know how you fight that but Wikipedia isn't the place. Thanks Jenova20 11:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someday this POV mess will get fixed, but not today

Well, the "big job" here is that there is a group of editors who LIKES that this article is badly POV'd, that it carries the torch for one side of the controversy, and that it states the view of one side of the controversy as fact, and in the voice of Wikipedia. And somehow, by some reverse logic, the fact that there have been an immense amount of complaints about this is given as a reason for the invalidity of the complaints. (with "same 'ole story" type comments). I'm not ready to spend the time to try to tackle that. So, signing off..... Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're unhappy then take it to an admin or try and get a third opinion.

Trying to change the meaning of words on Wikipedia will not work though and so the only suggestion i can give you is to read the article and the one on Phobias and accept that you don't agree...or take it to admin and third opinion.

Thanks Jenova20 13:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your "trying to change meaning" characterization of the situaiotn, but I respect your viewpoint and wish you and everyone else here well. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem Jenova20 13:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagging, hatting, and the like

I have removed the POV tag added by IP 67.6.120.234 because no new discussion accompanied it. The user did uncollapse three collapsed threads on this page, but none of them contained his or her own comments (as far as one can tell, when unregistered users are involved). I have re-collapsed one of the three threads because it contained grossly offensive generalized attacks on a group of people. The other two I left uncollapsed; while they fall into the perpetual (and perpetually false) argument category, they do seem to meet a reasonable minimum threshold for relevance and civility. Rivertorch (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Transphobia?

Here's one for you. Shouldn't Transexuals be removed from the lede since that's transphobia and not homophobia? and hence belongs in the right article? Thanks Jenova20 23:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

In a perfect academic sense, perhaps. However the reality is that all LGBTQs are lumped together with homophobic attitudes. Transphobia is a form of homophobia in that is arises from the similar fears of anyone that is not gender and sexuality conforming. There is crossover, certainly. And those who express thoughts likely don't differentiate who exactly they are referring to or what aspect of variance they are reacting to.Insomesia (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, just wanted another opinion. Thanks Jenova20 08:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

POV Bias

This article is INCREDIBLY BIASED! Wikipedia administration seems to knock down this comment, as seen in the two other concerns above. I would like a review of this article, because it is INCREDIBLY biased and pro so called "gay". Could someone please look over this article with a more neutral perspective and neutral sources? 108.16.201.42 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Where to start...Bias to start off is your own opinion. If you have anything specific you want to point out or ask about then go right ahead. If you wish to challenge the meaning of the word then find some reliable sources and post them up here.

Also if you're just in a shouty shouty mood then you probably won't get anyone responding to you or taking you seriously. Thanks Jenova20 16:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually i'm probably a good person for you to ask since i got involved in the discussions above where it appeared that the user tried to challenge the meaning of the word "homophobia". and "pro "gay"" suggests that you might want to instead visit conservapedia where the Bible is the reference to most questions and the world revolves around America. Thanks Jenova20 16:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Rots o' ruck. Wikipedia is an officially pro-gay document. A better example of pro-gay bias is the Marriage article. Suppose you're an alien from the planet Zog that has just landed on Earth and you decide to use Wikipedia to try to learn about the human species. You would have no idea, from the WP article, that married people are usually or normally a wife and husband. It wasn't good enough for the pride activists to use the definitions found in Webster's, OED, or American Heritage in the lede (which mentions same-sex marriage in the second sentence or secondary definition, they had to obliterate all notion of hetero-sexual marriage, and they are doing that to further an agenda. It is not their interest to have Wikipedia articles reflect reality, but they want to change reality by use of the Wikipedia project. It's against policy, but hey, if those entrusted to enforce policy are themselves biased, what can you do? 71.169.177.19 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have any constructive suggestions for better sources or specific changes those would likely go further than general accusations of bias. If you have an issue with another article you need to address it at that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomesia (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right. It seems you have an issue with most articles that mention gay people in some sense rather than just this one. If that's your current crusade to fight back and campaign using Wikipedia to do so then there is little i can do but tell you to raise a specific issue at the WP:Village pump or bother someone else. On the other hand if you have something constructive to bring up then i'll do what i can to help. Thanks Jenova20 18:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok than let's start with my deleted edit! The quote is entirely unnecessary and it sets a negative tone for the whole article. Fear of queers is also not irrational. Comparing homophobia to nazism is irrational. And I also not appreciate religious being called homophobes! --108.16.201.42 (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well first off i have to point out that negative tone and neutrality are different things. If we take the holocaust (i think that's how you spell it) as an example it's very difficult to set something like that in anything but a negative tone, but we can make the article neutral and reliably sourced, the same thing would happen to positive toned articles.

Your first edit removed the word "irrational" from a dictionary description...a so so edit and was obviously reverted since it was important to the lede paragraph to show examples to the reader of what the article involves and what homophobia is.

The second edit was just a removal of a paragraph and again was rightly reverted. Large removal of content with no discussion on the talk page is generally considered: Unhelpful, Unexplained, Unwarranted, Vandalism, Censoring

If you want to reword the paragraph with me we can post it up here and get started on something we all agree with? What do you say? Thanks Jenova20 10:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

First. can we all agree the quote has absolutely no place and is in violation of Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines. Second, on irrational: Dr. Sander J. Breiner of NARTH has stated "There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined," in the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Third, I object to the notion that religious organizations are homophobic, they are just defending their beliefs, just as Charles Worley.--108.16.201.42 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

First off let me state that i will do everything within my means to stop anything from NARTH being used here in any way as reliable. They are the bottom end of reliability and their own methods are discredited and biased. You might aswell try and use sources from the KKK in a racism article to reword the lede paragraph. Jenova20 22:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How is NARTH unreliable? It is far more reliable than most of the sources in this article. Second, do you agree with me that the quote is biased and serves no place? --108.16.201.42 (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

NARTH is Not Anti-gay, nor is NARTH a Hate-Based Organization. 108.16.201.42 (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

NARTH is one of the most hateful anti-LGBT groups around. They can be trusted with no research whatsoever and the only reliable statements for an encyclopedia is NARTH talking about itself, and even then I would want a more reliable source. For anyone interested please see - NARTH Becomes Main Source for Anti-Gay ‘Junk Science’. Insomesia (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than arguing, can we work to improve the article's introduction according to the concerns I pointed out? It seems you are unwilling to talk and rather just bash me with heterophobia. 108.16.201.42 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I only recall some generalized concerns and then the whole NARTH subject came up. I suggest you start a new thread with a specific change that reasonably could be welcomed in whole or part by the other people here. Maybe things just started poorly but you can "restart" with a new section and a fresh idea. You could also stay on this thread and maybe outdent and start a new thread that wayInsomesia (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, do not appreciate being called "-phobic" when my opposition to homosexual practices is very much courageous and counter-cultural. If there are people who are offended by this term (including myself, and a few others on this Talk page), then the word "derisive" or "pejorative" must therefore appear in the first paragraph in order to maintain a neutral POV. 204.65.0.24 (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You made a point that goes to the core of the POV problem with this article. In the real world there is a battle going on between folks who want to label any opposition to homosexuality as having a "phobia" and those opposed to that tactic. This article presumes and presents the views of one side of that controversy as fact, and then builds the entire article to imply that that controversial assertions is fact. North8000 (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As stated previously we need reliable sources to support views that seem to be counter to what we already have. Presenting the sources we need to support these opinions should be presented so others who doubt the veracity of those views can also see what reliable sources state. Then we can adjust the first paragraph.Insomesia (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious people can be called homophobic, racist or antisemitic for the exact same reason as the religious people will call gays a violation against God or Jews as false believers. The fact of the matter is that according to Christianity LGBT people are committing an abomination againist God. That means they have a right to say that LGB sexual activity and T dressing is bad. For this same reason though however LGBT can call these religions homophobic, biphobic and transphobic. You can't have it one way. Religious people who protest againist LGBT will always be homophobic and according to their religion LGBT status will be a sin. And yes many of the words the Christians and other religious fundamentalists you to describe the LGBT community are pejorative too. Get over it. You are homophobic and LGBT people are an abomination to your faith.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, let's not bother with applying labels, no matter how accurate we may think they are, to others here. Let's just agree that we need reliable sources to make substantial changes and until those sources are presented the article is unlikely to change. The generalized accusations about the article or those editing it are as unhelpful as pointing out whether or not those accusations are themselves homophobic. Focus on specifically improving the article with better sources.Insomesia (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, although I am finding the recurrent eruption of this topic with zero new evidence presented more than a little tiresome. Rainbowofpeace: what you've written, aside from being beyond the proper scope of the article's talk page, is an appalling oversimplification. Rivertorch (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I should point out that there is nothing against homosexuality in the scriptures directly. It is alluded to, with that one bit that calls face-to-face sex between two men "an abomination". Lesbianism, bisexuality and transgenderism are not even mentioned. Not marrying is a greater sin. All else is commentary.--Auric (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Core point of bias: definition

I've made a few fragmented comments before but wanted to sum up one of the core points of the bias of this article. One definition of homophobia which is widely accepted is where there is a true "phobia" (using the common meaning of "phobia") a rather rare condition. There is a current battle in the real world over a second definition which activists and others are trying to promulgate which is to define all opposition to homosexuality and opposition to the societal normalization of homosexuality as "homophobia". It is clear that their objective is to denigrate any such opposition by labeling it as a "phobia". The latter definition is certainly a controversial engineered political term political term that is being promoted.

Instead of really covering the above, the article basically stifles it. The article gives short shrift to the widely accepted definition, and adopts the second contested definition not only as fact, but as being THE definition. In essence, the article presents the views of one side of the controversy not as views, but as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. The content of the article also implicitly does the same. It essentially presents any and all opposition to homosexuality or to the the societal normalization of homosexuality as being "homophobia". It will take some pretty substantial changes to fix this substantial POV problem with the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

North - Here in Australia, a somewhat different culture from yours, the words homophobic and homophobia are used to simply describe opposition to homosexuality. There is no particular emotional loading to the words. As with many words in the English language, the literal meaning is never really considered. I really don't think you have much of a case that this is a particularly political term. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that info/perspective. But the core of my case is simply that that particular definition is controversial in many places. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar: the USA is one of them where that definition is controversial. And, on a world scale, I think that the USA is somewhere on the liberal side of the "middle of the road" regarding homosexuality issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It stifles it because it's not real, it's an argument used generally by homophobes arguing they can't be homophobic because they aren't scared of gay people. That's not how the word works and it's not how phobias necessarilly work, as can be seen on the Phobia article.

That being said, i don't think a sentence or 2 explaining this or attempting to move people to the Phobia article would be a bad idea to cut these arguments down before they occur in future. Thanks Jenova20 11:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you intendedd to say that it would not be a bad idea; I concur. It's a bud nip thing. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I re-read my reply and believe it to currently say that i don't think it's a bad idea. It makes sense that if people have trouble understanding something we make it more obvious. Thanks Jenova20 13:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Jenova20, your post sidesteps the main point of my post, and what follows is based on the POV problem that my post is bringing to light. Namely, that the fully accepted definition is ignored, and one side's view of the second definition is presumed to be not only fact but also the sole definition. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there any scholarly sources that clearly explain what you say are two definitions? That may help clarify this point for everyone. Even though this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary I think we could offer clarity, and context.Insomesia (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look for scholarly sources (this may take several days), but in the meantime we need to keep WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE in mind. North8000, you have offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim about widely accepted versus controversial definitions. Since your claim flies in the face of easily verifiable common usage (see any dictionary from the last 20–30 years or look at various reliable sources in a simple Google search), I can see no reason to spend time discussing it further. You're making an extraordinary claim; the onus is on you to back it up. Rivertorch (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well a simple example is to look at the definitions in the dictionaries. The widely accepted definition is the one that is included in ALL of them. The questionable definition is the one that is included in only in SOME of them. The extraordinary claim is the one that is used as a premise for most of this article. The unsupported extraordinary claim is actually the one that this article as currently worded is based on, that a particular contested definiiton is the only definition. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My dictionary only has "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." Mirriam Webster states "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." Can you point to a mainstream dictionary that has the two you're talking about? Maybe we could simply compare what a number state and see if there is much of a difference.Insomesia (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH North that is the current level of your argument. Rivertorch is entirely correct. You cannot claim the sky is in fact yellow without reliable and verifiable proof, otherwise people will just nod along and assume you're crazy. Thanks Jenova20 22:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether intentional or unintentional, Insomesia has reinforced my point. They have just quoted 2 dictionaries which have the widely accepted definition which I speak about. A definition which the wording of this article essentially claims is non-existent. Using your metaphor, I am noting that the claim that the sky is yellow is controversial, the wording of this article is founded on an unsupported assertion that the sky is yellow. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you read it wrong? Only one of the two dictionary entries Insomesia quoted mentioned fear. The other, which is that of the Oxford American and other Oxford dictionaries, mentions only aversion. Fwiw:

• Chambers Dictionary: "a strong antipathy to homosexuals"
• American Heritage Dictionary: "Aversion to gay or homosexual people or their lifestyle or culture. 2. Behavior or an act based on this aversion.
• Random House Unabridged Dictionary: "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals  and homosexuality:"
• Collins English Dictionary: "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality."

So you have it backwards. We have thus far three entries that mention fear versus six that mention aversion, antipathy, discrimination or hatred. In any event, this article isn't about a phobia as in an extreme or irrational fear (akin to acrophobia or claustrophobia); it's about prejudiced attitudes (akin to xenophobia or Islamophobia), which is verifiably the primary usage of the term and has been for many years. Can you provide any sources to suggest otherwise? If not, we're simply wasting our time here. Rivertorch (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If Homophobia isn't a suitable name for this article, what is? HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Homophobia is the correct title for this article. I am basically asserting that the term should be covered in a more objective and wp:npov manner. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you're asserting that it should be covered with a POV that more closely matches yours. You're not stupid. You must realise that your opinion is not centre of the road on the issue of homosexuality, no matter how much you would like the centre of the road to agree with you. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not correct. My own opinion is that I'm in favor of the societal acceptance and normalization of homosexuality, although I'm opposed to many of the tactics of the activists working toward such. So my argument is not driven by my POV on the topic, it is driven by general and Wikipedia objectivity principles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Then I'm even more confused about your goal here. You're "happy" with the title of article, but you don't like the article's definition of the topic? I truly don't get it? HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is going anywhere and until some solid proof is put up that counters what we already have in the article then it's time wasting and we're basically pandering to the minority opinion with no verifiability or intention of offering any, as we saw the last time this discussion came up. Thanks Jenova20 08:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Jenova20, that is flawed on several levels. If you have done that to stifle other people who have pointed out the POV problem here, I can see how the article ended up with such a severe POV problem. North8000 (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, a small step would be to add a section which covers the controversy over the second definition, namely controversy over defining all opposition to homosexuality or the societal normalization of it is "homophobia". North8000 (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What controversy? You haven't provided any evidence that there is one. Rivertorch (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

North, as with the last discussion here where you tried to challenge the meaning of the word. Read Wikipedia:Activist and either get proof and provide it here (reliable proof) or accept that your view is in fact at worst biased POV and at best it's unsourced speculation.

Thanks Jenova20 14:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Quit that crap bogus ad hominem personal attack tactic of the linking to wp:activist! And the person with the unsupported extraordinary claim here is you and parts of this article, not me. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

With some misgivings, I'll say that if it can be shown that there is in fact a real controversy regarding the definition or usage, it should be mentioned in the article. It would have to be clearly noteworthy, with significant discussion by secondary sources (preferably in peer-reviewed publications, although in-depth coverage in multiple other sources meeting WP:RS should do the trick), and care would have to be taken to ensure WP:UNDUE is followed. In the absence of such evidence to the contrary, I'm not aware that any notable controversy exists. That it exists in the minds of various individuals (e.g., certain activists opposing equal rights for gay people, some people with a flawed understanding of etymology, and so on) is, I suppose, no surprise. Rivertorch (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Rivertorch's view. North8000 the burden is to show cause that there is noted controversy and then to help effect any changes that should be made. This article is far from perfect but that doesn't mean it can have more unsupported views. At some point I'm going to look into heterophobia to see how it should be represented here. I think what we have is abysmal as yet, but I haven't looked into the available sources to address it.Insomesia (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

North8000, you raised the topic. Again. It really is incumbent upon you at this point to provide some supporting evidence for your argument. Otherwise, it's hard to be infinitely patient. Really. I've assumed the best of faith on your part, but I don't think it's asking too much for you to document the validity of your argument. Othewise, it's just your argument, and whether that argument is right or wrong is beside the point; you've been around the block here and must know perfectly well about WP:V and WP:NOR. And WP:IDHT, for that matter. Rivertorch (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I resent the accusation of a personal attack North, especially since you have brought nothing to the table here thus far and clearly not read WP:Activist. Thanks Jenova20 22:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I see that as perhaps inflammatory and not moving the discussion forward. That essay is quite flaw as far as I can see, it presumes the worst intentions and puts anyone "we don't like" into a box with a label. I like Rivertorch's approach to just seeking sourcing to back up the assertions. At the end of the day that's what will matter.Insomesia (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That the second definition is controversial is easily sourced. But, it is even simpler than that. To give one of hundreds of examples and pose it as a question: The statement "Disapproval of homosexuality and of gay people is not evenly distributed throughout society, but is more or less pronounced according to age, ethnicity, geographic location, race, sex, social class, education, partisan identification and religious status." is place in this homophobia article. Where is the suitable sourcing that says that this disapproval is "homophbia". Without that, the insertion of that sentence here is synthesis, unsourced, and a wp:npov violation. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added a source that seems to cover it. The other source in that paragraph may also do so but I felt a journal article might be stronger. I think it's meant as a summary sentence but do agree it could be clearer.Insomesia (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

True fear of homosexuality is most certainly homophobia. That is not what is in question North8000. However due to the use of the english language it also includes aversion, antipathy, discrimination and prejudice towards homosexuals. Etymology does not equal proper usuage. Other words that use phobia in the sense used in this article include Islamophobia, Biphobia, Ephebiphobia, Gerontophobia, Heterophobia, Lesbophobia, Pedophobia, Surdophobia, Transphobia, Xenophobia. Other words in the terms of social prejudice that don't match their etymology are Antisemitism. The etymology would suggest discrimination against all semitic people yet Antisemitism only applies to Jews. Misandry and Misogyny etymologically suggest only hate of men and women respectively but actually also include objectification as well as creation of limiting gender roles irrespective of a persons possibly non-existant hate. Now I may just be barking up the wrong tree here but if you really had an agenda to correct the -phobia articles or other social articles with etymological "misuses" wouldn't you also be crusading those articles.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any place that "phobia" has been misused except here. Nevertheless, the reason for my comments is not that, it is the severe POV problem / wp:npov violation described. North8000 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Asserting that the meaning has been misused is a big accusation though North8000 and you have just been given many more examples by Rivertorch of phobias that do not have the meaning you expect.

If there is such a severe POV problem you would be best providing references we can use after so long discussing this, or getting in a neutral third opinion.

Either way the onus is still on you to provide evidence of a POV and misuse of the word and meaning. Thanks Jenova20 08:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I already did that, which essentially boils down to this: Out in the real world, there are two widespread conflicting viewpoints regarding whether or not to define ALL opposition to homosexuality as "homophobia". This article states the views of one side (the side that wants to do so) as fact and in the voice of Wikipedia. Then it goes on to essentially list all forms of opposition to homosexuality as being examples of "homophobia". Which of the following things that I just said do you doubt/contest? North8000 (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I missed where this point was proven. To me the bottom line is reliable sources to show how this article, as it is now, should change. If you provided this already I'd appreciate if you could repost here again. If not I think we really need to see those sources, without them the point you're making feels like a strong opinion, which may be true to you, but for our purposes for writing the article is not enough. To put it more bluntly, we need a simple answer, do you have reliable sources to support the change you seek? If not then we are wasting your time. If you do have some sources we should be looking at them to see what will make the article better.Insomesia (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(added later) Well, everything I said about "out the real world" is easily sourcable. WP:RS's do not cover wp:npov policy violations, so my observations about the article's policy violation problems are not covered by wp:rs's, nor do they need to be. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

All of them North, since "Out in the real world" is not citeable as evidence. It is completely POV and Original Research still, just as the last time you asked. Thanks Jenova20 11:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It is bogus to imply that something written on a talk page is bogus because it is uncited. Talk pages do not have citations and references. North8000 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You're not seriously suggesting you don't see the difference between the encyclopedia and the talk pages for the articles after being here so long?

Everything here on the talk page is conversation, everything on the article page is the encyclopedia itself and should be cited fact, not uncited POV. Thanks Jenova20 11:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I not only see it, that was specifically my point, and that your previous post ignored that. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You do see that you can't just cry bias without provided resources though right?

Thanks Jenova20 12:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

To say it even briefer, I'm saying that there are two significant viewpoints, "A" and "B". This article in essence makes an unsupported and unsourced statement that "B" IS THE ONLY VIEWPOINT. I am complaining about that. What in this sentence are you saying I need to source in order to make the complaint? North8000 (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well sorry North but your viewpoint "A" is still unsourced. Can you provide anything to show it exists outside the heads of a few random people? Thanks Jenova20 14:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Aside from that, the other viewpoint present is the meaning of the word which is sourced. Is that what this is again? The meaning of the word? Thanks Jenova20 14:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What I'm hearing, and what has been alluded to by others elsewhere on this page, is that, at least for now, there are no reliable sources to support changing anything in the ways that North8000 is suggesting. For myself this is sufficient reason to wait until any further developments emerge, and they most certainly need to be in the form of presenting reliable sources. Anything else is just wasting the poster's time and energy and there is no need to do that.Insomesia (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm done saying the same thing over and over now. Until such time that reliable proof is offered up then i'm not touching this with a barge pole. Thanks Jenova20 14:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that "A" exists, and to a significant degree, and that such is easily sourceable. It sounds like you are saying that you do not acknowledge that. In that case, I'll get that sourcing. That's half of it. For the other half, where is the sourcing for the assertion in the article that "B" is the only significant viewpoint? And "B" by the way, is the assertion that the ONLY significant viewpoint is that all opposition to homosexuality is "Homophobia". North8000 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's obvious. It's the definition of the word. HiLo48 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

One more comment, and then per Insomesia and Jenova I think I'm done here, as consensus is crystal clear. The English language is littered with words and usages that some people—even lots of people—disagree with or disapprove of. So what? (See this relevant essay.) I don't think anyone here is doubting that there are people in this world who object to the word "homophobia" being used in the way it's generally used. But that's not noteworthy, and even if it were, it couldn't be taken as a given; it would need to be verifiable using reliable sources. Either there is a significant controversy over what has long been the primary usage of the word or there isn't—and if there is, reliable sources are out there to document it. If there isn't a significant controversy, then it would violate all three core content policies for this article to say otherwise. If you disagree, that's fine, but please don't keep arguing against consensus without bringing something new in the way of actual evidence to the table. Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's backwards. In Wikipedia, one must provide sourcing for what is IN the article. What is IN the article is the assertion that the only significant definition for "homophobia" defines all opposition to homosexuality as "homophobia". Where is your sourcing that that is the ONLY significant definition? I was preferring to keep it in talk although wp:ver clearly supports tagging the unsupported assertions. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've not seen another Wikipedia article where we somehow justify the obvious definition as the only one. You're the only one here arguing that it's not. And you've been doing it for a long time. You should probably be ignored on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

To simplify, no, I'm arguing that what is in there is unsourced. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think that you are right and everyone else watching this page is wrong, there are legitimate avenues to pursue. Beating a dead horse isn't one of them. Rivertorch (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the next baby step up will be tagging the unsourced assertions. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No, ignoring consensus to tag something without providing the evidence that everyone is asking you for is not a legitimate next step. Wikipedia:DR#Resolving_content_disputes, which I linked above and link here again for your convenience, show the next steps per policy. Rivertorch (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can't overrule the verifiability requirement. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, WP:V, like all policies, became policy as a result of consensus back in the day, but whatever. Clearly, your interpretation of how WP:V applies to this article is in opposition to the local consensus. Therefore, it's up to you to demonstrate that global consensus supports your interpretation—and the way to do that is to ask for uninvolved editors to weigh in. Hence my suggestion. Rivertorch (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a lot simpler than that. Unsourced assertions, once tagged, need to e either sourced or removed. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be sourced...

Just so we're not overlooking what is a valid concern - that something in the article needs to be sourced - North8000 will you post the most-in-need sentences here that you feel are unsourced? This gives me a specific article issue to address and to me this would be a more productive route to improving the article.Insomesia (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Happy to. I'm a bit hurried at the moment, but I will. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A Mislead Article and a Good Point.

This man here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1cBFjG7MGg&feature=share makes a good point. Could we please incorporate some of what he says into this incredibly one-sided article? Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I stopped watching once I heard "militant homosexual". Find a reliable source for your point (which you haven't even clearly stated). --Scientiom (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone espousing how "militant homosexuals" are florishing is unlikely to be taken seriously let alone used as a WP:reliable source for anything. Insomesia (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a primary source that the other viewpoint regarding the word which folks here claim does not exist actually does exist. Secondary sourcing for it also obviously exists, at which time that the POV house of cads that this article is founded on will be seen for what it is North8000 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be *reliable* secondary sources for anything. And can you clearly state your point please (not everyone is going to watch that video)? --Scientiom (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been stated before but bears repeating, we need reliable sources before we make the changes you seek. Without those we are wasting everyone's time. Insomesia (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that homophobia is the wrong term and prefer the word sexualism which would prevent anyone from saying that it was anything other than prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes. But the fact of the matter is that homophobia is the accepted term in the English language and even if we did use another term like heterosexism or sexualism than you would still be arguing that it is not prejudice or discrimination. We have had this argument on the talk page since its inception. What can we possibly do to make it so that is used in sociological and psychological circles is the one used not what Joe Schmo wants it to be.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding, "We have had this argument on the talk page since its inception" , maybe that means it's time s to start listening instead of ignoring such an immense amount of feedback from some a wide range of people. The attempt to promulgate a definition that brands any and all opposition to homosexuality (or to the societal normalization of it) as a "phobia" is one side of the controversy regarding the term. There are plenty of real more accepted ways of describing opposition to something. If someone was opposed to George Bush, they say "critics". "opposition", "opponents" "anti-bush" etc. Only one side might call the opposition "Bushaphbic" and "Bush-a-phobia" and such opposition is certainly not a "phobia", although there are, of course, people, would would like to brand any opposition to Bush with pejorative "phobia" terms. The article should report on the controversy, not choose on side of it. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

North, working with us in a productive way is more productive than just shouting about a whitewashing of articles. You still to this point have not provided anything.

Your messages do not appear in the tone of acting in good faith anymore and i sincerely believe this is just wasting time.

I'm going to spell out clearly that i will not aid you with this crusade you are on unless you provide evidence to back up your argument. Reliable evidence. That or you point out some of these problem paragraphs you mentioned. Thanks Jenova20 11:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine and easy. It will just require establishing (with rs's) that the alternative viewpoint exists; after which time an article which presumes that it does not exist will be clarified as being a POV house of cards. You'd think that the fact that you've been hearing the alternative viewpoint throughout the entire existence of the article might be a clue that it exists and that you might want to get ahead of the curve / adapt to the obvious. But it's fine either way; such will be easy to source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That you and a host of IPs and new-account editors keep raising the topic is indicative only of the fact that you keep raising the topic, not that an alternative viewpoint exists. But the question isn't whether it exists—I'm sure it does, and I've already said so; the question is whether it can be shown to be a significant, i.e., noteworthy, viewpoint. If it is, reliable secondary sources will exist to provide evidence of it. You have been asked to provide such sources. Repeatedly. By several editors. You have declined to do so. Repeatedly. You've provided not one shred of evidence to back up what you say, and yet you keep harping on it. This is becoming disruptive, and it really needs to stop now. Please. Rivertorch (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Quit the bogus "disruptive" accusation crap. I was arguing obvious core policy issues/violations which a group here chooses to ignore / shout down, and so I said I'll get the obvious written & sourced. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You are the one arguing that the sky is purple North, it's on you to prove it. Without proof you have nothing. And after so long arguing here you've acomplished nothing.

If your goal was to waste time then congratulations. If on the other hand you wanted to show you have a genuine argument and you're an acomplished editor versed in the main policies of Wikipedia then you failed abysmally. Thanks Jenova20 21:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to that nastiness. The next step is me to find sources for the obvious. North8000 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK I'm calling Tweet Tweet since North8000 has kindly offered to do exactly what has been asked, and that is to provide sources and possibly write up some content. Let's allow the same courtesy we would hope for ourselves and give them space to do so. Insomesia (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The first source is the video. Second source: NARTH. Third: Many editors expressing concern on the term "homophobia". Could we please have a poll put up on changing the name of this article to something like "anti-gay bias" or something like that? A phobia, last time I checked was a FEAR of something. I can not name one person, including myself that is "fearful" of gays. Sure, I may be fearful of its terrible and diabolical agenda, but not of gays! Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 17:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

RealCatholicTV and NARTH are indisputably uneliable sources here on WP. The very bottom of the barrel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Than what constitutes a reliable source? Some pro-gay liberal fodder? Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 18:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well anything calling gay people "deviants" "un-christian" or calling for them to be stoned is clearly inappropriate. Same as anything from the Daily Mail, NARTH, Most Pro-Religious sources for the reasons already noted etc. NARTH especially is well known for manipulating research and pushing their own agenda and i'm pretty sure the Southern Law Poverty something-or-other calls them a hate group. Thanks Jenova20 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's basically easier to tell you not to use sources that Conservapedia love Jenova20 19:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Glass houses. Right now this article has severe sourcing problems in the other direction. Using advocacy organizations / speeches as sourcing, and complete lack of sourcing for the false premise that much of this is built on. ....that premise being that the ONLY definition for homophobia encompasses any and all opposition to homosexuality. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

North, I am inclined to agree. Could a paragraph perhaps be put in the article saying that the term homophobia is not accepted by many and that some critics argue that no such thing exists. And another question, Jenova (you appear to be gay), what opposition do you have to the changing or acknowledgement of other terms and viewpoints. The wiki is all about giving a neutral and unbiased view. Just because some people are anti-gay because of their beliefs does not make them unreliable. We must trust the wisdom of Holy Mother Church in these issues and listen to Her and give Her acknowledgement, just like we do with liberal criminal front groups like MS(LSD)NBC and Media (Doesn't) Matters Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 20:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Per above, I'm (slowly) working on that. Except I intend to cover the major viewpoint that it legitimately applies to only true phobias (rare) rather than the viewpoint that no such thing exists. Which is also the other side of the dispute about promultaging a pejorative term of referring to any opposition to homosexuality as a "phobia". Obviously a group here prefers that the latter happens and has been using the article (in its current state) to promote that viewpoint. Getting this done will be a key first step in repair of the article. I have been referring to the article as a "house of cards" (a clear wp:npov violation) in this respect because the way it is written is founded on a (false and unsourced) presumption that the ONLY definition of "homophobia" is one which identifies all forms of opposition to homosexuality or to the societal normalization of it as "homophobia". BTW, if anyone is curious about my irrelevant real world POV, I'm am for such acceptance, but not for the insults and "dirty pool" tactics against folks who feel otherwise which this article as it is currently written promulgates. Again, that is not a basis of my arguments or efforts which are based on following wp policies and standard good, neutral article practices. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Per above and stated previously, any WP:Reliable sources that support changes to the article would be welcomed by the supposed gang against change, as has been implied. This has been stated repeatedly and yet we are still waiting for reliable sources. Those will dictate where the article goes. Our opinions and fringe sources do not count. And further accusations that other editors are suppressing the truth or unpopular ideas is not only false but disruptive. Please present the sources first, WP:Reliable sources, otherwise it certainly feels like this is all an exercise in causing drama. If you honestly think that NARTH or the RealCatholicTV are good for sourcing anything but unquestionable opinions about themselves then you need to review sourcing policies before you waste your time king any more research with unacceptable sources. That's akin to using gay rights bloggers to source an article on the history of the Catholic Church, it's laughable at almost every turn. Instead we should be using the strongest sourcing possible for all articles. If you're here to stir up trouble then please stop, if you honestly have an interest in improving this article then you have been given a clear direction on how to do so, many times. I have few options besides these that don't involve some administrator involvement. Insomesia (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Having a quick look through the sources for this article most of them appear to be dictionaries for the definition, quotes from historical figures (e.g. Coretta Scott King), declarations/statements from international organization or nations or governmental agencies or related such organizations, and declarations/statements from major scientific institutions and civil rights organizations worldwide. There does not appear to be any real cause for complaint about the substance, content, and sourcing of this article. --Scientiom (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The complaint is from the other side, alleging the common and referenced homophobia in the article is not the accepted or most common definition of the word. They have so far refused to provide sources showing this radical redefinition until recently, when they have offered sources from NARTH and the Catholic Church, which as has been pointed out is laughable and in very poor taste, while expressing the lowest standard of knowledge to reliability, neutrality, and this topic in general.

Thanks and have a nice day Jenova20 08:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Scientiom, I wish that the article did actually use and look at the dictionary definitions. What the article actually does is pretend that the definition common to all of the dictionary definitions (i.e. an actual phobia) does not exist. North8000 (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

North you were shown dictionary definitions last time that showed this was the accurate definition and you argued against that, you're now claiming they supported your position instead? Jenova20 10:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Read this page from "Treatable phobia?" downwards North Jenova20 10:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

[1] - Oxford Dictionary

[2] - Avert.org

[3] - Yahoo, not reliable but still backs this up

[4] - Thefreedictionary

End this pointless biased, unsourced and time wasting crusade or get some evidence North, we've all been asking you for too long for this to be taken seriously anymore Jenova20 10:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, what I actually said is that:

1. the one definition in common to ALL dictionary definitions is the true "phobia" one.
2. SOME definitions include a second one which defines all opposition to homosexuality as "homophobia".

What I'm saying is that the article:

1. selects and uses only #2
2. IS worded throughout as if #1 does not exist. Through the article is lists any and all opposition to homosexuality as being "homophobia". Adoption of such a POV is basicaly saying that #1 does not exist.

Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The two dictionaries in there prove my point. North8000 (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that took a whole 3 minutes to do what you've been arguing about for 3 Monate. Thanks Jenova20 10:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the scope of this article is only one of the definitions. The other definition that you'd like to include is likely more appropriate on Wiktionary than it is here; it is hardly discussed in academia (if at all) and I'd be surprised if there were sources outside of hard right fringe sources discussing it (and of course the obligatory dictionary definitions). Perhaps a paragraph saying that there is a different definition of the word, but even that seems inappropriate as it doesn't seem relevant without more sources discussing it. SÆdon^talk 10:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, you've pointed out a more fundamental problem. As structured, the content of this article is about opposition to homosexuality, put under a POV ("phobia") word as a title. If the content of the article remains about opposition to homosexuality, the article really needs renaming. If it's about the word (a violation of wp: not a dictionary, but a commonly accepted one) then it needs to cover the word (it's definitions, who is pushing which definition etc.) North8000 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

So called "opposition to homosexuality" (i.e. It's really opposition to LGBT rights) is indeed a result of homophobia and is known as homophobic bigotry. Just like "opposition" to racial minorities (i.e. really opposition to racial minority rights) is a result of racism and is racist bigotry. --~Knowz ^(Talk) 11:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That analogy (to an embedded trait such as race and not to a behavior) promotes one POV. Also off topic to what it was responding to which is that it is a pejorative term for things which have other neutral terms. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is an embedded trait. And again, I repeat, everything in this article is well sourced using reliable and established sources (see my comment above). --Scientiom (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

North you appear to be moving from your argument that homophobia does not mean homophobia as defined by the sources and dictionaries to now claiming homosexuality is a learned behaviour rather than a genetic trait? Jenova20 14:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got that one backwards. Race is a social construct. Sexual orientation is a trait. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, race or colour, regardless, my point is about the fact that racism and homophobia are similar (not to stray too far from the topic, but: indeed, studies have shown that if you're racist you're likely to be homophobic and vice-versa - as well as sexist, etc). --~Knowz ^(Talk) 14:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Responding to both, I believe that homosexuality is an embedded trait. But most opposition is founded on a sincere belief that it is a choice and a behavior. 14:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Any sources for that POV? No Jenova20 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first half I assume matches your own views. The second I thought was obvious and undisputed (that many think that it is a choice) North8000 (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but then that still requires evidence. To say that many think it is a choice is original research, a lot of it is just ignorance or people not liking gay people. Again it needs sources. And then just because 1 side exists it doesn't mean we can allow the other side to have a free-for-all with no evidence. Thanks Jenova20 16:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about article content. I guess this is a tangent, but someone else sprouted the tangent.  :-) North8000 (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: as an embedded trait sources. Have a look here: http://www.catechism.cc/articles/homosexuality-sin.htm under heretical ideas, 5 and 6. and here: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/does_God_create_homosexuals.php . People CHOOSE TO BE gay! Race is a trait. You can not change your race. But as I quoted above, gayness is not a trait. It is an objective disorder that people chose because they are possessed! "The truth is that God doesn’t create anyone with a homosexual orientation and that all those who are truly homosexuals (even those who are not engaging in homosexual acts) are homosexuals because of a demonic takeover and mortal sin. Those who scoff at this statement are simply faithless liberals who don’t want the truth and have no concept of the supernatural world." Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 14:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Great "sources" (for Conservapedia, perhaps). Wikipedia is based in the real world, and we require real sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That was a joke right? Jenova20 14:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, these are incredibly reliable sources. What about the Vatican? The Church? SSPX? FSSP? MHFM? SSPV? CMRI? For YOU a "reliable" source is pro-gay liberal fodder, yes? Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church (isbn: 978-0895261441)

You may aswell use sources from the Ku Kux Klan on articles about Africa if that's the best argument and your logic you have.

And on the same logic i could reword articles on religion using Elton John's autobiography as the source so think it through. Thanks Jenova20 15:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

When everything you are saying is contradicted by the scientific consensus (and what has been long established), you have no base to stand on. Also, I'm wondering if you're actually serious or just trolling now, because a lot of what you just said is simply ridiculous. --~Knowz ^(Talk) 15:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/ http://americansfortruth.com/ Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church. (isbn: 978-0895261441) Also, science can never contradict the Church (canon 159) Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if you say so... have a nice day. *Giggle* :) --~Knowz ^(Talk) 15:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably reliable (but primary) that those opinions exist and who holds them. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(commenting against my better judgment re "science can never contradict the Church") Indeed, no. The stakes are too high. Galileo was quite right to recant. Rivertorch (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, It's about sources

North8000 and Andrewrp you seem to be under the mistaken impression that all the other editors just don't like the sources you're presenting for political/social reasons despite that repeatedly being told that the issue is they are unacceptable for sourcing a Wikipedia article. I'd like you to use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, a noticeboard that is neutral and looks only at the source presented and what it is being used to source. Frankly the insistence on using what are some very unreliable sources concerns me as to what sources you have been using on other articles. But for now please use the noticeboard if you still want to use any source here. In that way this page isn't wasting your time and you'll have neutral editors looking only at the quality of sources. Insomesia (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I haven't presented any sources, nor done anything (put material into the article) that requires them. North8000 (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You've at least held up NARTH and the CatholicTV youtuber and presenter that these are worth considering as good primary sources. We can't use them but don't take the editors judgement on this page as final if you don't wish. There is a neutral Sources page that will help by looking solely at the source and how it is to be used. You've stated that your views are easily sourced and that you would provide those sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is there to help. Otherwise it seems like you just want to have a good argument. We're here to build articles. I see your discussion as stalling that effort. Please prove me wrong and present those reliable sources so we can try address your concern. Insomesia (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I said I'll do that. When I do, that will make it TWO people (myself and Andrewrp) on this talk page who has provided sources for their assertions on this page. North8000 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Not just sources. Reliable sources. Neither of you has done that yet. Rivertorch (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly after 3 months this is just disruptive and using the talk page as a forum. Thanks Jenova20 08:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the folks promoting the "their preferred definition (that all opposiion is "homophobia")is the ONLY definition" view have provided ZERO sources for that implausible assertion, while saying high quality sources are needed to make the "sky is blue" obvious statement (that another view exists) even on the talk page. I can see how this article has been kept as badly POV'd as it is. North8000 (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And what have you provided to challenge this? Jack shit thus far North Jenova20 10:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of homophobia does not change based on the existence of opposing political or religious preference (i.e. "other views").

Weinberg [who originated the term] also made it clear that he considered homophobia a form of prejudice directed by one group at another:

"When a phobia incapacitates a person from engaging in activities considered decent by society, the person himself is the sufferer...But here the phobia appears as antagonism directly toward a particular group of people. Inevitably, it leads to disdain toward the people themselves, and to mistreatment of them. The phobia in operation is a prejudice, and this means we can widen our understanding by considering the phobia from the point of view of its being a prejudice and then uncovering its motives."

...snip...

Empirical research more strongly indicates that anger and disgust are central to heterosexuals’ negative emotional responses to homosexuality. Thus, in identifying discontinuities between homophobia and true phobias, Haaga (1991) noted that the emotional component of a phobia is anxiety, whereas the emotional component of homophobia is presumably anger. These conclusions are consistent with research on emotion and on other types of prejudice, which suggests that anger and disgust are more likely than fear to underlie dominant groups’ hostility toward minority groups. Indeed, the dehumanization of gay people in much antigay rhetoric and the intense brutality that characterizes many hate crimes against sexual minorities are probably more consistent with the emotion of anger than fear.

...snip...

I noted above the claim by antigay activists that they are not suffering from homophobia. Strictly speaking, they are probably correct. Most of them do not have a debilitating fear of homosexuality (although they often try to evoke fear to promote their political agenda). Rather, they are hostile to gay people and gay communities, and condemn homosexual behavior as sinful, unnatural, and sick. Whereas this stance is not necessarily a phobia, it clearly qualifies as a prejudice. It is a set of negative attitudes toward people based on their membership in the group homosexual or gay or lesbian. Some antigay activists will object to being called prejudiced because, they will argue, to be prejudiced is a bad thing.

...snip...

Rather, we need only agree that the phenomenon meets the criterion of being a negative attitude toward people based on their group membership. Regardless of one’s personal judgments about homosexuality, negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians clearly fit the definition of a prejudice.

— Herek, Gregory (2004). "Beyond "Homophobia": Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century" (PDF). Sexuality Research and Social Policy. 1 (2). Springer: 6–24. doi:10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.6. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Internal footnotes omitted. Emphasis mine. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

OK now we have opinion pieces from both sides in the talk page but not in the article. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Opinions from both sides but only reliably sourced for one side...Jenova20 21:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to be getting the point. When someone says "I am opposed to equal rights for LGBT people, but I'm not a homophobic bigot", they are indeed homophobic. It's just like someone saying "I am opposed to equal rights for racial minorities, but I'm not a racist bigot" - but even do they contend they are not, by the very virtue of their stand, they are indeed racist. You need to understand the point being made here. --Scientiom (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are about 5 things in tangled together in what you just said. Regarding applicability of the term "homophobia", you have just voiced the opinion of one side of the debate. The other would say that a better analogy would be that it akin to labeling any opposition to pedophilia as "pedophilia-phobic", or opposition to marijuana as "marijuana-phobia". North8000 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws now, have sunk really quite low, and still cannot seem to understand the point: Homosexuality is a sexual orientation (along with heterosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality) - and just like race/colour, sexual orientation is a core trait/characteristic. Pedophillia is a mental disorder - not a normal characteristic. Marijuana is an object - not a characteristic. Now that that's cleared up, perhaps you should go over what has been said to respond to you and try and understand it properly. --Scientiom (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Quit the attempt-at-patronizing crap. The core issue is the use/definition of the term. One side of the controversy defines ALL opposition to homosexuality as "homophobia", the other does not. You keep stating that one side of the controversy as fact, and then pretend that anybody from the large group with the opposing viewpoint (regarding scope of the term) just doesn't "understand". What arrogance and rudeness. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Whack! The WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis) is used to make subtle yet hopefully long-term adjustments to clue levels in experienced Wikipedians.

Courtesy of Jenova20 13:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• *facepalms* North, no matter what your opinion or argument is, if you don't present any reliable sources to back up the changes you would like, then it's just not going to happen. Now, once and for all, please present the reliable sources or stop with this endless line of argument that will go nowhere. Silverseren^C 22:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Next stop is administrator support, this has been going on too long. Insomesia (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a boomerang waiting to happen. What's happening here certainly needs more eyes. You have extraordinary claims (essentially that your view is the ONLY view) explicitly and implicitly embedded in the article with no sourcing for such, and then saying that "sky is blue" statements must be sourced to even bring up those concerns on the talk page. And, from the looks of it, this concern has been raised continuously about this article by an immense amount of people since its inception, and a group has simply harangued / intimidated away the people who make the point or used the "double standard" approach that I described to prevent resolution. I encourage you to throw that boomerang. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You've been chasing the same discussion in a circle by my count. There seems to be an agreement that if you had some reliable sources to support any changes ... well, they would be eagerly looked at to see what could be of use. Instead we have some un-reliable sources and claims of a conspiracy to prevent the truth from getting out. Some editors are already exasperated by this, others are quickly getting there. The time for you to finally present some reliable sources to support whatever it is you think should change is way overdue. If you want to keep arguing that everyone's against you then go ahead, we can find someone else who can help the situation. It says right at the top of the page that this is not a forum about the subject, its a discussion only about the article. Maybe you should excuse yourself to do the research and come back when you have something we realistically can use. The article is based on sources, reliable ones. Insomesia (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Quit the "conspiracy" crap. I said I would take care of getting the obvious sourced and written (that an alternative viewpoint substantially exists). Now, will you start working on the implausible unsourced assertion (that your view is the ONLY view) that is embedded throughout this article? The latter has been my topic; you can't demand a source for discussing that something is unsourced. North8000 (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussing it has been a pointless venture for 3 months as you can't prove what you are claiming. If you were able to then i assume you would have. And it seems a safe assumption you also would have gone to administrators by now if you thought they would back you up. Thanks Jenova20 14:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

North8000, you and one other editor keep insinuating that you're prevented from "fixing" this article by a group of editors. In fact, it's the scarcity of reliable sources that is doing that to you. The other editor, BTW, has started a post at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Homophobia so perhaps some new viewpoints will enlighten us all. Insomesia (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I just discovered Christophobia. It seems a perfectly good term for how some people feel about Christianity. I doubt if they're scared of Christ. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The new wave. Brand anybody with an opposing belief set as having a "phobia" of your belief set. (by "your" I didn't mean you specifically) :-) North8000 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's how the language works these days. Can you accept it yet? HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, to restate it slightly, Try to establish the idea of branding anybody with an opposing belief set as having a "phobia" of your belief set. To help that process, get a couple of other people who think the same and POV a Wikipedia article to promote your idea. North8000 (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Update

In addition to a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Homophobia, there is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Homophobia, where every source presented has been generally dismissed as having any value on this article, and User talk:Andrewrp#Not a soapbox which relates to using this page as a soapbox. Insomesia (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)