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)

That might be a bit out of the scope of the article. Do you have any reliable sources that talk about this? Maybe they can show a way of addressing the issues. Insomesia (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with this thought. Anti-gay redirects here. Realistically speaking, the term in and of itself is biased toward homosexuality. It seems to claim, or at least imply that one who simply disagrees with the ethical or sociological aspects fall under the category of homophobia. This is a well-constructed article, but titling and categorization feels as though it was written by someone in favor of homosexuality, not by an unbiased group of authors. That aside, the term seems very unscientific to relate to other forms of disdain or disagreement of/with homosexuality. As a side note, this tonality of this article seems to over-relate racism, as well as sexism to this topic. —Maktesh ^(talk) 02:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you need wp:Reliable sources to lead the way. Insomesia (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems obvious that this article was written by somebody who has a pro-homosexual agenda,and who refuses to accept that most people have a principled opposition to homosexual behaviour per se, which is entirely rational. In the interests of accuracy this article should revert to the definition of homophobia found in the Oxford Dictionary, and not lend any credibility to a new definition favoured by a group with a political and social agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garysher (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I almost stopped reading that after "pro-homosexual agenda", but I definitely stopped reading after "most people have a principled opposition to homosexual behaviour per se". Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• While you have your Oxford dictionary out look up Irony, Biased, Deluded and Liar. You just demonstrated all 4 with that ill advised post. ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That ad hominem dismissal of the points made should keep the expressed overwhelming reality at bay and out of this article for a little longer. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

North if you don't understand the basic principals of editing here like our Oxford friend above then you need mentoring and staying away from controversial topics until you can demonstrate you are neutral and your judgement unclouded. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that we'll let others read this section and decide exactly who has that problem. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you are asserting that "most people have a principled opposition to homosexual behaviour", include wp:Reliable Sources. If you cannot include any sources, refrain from commenting here. The article is about homophobia, which is a fear or hatred of homosexuals. I would also suggest reading the oxford dictionary's definition of homophobia prior to recommending its usage. Acronin3 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia Garysher and thank you for your first contribution. I'm sure we would all be interested in the reliable sources that support your assertions. Just so you know, this is not a dictionary, and the article is pretty clear about its scope and the context in which the concept of Homophobia is explored. MrX 19:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and the fact that this whole article is built on an assertion with ZERO sourcing, that assertion being that the "all opposition is phobia" definition is the ONLY definition. Only at this article do they get away with claiming that you need sourcing to complain that something is unsourced. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

North there's only so many times i can ask you to source your claims but you are unable to listen, hear or comprehend that. It's getting much easier to ignore you than try and work with you. You don't just want to complain about something being unsourced, you want to make it say the opposite and still be unsourced. It's laughable and it won't work, so just carry on flogging the dead horse cos it sure ain't gonna move. ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As the OED definition is "Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality.", I fail to see the problem. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• The OP isn't talking about the OED, he's referring to the definition given in the Oxford Dictionary of English which isn't related to the OED at all. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Black Kite. I still fail to see how that definition, "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.", changes anything (especially in the light of WP:NOTDICT and all the other sources given that support the article). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In case there is anybody here who genuinely doesn't understand what I was saying (vs. the people who deliberately "mis-hearing" me as illustrated above). There are two definitions:

1. The above "all opposition is phobia" definition which does exist in about 1/2 of the dictionaries. It is obviously a controversial definition.
2. The "phobia is phobia" definition which is in all or nearly all dictionaries.

90% of this article is written upon & with and putting forth the UNSOURCED, implausible premise that #1 is the ONLY definition. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Watchmen

I'm probably going to kick off this discussion on a bad note by bringing this up, so I want to make it clear that this is not said with for any reason other than to question the appropriateness of this issue I'm raising. It seems to me, by looking at the talk comments page, that this page has a small number of "watchmen" who spend most of their time guarding this page, and others related to homosexuality. Some of these users, judging by their own pages, seem by be homosexual activists. Now this is all perfectly fine, but I sense that they have created a stonewall here, where anyone desiring to challenge this issue is turned away. I may completely wrong here, but that what I've gathered after a brief review of this talk page. I just wanted to dialogue this and see if my initial concerns are to be validated or debunked. I'm not intending to throw any stones. —Maktesh ^(talk) 03:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Then that would make you a heterosexual activist? It's not nice to make assumptions, accusations or sweeping generalisations and it really isn't acting in good faith.

This also isn't one side against another, it's an issue of a couple people trying to challenge what a well documented word means so people don't call them homophobes. If you want to join in too then start it on the Racism, islamophobia, antisemiticism articles aswell or you're really just trolling. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"I may completely wrong here". The odds are extremely good. (Incidentally, I don't have OED access here, but since when is "dialogue", in the sense you used it, a transitive verb?) Rivertorch (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You are very perceptive, Maktesh. I for one am impressed with your powers of observation. And whatever you do: do not ever take the name of "Stonewall" in vain. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I could rephrase that basically as you should treat others how you expect to be treated. Opposition to gays is homophobia, opposition to races is racism and opposition to Jews is antisemitic. That's how it is simply. ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, then; let me clarify. I don't have an opposition to gays. Just a distortion of truth and/or reality. This page is doubtlessly biased in favor and support of homosexuality. Let me guess; you're going to ask me to back up that claim with a reliable source which will not exist, as 'common sense' tells us that reliable sources are probably not going to document bias on a Wikipedia page. As a straight American, and one who is generally in the middle of the road, I can say that this page reads in a sense that implies those who have a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality are homophobic, and it unfairly links this idea with that of racism and sexism. I'm simply arguing that homosexuality should be presented as it is in light of international culture; a minority group with a high amount of controversy surrounding it. Both sides here need to be presented, and only one of them is. I'm not one to write for the other side (the "homophobics" as you call them), but I would like to see a slightly more rationalized approach to this page. As above, I see there has been quite a bit of discussion over the naming of this article. If the page watchmen were really open to discussion, it seems as that everyone could have been made happy. We can dictionary-argue all we want, but that still doesn't change the implications of the page name. And once again, I'm not opposed to homosexuals. I simply don't understand why this article feels it is necessary to deem homosexuality as normative. Also worth noting, the fact that my very minor edit was already reverted with a comment that makes no sense shows that my concerns are valid. —Maktesh ^(talk) 15:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"As a straight American, and one who is generally in the middle of the road" - maybe you should stand somewhere safer while waiting for replies.

On a serious note, there's no pleasing everyone and we can't change the meaning of the word - if we do that we run foul of Wikipedia policies. If we don't claim it is what it is then we'll be accused of bias.

If you really want to change things then pick a sentence you have a problem with and post it here with your opinion and i'll look into it. If you are unrealistic though or expect a rewrite of an article on your say so with no reliable sources then i can't act. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

People who say they have a "moral, ethical or rational disagreement" with equal rights for racial minorities are still racist. Same here (those who say they have "moral, ethical or rational disagreement" with equal rights for LGBT people are still homophobic) as concurred by reliable sources on this topic.

But I concur with Jenova20; if you can point out specific sentences one by one and suggest changes, I'll also be more than happy to discuss any proposed changes on their merits. --Scientiom (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am puzzled by claims of "support of homosexuality" and "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality". How can one support homosexuality or morally, ethically or rationally disagree with it? It sounds weird. It's like supporting or morally, ethically or rationally disagreeing with rain, digestion, or plants being green. It's going to rain whether one likes it or not. A homosexual person will always be characterised by homosexuality, whether one opposes it or not. Therefore, "opposition to homosexuality" simply doesn't make sense. What one can do is support or disaprove of a homosexual relationship, which ultimately comes down to recognising or denying rights of homosexual people. Surtsicna (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And BINGO! - that's the definition of homophobia ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's not misquote me here. I never said I have "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality". You blocked two different quotes from me and meshed them together, out of context. I'd rather not play that way. I said that those (not me) with "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality" are unfairly labeled in this article. This article is clearly a proponent of the gay agenda (no different than, for example, Focus on the Family's traditional marriage agenda). I see that as being inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Now let me assume your response will be something about that being my personal opinion, and I need to find sources to back up my allegations. Cool. Will do, one way or another.

Now let me pose a question, because this gets back to my earlier point. IF this article is biased in support homosexuality, then it seems that it was written that way. After its authorship, it is then guarded by members of the community who side with this view. As such, they then place the burden of proof on those who desire to make changes. Is this right (in regards to both legitimacy and accuracy)? That's just what I see here. Now I'll bring up changes that i think need to be made, but they largely relate to the tonality of the article. It sounds, when read, that a homosexual activist wrote the content. On top of it, it reads in homosexuality as normative, when it clearly is not. Something not being normative is not wrong, but I believe that, what, 3-5% of human beings identify themselves as LGBT? Anyway, I'm not trying to argue or debate the facts. Just seem both sides fairly represented. —Maktesh ^(talk) 20:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Maktesh this is lunacy for this simple reason "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality" - that is homophobia.

I'm not changing the meaning of the word, neither are you, or anyone else here.

IF you disagree with homosexuality for any reason that is your right, but it is also anyone elses to call someone with those beliefs a homophobe. It is NO different than saying i have "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with Africans" - it's not acceptable and you have to accept that if you say it, people will label you racist for it.

I personally don't morally, ethically or rationally agree with the hold religion has over some people but luckily as time goes on and people get more educated i am not in the minority on that. People not agreeing with equal rights for LGBT however are - and rightly so. Thanks and have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Maktesh, I honestly did not intend to misquote you or to say that you are the one with "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality", so I used "one" as the neutral subject of my sentences. I was, in fact, referring more to some comments in the preceding section, while your comment was just conveniently close for me to quote some phrases that seem illogical to me. I apologise once again if you think I referred to you personally, as you don't seem to be someone who believes in exorcisms, blood libels, witch-hunts and what not. Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Deju vu alert, didn't we just have this discussion above? And didn't those general skeptics of the term also have to be compelled to come up with reliable sources to counter anything found in the article? And aren't we still waiting for any reliable sources to be produced? I thought so. I suggest these discussion be closed as this page is for improving the article not a general forum for questioning the motives of other editors. Insomesia (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes and concur. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, WP:NOTFORUM ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely alright, Surtsicna. No hard feelings there. Insomesia, I'm not questioning the motives of the authors. I'm questioning the motive of the article. Now I understand that some of you will say that I'm beating a dead horse, but to me, it's very much alive. I would like to question (again) the titling of this article. My starting source? Phobia. My secondary source? [1] (And yes, I see the secondary definition there. I'm not saying that the exact meaning when the etymology of "homophobia" is fleshed out is inaccurate. I would argue that, in light of the disagreements and controversy, that perhaps a better term could be used for those who have "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality." The implication is clear, because the original, basic, and commonly understood meaning of "phobia" relates to an irrational fear. I would argue that undoubtedly, using that term along with the stigma attached, is in a sense wielding a biased weapon against the other side. I think it would be far more rational to come to a page/section title that is considered more mainstream. If you want me to blow this issue up, I will, but for now, I think it is far more reasonable to quietly come to a middle-of-the-road decision.

I will shorten my thought: I feel as though the secondary meaning of the word "homophobia" is being used, along with the stigma of the word "phobia" to intentionally mislabel a particular group of individuals. As such, it is being held up by minority activists, who are puppy-guarding a page which directly relates to their motives. WP:CONFLICT Yes, I'm going to throw that flag. I'm looking at Jenova20 and Insomesia. After taking a brief look at your user and talk pages, it does seem as though a COI rests somewhere in there. And again, I'm not necessarily against homosexuality. I just want to see an unbiased article. Peace. —Maktesh ^(talk) 23:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I expect you to either retract that comment/accusation or strike it before i have an administrator look into it per WP:AGF, WP:personal attack and not to mention WP:IDHT or WP:NOTFORUM and WP:COI and WP:Bias since you have not mentioned this on Islamophobia.

If you want to dispute the meaning of the word after countless discussions and no reliable proof...fine, but accusations are a step too far. ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 00:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Look up our article on Etymological fallacy, and you'll see why that dog ain't gonna hunt. Agree with the others that further discussion is pointless. Thanks for your input, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's just try not responding and see what happens. Rivertorch (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Jenova20, let me look at these accusations one-by-one: WP:AGF/WP:personal attack; I am assuming good faith, and that attack was not personal. I respect you, as well as your opinions very much so. I'm simply stating that I think it's time to admit a conflict of interest. Although we're disagreeing, I like you, and I think that you're being very unfair and jumping the gun to throw those labels down. WP:IDHT; This is my main concern. I don't feel there is a general consensus here; I feel as though your "side" has banded together here, and locked down this page, ganging up on whosoever should come by. I "get" that point. A handful of users in support of the same idea, who I'd still like to see support that idea that there's no COI telling me I'm wrong isn't a "consensus." As for the WP:NOTFORUM; Don't patronize me. This is 100% relevant to the article. As for WP:COI and WP:Bias, I'm not even going to touch those, because I'm not really sure what your point was, other than to throw down a bunch of improper allegation of my "misconduct." (Oh, and don't even start on the Islamaphobia. I'm not going to debate on multiple fronts, and implying that my claims are invalid as I'm not discussing this over there? Posh.) So no, I'm not taking back or striking out what I said. I do, however, apologize if it came off incorrectly.

Dominus Vobisdu, thank you for posting that. It really validates my point. As I said, see Phobia. Let's see if that page can be changed to represent the new definition which has been created here. Then I'll have no problem with it. To be blunt, an obscure (but arguably accurate) term has been used here, which is an intentionally loaded term initiated by the gay agenda. The same as others are created by the anti-gay agenda. Again, I like to think I'm not unbiased, but in the middle. Stopping the discrimination of and stigma surrounding homosexuals is different from the redefinition of marriage. From that position, I'm saying that this article is biased. After I'm done here, I plan to go to other articles, including ones that are biased in the other direction. —Maktesh ^(talk) 04:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is how I read these arguments: a) anti-gay activists don't like the term "homophobia" because in general society, it has come to mean a "hatred of" or being against LGBTs and b) there is now an attempt to force a very narrow reading of the definition of homophobia back to a "fear of" instead of the much more broadly used "hatred of" definition. The term is hardly "controversial", except possibly to those to whom it applies. Scrapbkn (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction: It's not the more narrow view, per say, it's the mainstream view and understanding of the word. For the third time, I will cite Phobia to prove this. Changing the definition of "homophobia" is arguably in support of the gay agenda, which Wikipedia seems largely biased towards. This can be seen on nearly every page related to sexuality or marriage. Especially Marriage and Same-sex marriage. The majority of Wikipedia users have attempted (nearly sucessfully) to redefine marriage in a community that is supposed to thrive on supportable, unbiased facts and avoidance of COI. —Maktesh ^(talk) 03:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I always get a kick out of the nonsense that comes out of some people. Funny how serious they are when they say it too. For the record, gay people aren't concerned about the definition of a word, they simply want to marry their partner. That's all. People who oppose equal rights for gay people don't want to be portrayed in a negative light, but we don't have control over that. No one is going to appease you by giving a word an alternate meaning that originates from you, contrary to what it is and contrary to the reality in why it is understood to mean what it means. The objectivity of the situation characterizes you. You keep mentioning "phobia" and how it's not fit...how do you justify the opposition's actions and their tactics in persuading public opinion? It's not rational and most understand that behavior as fearing some terrible outcome, if gay people have equality, that doesn't exist and hasn't existed. Then it goes back into a roundabout about how the negative outcomes do exist and you give obscure examples. Most people today realize there is no substantial reason why gay people are treated differently, so homophobia is what it is and it means what it means and it applies to you. If you can't prove that reality to be false, then there is no more reason to discuss it. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 04:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Would a FAQ be helpful?

Since we seem to be spending energy having the same discussion now for several months perhaps a FAQ would help those looking to make a point find an answer to their concerns without engaging everyone. In this way those who disagree with some facet of the article may find why the article stands as is rather than how they feel it should look. Thoughts? Insomesia (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That won't work, we have an issue with people being called homophobes and looking up what it is exactly and then trying to change the word rather than their attitude. We can't please these people no matter what we write on this talk page. They want the article to express that they can be homophobic without being called homophobes. Or at least the impression i've got over the last 4 months. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to consider applying general sanctions to this article. We would first need to establish that all forms of DR have been attempted and that users with a WP:FRINGE POV are still attempting to push an undue agenda. On the other hand, we might be able to fit this article under the category of pseudoscience (since the arb decision was "broadly construed" and this matter is scientifically settled). If so we can ask for enforce at WP:AE. Something to think about. Sædon^talk 00:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

While I don't doubt it may come to something like that, I think it's premature at this point. I don't like to see unsupported, fallacious talk page comments—especially when they just keep repeating the same things over and over ad nauseam—but I wonder if responding to them every time may somehow, strangely enough, be reinforcing the behavior. I may be wrong, but it occurs to me that refusing to respond might be a better approach. This would only work up to a point, I admit. Still, it seems worth a try. Rivertorch (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring them hasn't seemed to work for the past months but I'm willing to give it a try. Insomesia (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm in. Sorry Rivertorch but they're just reading the other discussions and getting more aggressive in their arguments. It's gotten to personal attacks now and that's unacceptable ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's best to let discussions like this die out while resisting the temptation to get the last word in. Absent concrete suggestions to improve the article backed up with reliable sources, no reply is required. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the trio here missed the third alternative when the same problem has been noted by an immense number of people for the entire history of the article which is to start listening.North8000 (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, there's simply nothing worth listening to. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's an effective tactic to parry them. When they complain about the lack of sourcing for how the article is written, tell them that need sources to complain about a lack of sourcing. Nice going, that has been very effective at keeping this article in its badly POV'd state. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you were asked multiple times to provide a couple instances of POV to work on here North but have declined to. And if you want ot challenge POV with another POV then you do need sources, you should know that by now. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My complaint (and that underlying many of the others) is lack of sourcing for the POV that this article is built on (the POV being that that your preferred definition is the ONLY definition); it is not to assert an alternative POV. So again, your tactic of saying that sources are required to complain about a lack of sources has been very effective. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like one example of hundreds, here it is. In one section it places "Disapproval of homosexuality and of gay people is not evenly distributed throughout society" in the "homophobia" article which structurally is a statement, in the voice of Wikipedia that "Disapproval of homosexuality" is per se homophobia. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Disapproval of homosexuality is homophobia North, the definition says as much. Just like disapproval of Muslims is islamophobia, disapproval of blacks is racist, disapproval of women's rights is sexist etc. I'm sure we've gone through this conversation or one similar to it already. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 21:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And where is the sourcing that says that that is the ONLY definition? North8000 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is the section Homophobia#Criticism_of_meaning_and_purpose not sufficient to cover the minority view of the meaning of the word? Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

While the "minority" premise is yours, that section does discuss the other major definition, the "phobia means phobia" definition. The problem is that the rest of the article is structured to be a statement (in the voice of Wikipedia) that the second definition/view does not exist of is inconsequential. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

On your analogies, the second 2 are not analogous (they are not "phobia" words) and the first one describes a term/article with the same set of problems. Defining any opposition to the religion as a "phobia". Of course getting a Wikipedia article to promote the contested "phobia" terms for opposition is a way to help try to establish that controversial definition. As the trio at the article has been doing. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's the same thing North, welcome to the English language where words don't always mean what you think or what they sound like. Your logic is more akin to trying to get a big section of the article on the colour red to say how more people believe it is actually dark orange and you're attempting it multiple times, failure after failure, without proof and to no avail. Isn't it time to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Quit the "drop the stick" crap. There has been an immense amount of feedback from an immense amount of people for the entire history of this article about a particular serious POV issue. Just because the trio that likes it as-is has so-far managed to keep it that way does not make what is contained in that wide-ranging feedback a "dead horse". The only dead horse is thinking that any one of the trio would be swayed from their quest (to entrench a controversial definition that defines all opposition to homosexuality as a "phobia") by any argument or sourcing. North8000 (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't follow, multiple ill informed people also believed the Earth was flat. The only difference is their ignorance ended when confronted with proof ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

North8000, I'm not sure who you are trying to castigate as the "trio", I suppose I could be one as much as any of the dozen or so editors who have called you to task and asked for reliable sources, but again the issue comes back to instead of making accusations about other editors could you please focus on actual changes to the article supported by reliable sources? Really, that's the only thing that will change the nature of this discussion. If you have reliable sources, great, let's move forward. If not, fine, we can wait until you do find something that may work. No one has even suggested that reliably sourced counter-arguments or "fringe" theories has no place, instead it has been emphasized, over several months, that we need reliable sources to make the changes you seek as they are understood. I have no doubt that you believe what you do but the rest of the world needs to be swayed with reliable sources that we digest and restate. Insomesia (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, saying that I need sourcing to complain about lack of sourcing. Same old tactics. Signing off. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Asking for reliable sources to make contested changes to sourced content is a policy, not a tactic. We are building an article, not waging a battle. Insomesia (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As Insomesia said, you can't defeat a statement, referenced or not, with another unsourced statement. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

FAQ started

I've "boldly" started a FAQ and welcome any constructive edits to benefit any who make it to this talk page and may be helped by a succinct recap of what has transpired over many months. Let's try to keep in mind that everyone has the right to their own opinions but the article needs reliable sources to evolve. I hope the FAQ can be a welcome centering point where some basic content that isn't spelled out in the article can be made clear for those interested in having an informative article. Insomesia (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Changing definition

So just as a jump off from the above discussions ... Do we do a good enough job in explaining how the definition has changed over time and crtian groups may still cling to one definition over another? And does it align with what reliable sources support? Insomesia (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's deceptive / manipulative. Nobody comes here wondering / complaining why the article doesn't exclusively use the most pervasive dictionary definition. They are wondering why /complaining that the article pretends that the most pervasive dictionary definition does not exist. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

All right—since no one else is going to let this drop, I'll wade in again. You definition of "most pervasive" seems decidedly odd. Do we need to review the dictionary entries yet again? Rivertorch (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't. I just think it's a waste of time and thought to keep repeating the same thing. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

And in the end, this is a high-traffic article; it has over half a million hits a year. If the definition was clearly incorrect this page would be deluged with objections, rather than just the occasional one. That, I think, is the most pervasive argument. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether the "phobia = a phobia" is most pervasive definition vs. just a common definition is arguable, but sidebar to the issue which is "why is the article written as if that definition did not exist." The FAQ does not address this and thus not the actual issue that has been continuously raised. And this page has has a large amount of objections regarding this point, voiced throughout the entire history of the article. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

But that's the point; it doesn't. In the last three months, apart from yourself there's been a registered editor who thinks gays have a "terrible and diabolical agenda", two shouty IPs, an IP that thinks that "Wikipedia is an officially pro-gay document" and one that thinks NARTH is a reliable source. And that's fairly typical of all the archives. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe time to walk away North? Thanks ツ Jenova|20]] ^(email) 20:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This WP:DEADHORSE really needs to rest in peace. These attempts to revise the accepted definition of homophobia have failed and consensus has been reached. Unless there are reliable sources to support the opposing view presented by North8000 and a few others, then the article should stand as it is. This is not an article about the etymology of a word, but rather an article about the commonly accepted concepts associated with the word. The article does an excellent job of comprehensively covering that concept. The end. MrX 21:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Black Kite, you can't possibly consider that straw man tip of the iceberg to be a be a summary of what folks have weighed in on here on the problem. I would have though better of you.North8000 (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a straw man at all - I actually spent that 20 minutes between your comment and mine going through the last three months of archives. And - apart from your contributions - that's exactly what I found. There may well be more intelligent discussions further back in the archive, but on a quick scan I just found more of the same. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I just had to take 30 seconds and look a few inches up to find the first 1% example of what you missed/ignored e.g. "I feel as though the secondary meaning of the word "homophobia" is being used, along with the stigma of the word "phobia" to intentionally mislabel a particular group of individuals. As such, it is being held up by minority activists, who are puppy-guarding a page which directly relates to their motives." North8000 (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, let me add "... and an account which directly accuses editors of being homosexual activists who are a minority of editors trying to keep the article in a pro-gay format" to my list. Personally, I didn't think you'd want to highlight that one. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Jenova20, my thought has been to mostly give up on this but just make a few comments. When folks responses go beyond disagreement into dirty pool tactics, as they continually have done here from the trio, that raises more severe issues that need a response and has prolonged the exchanges. And so if the trio here would disagree but avoid those nasty tactics, brief comments is all that you'd see from me here. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you would be best reading WP:NOTFORUM then. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So I discuss that there is a lack of sourcing supporting a structure that presumes that the "phobia is a phobia" definition does not exist, and you try that lame crap of linking to not a forum. Perfect example of the dirty pool tactics I just described which is creating the situation here. North8000 (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic constant discussion of unnamed trio which likely doesn't exist. wp:deadhorse argument as Wikipedia doesn't change the meaning of words. Sorry you're upset. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 23:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

North i could tell you anything and you would still be banging on about this and so i'll recap. You can't overturn a statement with an unsourced one. You can't use the talk page to endlessly complain about the meaning not being the true meaning and providing no sources. You can't continually ignore the dictionary definitions already given for the preferred ones you cannot show evidence of even existing. The talk page here would usually be used as:

• Person A) problem or something to add.
• Person B) Done, or need a better source.
• Person A) Here, this is more neutral or reliable i think
• Person B) Thanks for your contribution, done.

What you have is:

• Person A) This isn't right.
• Persons BCDEFG) How so?
• Person A) Because it's not but i can't won't prove it.
• Persons BCDEFG) Well that's not how this works and 4 months of arguing won't make it so.

Kay? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 23:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Asking for wp:reliable sources to support a fringe theory with due weight is not a dirty trick or anyone "puppy-guarding a page." We are wasting your time here because as you've been told before no changes will be undertaken without reliable sourcing to support them. If you feel one of the pillars of editing Wikipedia is a dirty trick then you should expect more of the same on every article, it's a policy. Making personal attacks and comments at everyone who opposes your view has swayed no one. I don't know what you hope to accomplish but it does not seem like you are here to improve the article as much as expressing personal opinions on a subject and editors. Insomesia (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You have just completely mis-stated and mis-characterized my argument (which is saying that there is a lack of sourcing for the premise used, not promoting any new "theory"). That material you are describing I didn't write, please reread to see what it was doing there. I've made no personal attacks, and in fact false accusation of such is a personal attack. Quit the crap. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You have repeatedly tried to sway editors here that our present coverage is lacking in some way, you've convinced no one. You have asserted you will provide sources, reliable ones, to bolster your position, none have been provided. You have alluded to a trio cabal that is thwarting your efforts, absent any evidence, which likely there is none, that is a vague personal attack against all regular editors here who disagree with your efforts. Suggesting I'm engaging in crap is furthering the damage, please stop. Insomesia (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've been swayed. No, in all seriousness, North is bringing up a very valid point. I'm bringing my discussion from up a few headers down here. That's what this is all about, anyway; Changing the definition. The bottom lime is that if I'm right, and if this article is biased, not much can be done to change it, due to the source demand (which I won't rephrase from North's earlier comments), which is unreasonable. Again, I'll say that the secondary meaning of the term is being used here in order to demonize those who personally disagree with you. Just in attempt to simplify things, wouldn't aversion to homosexuality be a far more reasonable attempt for proper titling? The fact that the "watchmen" here are so cemented on this issue indicates that it's not as innocent as argued. Furthermore, Black Kite, you're citing me as saying the gays have a "terrible and diabolical agenda?" That, my friend, is a misquote. I said that there is a "gay agenda." A personal attack and distortion of the truth is uncalled for, except in a losing battle. That, my friend, is filthy. I don't appreciate having that kind of bulls**t heaped towards me. So unless you're referring to someone else, and leaving me out, that's what I see. EDIT: Apologies, I see you were referring to someone else. I just assumed that I was included in your figure. Still, I think my voice counts for something. Also, how exactly is this a "fringe theory," Insomesia? And arguing that you're not puppy-guarding this page is a lost cause. —Maktesh ^(talk) 08:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So would you re-title Xenophobia as Aversion to foreigners? Clearly not (I hope). WP:COMMONNAME is policy here, and it states "Wikipedia ... 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)

The problem is that the majority of the article is structured / premised upon as if the promoted "all opposition is a phobia" definition is the ONLY definition. (And as a sidebar, there is no sourcing for the "ONLY definition" premise.) So by placement it asserts that every type of opposition to homosexuality is "homophobia". Here are two ways to fix it. The simplest one has already been noted. If this is an article about opposition to homosexuality, then rename it to that, a more neutral term, which titles are supposed to be anyway. The other would be would be a Homophobia article that turns the lens on the term itself (including the history of who is promoting its various definitions etc.)such as the Homosexual agenda article has done. In fact, that article is a near-perfect parallel to this situation. Where one side of a controversy is promoting use of a pejorative term for something which already has a more neutral term. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you don't want Wikipedia to actually have an article entitled Homophobia that is actually about the subject that is most commonly known by that term? I think I can safely say that this won't be happening. If you believe that the article is biased or misleading, then the simple way to fix that is to provide reliable sources to prove your claims. As has been said numerous times. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As per the tactics that the trio has continuously used here, you have just completely mis-stated what I said. And my "claim" is that there is a lack of sourcing for the "only definition" theory that this article is premised upon. Folks keep mis-stating that. Rather than respond on that, I will just refer anybody one post up to see what I actually said.North8000 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't wash. You clearly stated you wanted to rename this article to a title that doesn't reflect the concept's common name, and you clearly stated that you would want Homophobia to be a history of the word's etymology. To turn round and say that's not what you said ... well, words fail me. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I did have one additional idea which is to do both of the ideas I mentioned. Move the entire contents of this article to a new "Opposition to homosexuality" article. And then write a short article here at Homophobia that turns it's lens on the term as the Homosexual agenda article has done. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

...I can keep doing that until you follow policy or we can all give up and get some admin in to slap some sense into people. Let's also challenge the logic again of you accusing the "trio" of censoring the real meaning of homophobia and not sourcing it, while trying to challenge it without sources and then trying to rename the article because you can't change the meaning of it. If i slapped up a progress bar between nothing and admin action we're 99% of the way to admin action here. ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you have completely mis-stated what I said. Please see above to see what I actually said. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

North8000, what you "actually said" is essentially something you've been repeating, with variations, for many weeks now. With the exception of a small group of newbies and single-purpose accounts plus one established editor whose point of view on LGBT-related topics is apparent, no one is buying your argument. It doesn't matter if everyone has missed your point, and it doesn't matter if your point is valid or logical or whatever; you've had feedback from many other Wikipedians and ample opportunity to hone your argument, and what you're saying now is gaining no more traction that what you said umpteen kilobytes ago. In the final analysis, it all comes down to consensus, and consensus—both here and at the two noticeboards where this recently came up—is that the article does not have the problem you suggest. At the risk of what I say being labeled "crap", I'm going to say very plainly that incessant arguing against consensus is classic WP:IDHT behavior, and your dismissal of multiple editors' suggestions of dropping the stick is troubling. Many of us, perhaps most of us, have found ourselves in situations where consensus is against what we firmly believe to be correct. (I know I have.) That's just the way it is. I don't like it any more than you do, but I accept it. With all due respect, I encourage you to accept it too. Rivertorch (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually nobody has addressed my point, and folks have been conspicuously avoiding it and avoiding addressing it, to the point of continually modifying what I said and then addressing the imaginary modified versions. But, again, either way, I only intend to make a few comments now and then. Again, when folks use dirty pool tactics (as has been happening) this forces lengthier exchanges on the tactics. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if no one has addressed your point, restating it ad infinitum isn't helpful. "Dirty pool" is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but you might consider the possibility that ceaseless repetition of the same point serves more to irritate your fellow editors than to enlighten them. Even if you dislike their tactics, there is no forced exchange. I'm pretty sure that if you drop the subject, everyone who has been replying to you will happily drop it as well. And if they don't, well, there's still nothing forcing you to respond. Silence isn't equated with agreement in talk page discussions—not when one has already expressed one's view, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that very civilized post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that. William Avery (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Heterophobia.

While I agree with the merge in spirit as a wikipedia editor I must say that the consensus was not to merge. Why does heterophobia redirect to this page now if people didn't agree yet to have them merge?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was to delete it and we already had a small section on it. If it's not reliably sourced and/or violates WP:WEIGHT then just take it out. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"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 ^(email) 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 Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia, however you should realize that Wikipedia 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 reliable source to discuss lack of sourcing" trick again. Probably works well for chasing away people who don't know any batter. And no, it hasn't gained traction with the POV trio that has been blockading the fix. But will probably help coalesce things to get it fixed despite them. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)