Talk:Homophobia/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Word origin

It says here that "Homo" is of Greek origin, and means "Same". That would mean that entire word means "fear (hate) of the same" which is silly. As much as I know, unlike the "homo" from the "homosexuality", this "homo" has Roman origin, and means human. As in "Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto" (I'm human: Nothing that is human is strange to me) and this statement, of excepting all kinds of human behaviors, in fact is complete opposition of homophobia where a person is judging others for their behaviors. Then, "homophobia" would actually be "Fear (hate) of human (behaviors, opinions, actions, states)" which would make more sense with how is popularly being used. As in homosexuals are just as much humans as anybody else, so judging them only for being gay, is in fact not being able to except differences, or different kinds of opinions and attitudes. Furthermore, defined like this, homophobia goes even beyond popular usage, as you can use the term to describe "a man who doesn't know how to run washing machine as he thinks it's a woman's job", or a racist, or "member of one religion, nation, ... that is stereotyping members of other groups".

mimosveta is the nick. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimosveta (talk • contribs) 13:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. The "homo" (same) part refers to sexuality between two of the same. Thus, homosexuality. Homo does in fact mean "same" in Greek. Homo, hominis m/f does in fact mean "man" in Latin. However, that's a different thing altogether. tl;dr Homophobia: Fear of homosexuals.  Esper  rant  04:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you are wrong, but who cares really. It want be first wrong information on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.220.211 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No, Esper is right. Just Google "etymology of homosexual". It's a Greek root meaning "same," just as the Greek root "hetero" (="different") is used in "heterosexual" (="those who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex"). The same pair of Greek roots is used in the words "homogeneous" and "heterogeneous". The "homo" in these words is *not* derived from the Latin root meaning "man" (used in the term "Homo Sapien" - "wise man" - for example.) StrangeAttractor (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The origin of the word, coinage, etc. as listed here is incorrect. See the Oxford English Dictionary: "Fear of men, or aversion towards the male sex; also, fear of mankind, anthropophobia. 1920 Chambers's Jrnl. 5 June 418/1 Her salient characteristic was a contempt for the male sex as represented in the human biped... The seeds of homophobia had been sown early. 1960 T. KORA in Koestler's Lotus & Robot II. 213 Of nervosity symptoms, homophobia appears most frequently. In this is included fear of blushing when appearing before a person, or erythrophobia, feeling of getting stiff or oppressed before an individual".
The word was coined well before the 1970's, and was originally intended to mean "fear of men", or "fear of embarrassment in front of people". At a minimum, the credit for coinage needs to amended.Pernoctus (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, androphobia is generally taken to mean fear of men these days (androphilia the love of men, misandry hatred of men). Do you have a source for the earlier usage? It should be noted in the etymology section.The lede, however, needs to reflect the current use, and it is not etymologically correct to say that the 'homo' part is derived from the Greek for 'the same', but is derived from an abrreviated form of 'homosexual' (as with the derogatory slang term 'homo', meaning homosexual). As per the source cited in the etymology section and here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm Mish (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Toilet-papered Asbury House

Is there any source claiming that this house was toilet-papered specifically as an act of homophobia? Just because someone's house was toilet-papered, and they happen to have a rainbow flag on the porch, it doesn't follow that that was specifically an act of homophobia. The original Flickr description suggests that "halfway to Halloween" was the reason the house was TP'd. I propose to get rid of that picture from the article -- it doesn't add much anyways. Alg8662 (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% CTJF83Talk 06:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agree and think the picture of Benjamin Phelps is unambiguously an example of homophobia and thus superior. CopaceticThought (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

reorder sections

Criticism of term needs to come after the classification section. The critcism antedates the usage, so needs to follow details about the way it is used. Otherwise the criticism serves to pre-judge how it is used - its current location suggests not a NPOV. It has to serve as the antithesis to what comes before it, but what it is an antithesis of follows it. 'Criticism of the term' is 'predominantly criticism of the use of the term', were it confined to criticism of the term, then it would be OK after the Etymology section. Mish (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I happened by and marvelled at the poor structure of the whole article. Needs a fairly radical revision, IMO. Rd232 talk 17:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Holocaust Article

The Wikipedia Holocaust article has changed. Gay men are now at the bottom of the page and they are "sometimes" Holocaust victims. They were Holocaust victims, the page is homophobic--170.170.59.138 (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It must have been reverted. The article seems fine now. Henrymrx (t·c) 16:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Focus on actual homophobia, not discrimination

The current state of the article is too focused on discrimination and similar issues. This misses the core of homophobia: _Fear_ of homosexuals. (Similarly, a discussion of racism should not have its main focus on discrimination, which is merely an accompanying phenomenon.)

To use myself as a specific example: I have nothing agaist homosexuals, do not discriminate in anyway, nor really care about sexual orientation (as I can testify based on several openly homosexual acquaintances). However, my immediate reaction to men that _look_ homosexual, show even mildly flirty behaviour towards me, or similar, is one of severe nervousness (not, in my case, full-blown fear) and a wish to keep a distance---almost to the point of school-yard ``cooties avoidance. (This effect is, fortunately, very short-term and soon fades out.)

This an example of classic (mild) homophobia. Hatred of and discrimination against gays is a separate issue, which may or may not have its root in homophobia (depending on the individual). In particular, an opposition to e.g. same-sex marriages need not be related at all, but could have its root in religious views. 88.77.146.155 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fear of homosexuals" is not the only meaning of "homophobia"; it also covers discrimination and hatred. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


The inclusion of hatred can be justified in a wider sense (although I would prefer a limit to fear); however, discrimination is a different topic. There is very unfortunate tendency, in particular in the US, to abuse terms like e.g. "racism", "sexism", etc. to include discrimination. This is simply not correct, and, as contributors to an encyclopedia, we should strive to be correct in this regard.

(From briefly reviewing the current article, it seems to have improved in the mean time; while not necessarily being perfect.) 94.220.242.34 (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

a section for notable homophobes?

Somehow, this article needs to include people such as Noel Pemberton Billing, the British member of parliament who campaigned against gay men and lesbians during and after WWI. Is it worth having a section, placing the individuals more in context than a list would? If you haven't heard of MP NPB, you are in for a treat:

... the Germans were blackmailing "47,000 highly placed British perverts"[1] to "propagate evils which all decent men thought had perished in Sodom and Lesbia." The names were said to be inscribed in the "Berlin Black Book" of the "Mbret of Albania". The contents of this book revealed that the Germans planned on "exterminating the manhood of Britain" by luring men into homosexual acts. "Even to loiter in the streets was not immune. Meretricious agents of the Kaiser were stationed at such places as Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner. In this black book of sin details were given of the unnatural defloration of children...wives of men in supreme positions were entangled. In Lesbian ecstasy the most sacred secrets of the state were threatened".[2]

There was a scandalous trial, about which a book was written in 1999: Oscar Wilde's Last Stand: Decadence, Conspiracy, and the Most Outrageous Trial of the Century by Philip Hoare. He set the tone for homophobia in Britain (and thus the British Empire) in the early C20. I invite someone active in editing this article to include him, alone or with other notable homophobes, as the consensus sees fit. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please no. Notable individuals can be given in the article prose as befits their impact on the subject. A separate section is just inviting trouble. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, this about homophobia, not homophobes, it needs to be in that context, or a different article about historic homophobes. If you can accurately insert the word 'homophobia' or 'homophobic; in his biography, which entails there being reliable sourcing that shows clearly he was/is well known for this, then the biography can be tagged under the homophobia. Mish (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the section "Contemporary death penalty" off-topic?

The section Contemporary death penalty appears completely off-topic and does not mention homophobia anywhere. This section is actually about the legality of homosexuality, human rights and capital punishment and would be better placed with any of those topics. Would anyone like to make the case for it being re-written to explain how having the death penalty for homosexuals in any particular country might be called "homophobia" or shall I go ahead and delete it as unjustifiably off-topic?—Teahot (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have edited this, as some of the materail was off-topic for the section, and as you say it was not clear why it should be there. I have provided a source that describes this as homophobia, and modified the first paragraph accordingly. Mish (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Prompt re-write with a good source. Though the association seems weak, it probably is sufficient.—Teahot (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-pederasty

Does anti-pederasty count as a form of homophobic propaganda ? I think that there are some people who are able to tolerate homosexuals but who are nevertheless intolerant of pederasty. ADM (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Presumably you mean focusing on pederasty as a form of homosexuality as a way of inciting hatred against any people who are homosexual? Mish (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Please present reliable sources before we entertain this line of original research. -- Banjeboi 01:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Forum text removed

Duplicated/forum text removed, see diff, in accordance with WP:Prune and WP:FORUM.—Teahot (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

'homosexuals', heterosexuals', 'homophobes', etc.

I have edited these references, as using terms such as these as nouns is deprecated WP:MOS#Identity, [1], [2], [3], [4], 'Gayle' p.4, etc. Mish (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Coined when?

This artice attributes it to: "George Weinberg coined the term homophobia in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual". French version says (translated): "From the English homophobia, neologism, first appeared in 1971 in Homophobia: a tentative personality profile by psychologist Kenneth Smith". Umm, someone toss a coin please :-) --SeeFood (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My book, translated from French, says 1971 as well. Not had time, as I need to check who it credits coinage to in 1971. Will look at it when have time. Mish (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the lede and the entry to 1971 by Kenneth Smith. I have searched on Scholar, and there are quite a few papers that cite Smith's 1971 paper as well - so looks like Smith started of the development that led to the current usage, not Weinberg. Mish (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

---The word is used in a Time Magazine article of 1969 - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,839116-2,00.html - I am not quite sure how to add this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.111.66 (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - this ought to be mentioned, as it predates 1971, although it is not stated where they got the term from, the way it is used, it is used in a way that suggests people reading it then would have known what it meant (as the term is used in a way that gives no explanation of it). Mish (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The word is used in two short stories by Ellery Queen published in 1939, although the meaning was not the current meaning of the term. In "Long Shot", published in "Blue Book of Fiction and Adventure" Sep 1939, the text says "Mr. Queen had cured Miss Paris of homophobia, or morbid fear of crowds,...". In "Trojan Horse", published in "Blue Book of Fiction and Adventure" Dec 1939, the text says "...Miss Paris had been suffering from homophobia, or morbid fear of man; she had been so terrified of crowds that...". I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how to treat this. [3] Truthskr (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The "irrational" element

If homophobia is "irrational" fear or aversion towards gays, what is the name for a RATIONAL fear or aversion towards them?

Secondly, how would one classify heterosexual attraction? Is it rational or irrational? Can it be either way or both at the same time?

I mean I can accept the fact that I'm homophobic, but I like to consider myself relatively rational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.231.86 (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrationality is one part of the definition. I am sure you can believe you have rational reasons for being homophobic. Mish (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion- Religious Homophobia Section

I know there is a pic of the Westboro Baptist Church and the link to the "Religion and homosexuality" page, however this section is practically blank. Does anyone fancy writing a short summary for it, whilst keeping the link to the Religion and Homosexuality page for extra info? Fitz05 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See also section

I tried to remove entries already listed and some others. Can duplicate links be removed and others worked into the article or explaination for their inclusion given? TIA --Tom (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

discriminatory biased applied in the article.

i have made an alteration to the introduction of the homosexuality article.

you will notice, that when taking an unbiased view of homophobia, ie treating it respectively as a medical condition, much of the content of the page is not actually homophobic in any regard.

it is in this regard that the article has selectively and subversively been both sourced and discussed such as to oppress people who suffer a medical condition, and to smear pro-homosexual conotations by angelification of homosexuality throughout the article, and similarly demonisation of 'anti-homosexual activism' (which has existed for as long as homosexuality has!).

homophobia is a medical condition, and is not equivalent to racial prejudist.

a heterosexual is not typically afraid that a homosexual can perform better than them as a human being, they are afraid of being assaulted by a homosexual. this stands for both heterosexuals that are male and female, with respect to same sexed individuals of the homosexual persuation.

anti-homosexual activists are merely heterosexuals who by definition of the ideology ARE INVARIABLY ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL. to do so in a hateful manner is wrong, much as it is wrong for homosexuals to incite such hatred (in return, or causally) in articles like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daenumen (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


it should also be noted that it is likely homophobia that results in many homosexuals not admitting their homosexual identity such as in the surveys regarding prevelance of homosexuality, ie the individuals ARE AFRAID of being homosexuals. Daenumen (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daenumen, what should be noted is that two other editors are against your addition of this information for a variety of reasons as we gave above, yet, you have added it anyway without trying to work towards a consensus. I'd suggest that you do not do so again without first reaching a consensus on what should be included (if any of it), how it should be included, and that proper citations (deemed by Wikipedia standards and consensus) are included. In other articles, failure to adhere to consensus, or blatant disregard for ongoing discussions on disputed edits, has resulted in administrator intervention. I for one, would prefer to engage in an ongoing discussion here, come to a consensus, and proceed from there. I am hoping that you will decide you too are willing to go the proper route and work towards that consensus.
Now, on to the topic at hand. What you wrote is extremely one sided, speaks of personal experiences (not necessarily yours - but someone's) in a way that indicates it is both the majority and only valid viewpoint, and is worded in a way that indicates it is the only reason for homophobia. That is clearly wrong, and clearly a wrong way of writing such things. Items in an article can indeed indicate controversial and opposing viewpoints, but each must be given weight - and in a way where it does not dismiss the entirety of the rest of the article (unlike what your submission did). The way the text of your edit is written (assuming it was valid - which it is not validly written), the entire rest of the article can simply be removed since your addition pretty much flat out says the rest of the article is garbage and wrong. Inotherwords, your addition includes too many bias words and phrases, and too many statements indicative that such a point of view is fact - and the only factual answer (as opposed to another theory or point of view that is not mutually exclusive of the rest of the article). In that alone, your addition is improperly worded. The length of the addition also gives undue weight to what is either a minority position, or one held solely by a few individuals or biased groups promoting an agenda. That too is an incorrect way of making an addition. Additions should be balanced, not based on minority bias, and not give undue weight to a viewpoint held in the tiny minority (much less one held by those with an agenda to push).
Hope that helps explain my issues with your addition. As a related note, continued attempts to add such information without ALL of the following being true, will result in it being reverted, and possibly this issue being brought up for Administrator attention: (1) proper citations from unbiased sources, (2) proper wording that does not discredit or negate the entire rest of the article, (3) proper weight being given to this minority position/viewpoint, (4) a consensus being reach (and followed) on how this should be included (if at all) and what parts of it (if any) should be included.
That's not some odd, made-up ultimatum on my part. It's simply Wikipedia policy. Your edit and the citations you gave are all in dispute. Please follow proper procedures to resolve that before adding it again (and then follow proper procedures in adding only what consensus has determined is appropriate).
Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 18:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the use is trying to "neutralize" the article, by adding blatantly anti-LGBT additions, which does nothing for neutrality...I'm also starting to smell out a sockpuppet, namely good ol' BJ, being this user is disrupting LGBT articles days after creation. CTJF83 chat 18:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
okay... then:
1. there are 5 or 6 external references. all sources are always biased; some less than others, some negligably so (this is a fact). what is wrong with the sources? are the other sources on the article better than those provided in all cases? i do not believe they are.
2. the content is 'additional' and does not discredit the other work. i have highlighted as a seperate issue that some of the rest of the article is supported by bad sources, and other parts are exclusively worded to insinuate that homosexuals are the only people that suffer adversely from homophobia, which is clearly not the case from a medical nor logical standpoint.
3. proper weight? it is root cause of all homophobia, can result in hate crimes, and also defines homophobia in homosexuals as a fear of being associated with homosexuality.
4. ctjf83 said he had absolutely no problem with the addition of the material with proper references. i have followed wikipedia referencing guidlines.
so now what do you propose? i have not even had any reasons given as to which respect the references are not acceptable as you both believe, which part of the policy is being violated?. Daenumen (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
My comments:
1. there are 5 or 6 external references. all sources are always biased; some less than others, some negligably so (this is a fact). what is wrong with the sources? are the other sources on the article better than those provided in all cases? i do not believe they are.
The opinion of the source is not at issue. The agenda of the sources are. The sources specifically attempt to promote an agenda, which makes them unreliable sources.
2. the content is 'additional' and does not discredit the other work. i have highlighted as a seperate issue that some of the rest of the article is supported by bad sources, and other parts are exclusively worded to insinuate that homosexuals are the only people that suffer adversely from homophobia, which is clearly not the case from a medical nor logical standpoint.
The wording does. The content is not being disputed.
3. proper weight? it is root cause of all homophobia, can result in hate crimes, and also defines homophobia in homosexuals as a fear of being associated with homosexuality.
Numerous (as in virtually all) (recognized as) medical sources disagree. Thus, this statement is irrelevant. ALL court systems in this country in every case in the last ten years or more similarly is in contradiction with this speculation and the "medical condition" part. Thus again, this warrants a lot less weight that the prevalent opinions and medical facts.
4. ctjf83 said he had absolutely no problem with the addition of the material with proper references. i have followed wikipedia referencing guidlines.
I have said the same thing, assuming the other issues I noted are resolved as well.
so now what do you propose? i have not even had any reasons given as to which respect the references are not acceptable as you both believe, which part of the policy is being violated?.
WP:NPOV and WP:OR and others I have mentioned (biased references from sites promoting an agenda, no credible medical references for the medical claims, inflammatory wording, undue weight to a vastly minority "opinion" - to name a few).
RobertMfromLI | User Talk 00:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


Here's one example of the bias that you yourself are trying to introduce. You earlier on this page said: "WHICH FOR A HOMOPHOBIC PERSON IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION IN WHICH THEY ARE PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY TERRIFIED OF HOMOSEXUALS TYPICALLY BECAUSE OF HOMOSEXUAL RAPE."
You have no supporting facts, homosexual rape is ridiculously minimal, and the vast majority of those studied on this matter reference religious beliefs or societal beliefs - NOT rape.
Also, ANY mental condition (such as happiness) can be called a "psychological condition" - but that is far different from a "psychological disorder" or "mental disorder"
Additionally, you said "ie the individuals ARE AFRAID of being homosexuals." - most homosexuals are afraid of the social stigma, violence and discrimination related to being homosexual (see this article and the one on homosexuality for numerous references) - and NOT afraid of being homosexual. Like most other people, they just wish to be themselves with no fear of repercussions for that.
RobertMfromLI | User Talk 00:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

1. a source promotes an agenda?! well yes, any result that suggests a skew, ie an unfair die that is twice as likely to role a 6 than any other number will promote an outcome wouldnt it? THIS IS NOT PART OF WIKI GUIDLINES!!!

2. the wording defines the content. its called 'grammar'. if the content is fine, so too are the words!

3. you actually believe that no-one accepts people to become afraid of something after being abused???? do you realise how rediculous you sound claiming that 'fear is not a response'?

4. so it seems its the sources, and 'the relationship between wording and content', that you believe should alter. let me put the second point to you like this:

'I have 5 apples and i will take them to market'

how can one alter the wording without changing the content or vice verse? as an intelligent adult id like an answer.

inflammatory wording? against homophobia? show me. and if you like ill show you all the anti-heterosexual hate speech in the article too.

it is A FEAR OF BEING ASSAULTED, IE RAPED: it is a clarification of 'what' homophobia entails. (how can you be so hypocritical? do you not believe homosexuality should be better understood? then so too should homophobia!)

the documented cases of homosexual rape are low yes. how many straight men, or even homosexual men, will come forward over being raped, when they are HOMOPHOBIC????

your argument and disagreement with the addition is PURELY OPPRESSIVE.

no, this is where you are wrong:

exactly, and social stigma is something you have to face when you 'are' anything. if you are a man, you are treated as a man, if you are a woman you are treated as a woman! if you are a fish you are treated as a fish! if you are a fish and start walking, people are certainly going to react to that! heterosexual society must and always founds homosexual society. ie homosexual society is a sub-group of heterosexual society (where it must be as true for a homosexual man to be arroused by women, as a heterosexual man to be arroused by men, unless there is bias in the article).

a homosexual is afraid of being a homosexual BECAUSE of social stigma whatever else.

fear of social stimga is an irrational fear (unless stimga has become non-sensical), as there is stimga associated with anything that is out of the ordinary. its equivalent to attempting to argue ' im afraid of punishment, because of punishment' it doesnt make sense; it does make sense to say 'im afraid of committing crime, because of punishment'.

i shouldnt have to teach you grammar.

and again, you are simply angelifying homosexuality. homophobia is by definition a fear of things associated with homosexuality! homosexuality is the cause of this phobia, and it is the cause of the reactions it recieves. (unless you propose some other causal mechanism, other than cause and effect?)

Daenumen (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's go into more detail:

You site this reference re rape: http://sexualviolence.uchicago.edu/daterape.shtml

Not just is it an invalid reference (it is not written by a recognized medical authority), it is entirely irrelevant to the claim you make. In addition, the premise you are trying to push would then also indicate that straight rape (being many more times that of gay rape) would cause heterophobia in an equally large amount, making a very large portion of the straight population fear other straight people. Additionally, it NEVER references homophobia, meaning that addition is your own original research and conclusions which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

And these: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php and http://www.frc.org/human-sexuality#homosexuality

Those sites are not a valid reference in any form you are using it. It is a site solely devoted to pushing it's agenda.

That leaves no citations except incorrectly cited Wikipedia articles.

On a side note, Timothy J. Dailey seems to contribute near exclusively to those two sites, and all of his content shares the same biases. Additionally, I cannot find anywhere what his PHD is for, thus there is no way to determine if he is even qualified to discuss this topic or be used as a valid source.

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 00:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

with respect to the reference

it is a respected source, and provides verification of a university that is aware of such incidents occuring and the mechanism for the aquaintance rape, the difference to date rape, and that is what is reflected in the addition i have suggested.

it also relates homophobic reactions to the events, and that includes the individual themselves (post traumatic stress) as i highlighted with wiki tertiary sources.

no, its just described as a fear of men/women in social or relational circumstances, since there is no homosexual element involved. yes you could call it heterophobia, however, the individuals are afraid of being heterosexual, they are afraid of being raped by a heterosexual. the difference for homosexuality is that it is not 'normal sex' ie typically involves a non-sexual organ, that would not be used for anything other than defecation by an innocent, eg a baby (where as mouths and hands are used for mulitple things).

its true, young men are attractive to homosexuals, just like young women are attractive to older men. if you want to deny this, we might aswell ignore the noses on our faces!

alot of child abuse is homosexual, and will lead in many cases to resentment and fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. and yes, undoubtedly it will lead to many young people growing up into homosexuals also (that are 'prideful' or 'afraid of admitting it').

it is important to keep the article neutral. a good historian looks at sources from both sides, compiles a balanced discussion and clarifies the details in the opening. all sources are bias either for homosexuality or against. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NEUTRAL SOURCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (unless you can prove one....?)

it is also defining of the view that many homophobic and anti-homosexuals hold. if you are permitting to post a picture of an individual being 'anti-homosexual' and link hate crime then to all homophobia (or at least the majority, looking through the sections), WHY CAN THE COMPLETIVE DESCRIPTION OF HOMOPHOBIA NOT BE DRAWN????

no one (except homosexuals), want to look up homophobia to be shown that they are 'wrong for believing in heterosexuality'. its just nonsense! homosexuals must appreciate that heterosexuality is what put them on the earth! and heterosexuals REPRESENT THE MAJORITY WHO SUFFER FROM HOMOPHOBIA!!!!!!!

if the discussion is only to be held from a homosexual view point, then SURELY homophobics should be 'imprisioned' or 'institutionalised'?

ill put the wiki links as hyperlinks.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=by03e02 he may have a theological background, but that does not undermine his works validity:

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.htm

if the article was written by a 'homosexual satan worshipper' (for example), would it then be acceptable? BECAUSE AT THE MOMENT IT SOUNDS LIKE PREJUDICE!!!

i do not agree that the way you are picking apart the addition is in agreement with wiki-guidelines (or even logical/sensible)

Daenumen (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


i think you are right, there is a slight discrepency namely:

in a homosexual sexual interaction: a passive male partner is not actually engaging in sexual intercourse, neither is the active partner necessarily in the female case.

the phobia is perhaps more correctly understood to be one of greivous or actual bodily harm, as opposed to sex iteself, but it does help to clear up the issue between homophobia and heterophobia, as a result of rape.

Daenumen (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

we can appreciate this further, if you liken humans to other apes, by gorillas which perform homosexual acts as a reward for subordiance. of course we are not gorillas and neither are we promoting oppression, however we should be aware of bias in this data also namely:

  • the gorillas are interacting with humans
  • the gorillas are being killed by poachers in traps
  • the gorillas are not 'free': certain areas of land are inhabited and 'owned' by humans.

this is OF COURSE NOT TO SAY HOMOSEXUALITY DOESNT EXIST, neither do i have any right to absolutely define that homosexuality is 'WRONG'. on a theological basis however, there is an absolute that can define absolutes, and in this regard it is considered wrong. we should also not be unmindful of that. We should be aware also that without being able to define an absolute (by definition) that we similarly cannot also say that homosexuality is 'RIGHT'. Daenumen (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

you could also consider the 'right to freewill', and also without belief in god that there is no right or wrong answer, though this is of more of a contemplatory nature, and straying a little too far from the topic.Daenumen (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

i should make clear that there is nothing wrong with being happy.

part of homophobia, and this is largely linked to name calling and bullying in schools, is that there are certain mannerisms that have come to be associated with homosexuality. people who display these mannerisms, regardless of sexuality, are 'deemed' homosexual, because of such links that have been made. the links themselves are associations with the homosexual community (eg rainbows, 'dazzling' parades, etc), please be aware i am not refering to these things in a derogatory way, however everyone does make such associations and do apply them as defining characteristics of homosexuals (yes, its an ignorance). the back lash is that it 'cuts out' or detracts certain features that should be acceptible in heterosexual society, and this is where many anti-homosexual activists and pro-heterosexual activists are inclined to speak out.

although homosexuals also do associate with them, a hippy for example might be equally likely, even as a heterosexual, to wish to wear rainbow colours, even 'josephs technicolour dream coat' highlights this. (religion is not oppressive except when used by people to that ends, and that is sinful, slaves are to be treated with respect, and as a christian 'love' and emulation of Jesus should be their first approach. likewise the existence of homosexuality as a phenomena is also not debateable in this same light).

this of course is then a social stigma that is inspired by homosexuality being formally or informally associated with symbols and mannerisms. If there is no specific marker that generally all individuals can attribute to homosexuality, there is also a fear, as i have discussed, of having some form of homosexual act being invisiaged or enacted upon them. not to say all heterosexuals are homophobes! (but there is somewhat a catch 22, in order for the homosexual community to exist, everyone must accept it, regardless of whether or not they agree to, appreciate, or even accept homosexuality. this simply isnt feasible for the forseeable future, and neither should it be the concern of this article).

the very existence of a 'homosexual community' is at the very root of homophobia ie a fear pertaining to 'homosexuality', and invariably different individuals will be more or less afraid of different elements (eg association via symbols or manerisms, homosexual acts, grievous or actual harm, etc etc).

the addition, i accept may not be perfect, is certainly controversial, though it represents an approach to defining the cause of homophobia. that Homphobia is largely a psychological reaction that can manifest itself verbally, physically, and/or psychologically; as with the most severe cases.

some homosexual individuals are aware of that, and are 'fighting back' (i believe that the current article is targetted at this form of hate crime by focusing specifically on 'Homophobia as viewed from the sufferage of homosexuals'), against a people who are largely afraid of homosexuality in respect to what it may do to themselves or to their community.

Again, this is also not to criminalise homosexuality, that is societies choice as a whole as to what degree they wish to permit homosexuality to be publicly accessible. AND NEITHER is it to criminalise anti-homosexual activists, or pro-heterosexual activists.

We must realise that happiness is not confined to sexuality, neither should people take it upon themselves to enact hatecrimes. It is however important to realise where the happiness and completion of peoples lives in their communities are being infringed upon by such socially inevitable stigma, and where this is also effecting the persons own well being, hence: homophobia. (unless you want to destroy religion, alter heterosexuality(?), etc etc; which is an infringement on alot of people).

Daenumen (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

NB: slavery, when applied in a non-oppressive and respectful way, COULD for example be used with regards refugees, where people would be provided a roof, food, clothes, and asked to do work as payment. (just an idea, and to clarify that it is the viewpoint of 'innocence' that should be appreciated). (off topic i know, but i thought i should make myself clear before i get hatespeech retaliation for my comment).Daenumen (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

humans are always humans.Daenumen (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)



I'm almost ready to give up, because you are not listening. One more try, then you get a "No" vote from myself, one other editor, and (IIUC) one admin as well. But here goes:

1. a source promotes an agenda?! well yes, any result that suggests a skew, ie an unfair die that is twice as likely to role a 6 than any other number will promote an outcome wouldnt it?

Their agenda is to push homophobia as a problem on those who are gay. Additionally, their agenda is to push homosexuals as the worst kind of sinners. Their agenda is to criminilize homosexuals to decriminilize their discriminatory behavior and beliefs. Everything written there is thus biased against anyone who is not straight and based on their agendas.

THIS IS NOT PART OF WIKI GUIDLINES!!!

Actually, it is. The source is not reliable as it is biased and agenda pushing. Stop arguing this. You are wrong. Read up on what reliable sources are. Read up on WP:NPOV as well.

2. the wording defines the content. its called 'grammar'. if the content is fine, so too are the words!

Wrong. It is not that simple. The wording does far more than define the content. Would you like a dozen other editors to tell you that, or would you prefer to read up on it on your own to see that I am correct?

3. you actually believe that no-one accepts people to become afraid of something after being abused???? do you realise how rediculous you sound claiming that 'fear is not a response'?

Actually, I stated that they are in the VAST minority and should be given due weight based on that. Every true medical study disagrees with your premise.

4. so it seems its the sources, and 'the relationship between wording and content', that you believe should alter. let me put the second point to you like this:
'I have 5 apples and i will take them to market'
how can one alter the wording without changing the content or vice verse? as an intelligent adult id like an answer.

Dont boil down multiple paragraphs into a one sentence parallel. Even with that example, I could turn it into something improperly worded (for Wikipedia) and yet keep the meaning intact. "I have five delicious apples and I will take them to that massive market" <-- not includable in Wikipedia as it cites an opinion that isn't even based on fact - apple owner hasnt tasted those apples, so doesnt truly know, nothing specifies apple owner's knowledge and expertise about apples, no verifiable, reliable, expert, third party source was given to corroborate his statement indicating the apples are indeed delicious. Get it?

inflammatory wording? against homophobia? show me. and if you like ill show you all the anti-heterosexual hate speech in the article too.


There is no anti-heterosexual hate speech in the article. Numerous editors and admins have been over it multiple times.

it is A FEAR OF BEING ASSAULTED, IE RAPED: it is a clarification of 'what' homophobia entails. (how can you be so hypocritical? do you not believe homosexuality should be better understood? then so too should homophobia!)

No. YOU believe that is what it is. The VERY BIASED, AGENDA PUSHING references you linked to claim it is. On that note, you CANNOT use Dailey's thoughts on the matter as a citation, as NOWHERE is it indicated that he is an authority on anything - much less anything related to this. What is his PhD in? And find me a verifiable source for that answer. That he has a PhD means nothing. That he writes for these agenda pushing sites regularly, OTOH, means all his writings are suspect; especially the ones on those agenda pushing sites.

the documented cases of homosexual rape are low yes. how many straight men, or even homosexual men, will come forward over being raped, when they are HOMOPHOBIC????

Isnt this cyclic reasoning? Or are you back to claiming that their homophobia was created by their rape? Even if that is what you are still claiming, fact is, as EVEN YOU agreed to, the documented cases are very low. Key word in that sentence is "documented" - much as the documented case of spousal heterosexual (or physical) abuse is a lot lower than the reality. But this is Wikipedia, and one can not speculate or add their own original research. It's not documented on a verifiable, reliable source - it's not inclusion worthy. Wikipedia is NOT about original research or your speculations. Period. Full stop.

Since all you want to do is push your poorly written POV into the article as-is, without finding reliable, verifiable, valid sources, and are not willing to address these issues, my answer is now a definite NO, it will NOT be included. You now have 3 editors, and probably at least one admin who feel the same.

I didnt have to take the time to try to help you make it Wikipedia ready - but I did. You are ignoring every VALID point I have made, and in doing so are proving (or so it seems) that you dont care about anything except pushing an agenda. I've tried assuming good faith and tried working with you.

So, at this time, if you are not willing to work to make your addition suited to Wikipedia, then it will not go in. If you put it in, I will revert it. If you do so again, I will revert it and bring you (and it) to administrator attention. OR you can stop, read what I said, truly read and understand Wikipedia Rules and Guidelines, and we can revisit this and I will try to help you make it Wikipedia worthy. OR you can simply give up on ever including this into the article. OR you can hope you get enough people for a consensus, but as you have seen in the last few days, that isnt going to happen. Those are your four choices. There are NO other choices.

Let me know what you decide. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 18:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to back up RobertMfromLI here. Furthermore, Daenumen, you seem to be confused about the definition of Homophobia. I won't go into it now as it's been previously discussed here at great length. You can search the archives for the phrase "etymology is not meaning" and that should enlighten you. That is, of course, if you want to be enlightened. Henrymrx (t·c) 18:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Random Break

1. yes the agenda of the article is to highlight THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT ANGELS! that they too are in part responsible for homophobia. even from the most basic view: homosexuality is required to be homophobic, you have to accept this.

the citations simply relate crime to homosexuals by reference to published governing bodies data. it is not to say homosexuals are the worst kind, this is your bias of interpretation, and by no means is it a justification of crime. the articles content is of THE WRONGFULNESS OF CRIME!!! the information clearly also describes that heterosexuals also commit crime, (why are you being so purposefully ignorant of reality?), the statistical data does present a grounds for further education. the data presented does show a disproportionate distribution of certain crimes in relation to certain communities. WHY ARE YOU SO INTENT ON ANGELIFYING HOMOSEXUALITY??? THIS IS A HOMOPHOBIA DISCUSSION! you are right, infact you are in direct contradiction to wiki guidelines.

" verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

"This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question."

"The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. An article and its sub-articles should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view."

"Personal and group blogs are largely not acceptable as sources; "

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"

"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications."

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable."

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources."

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

in all these regards my addition is acceptable, your comments, and the current homophobia article are not.

2. wording contains the information of a text. the information that is contained by and defined by wording is the content.

3. you are not allowed to omit a view based on percieved frequency (see guideline quotes above). in all the sources they appreciate that people are unlikely to come forward based on the nature of the assault. if events did not effect latent psychology, psychology would be a far quieter field.

4. as long as you have a source that agrees that apples are delicious, and that markets are massive, there should be no objection. (guidelines verifiability not truth). however, using the example i provided 'i have 5 apples and i will take them to market' is a primary source in itself.

so you believe that homophobia ONLY EXISTS as an irrational fear of a 'homosexual' for no other reason than that individual liking OTHER PEOPLE of the same sex, to engage in sexual/romantic affairs with? and that in itself bares no relation to the individual that is afraid of the homosexual??????? are you mental?

i have both stated and linked to the profile describing his qualifications and fields of research.

again, the agenda souly exists in your minds, ie that 'homosexuals cannot commit crime'.

i explained that homophobia is in part a fear due to physical assault, association, social stigma, etc etc. you are attempting to 'selectively omit' one mechanism, ie you are editorially biasing the article on homosexuality.

the infrequency of documented cases doesnt justify it being discarded. that is called prejudice.

the sources i provide show that the discussion is not original research.

"reliable, verifiable, valid sources," all criteria are met please see above for the repsective guidline quotes.

you have only been resentful of any addition that could 'relate homosexuals to being able to commit crime' despite numerous official bodies also appreciating that this is not the case.

why are you not working to resolve the issues i have raised with the current article, and i have noted several in the guideline quotations, and stated them several times in our discussions?


TO HENRYMRX : i am well aware of the difference between etymology and meaning, ie homo-phobia would be 'a fear of the same type' or of a 'standard', where as the definition and meaning of the word is in relation to homo-sexual(ity) - phobia, ie a fear of : homosexuals, homosexuality, homosexual community, homosexual symbols, homosexual acts, EVERYTHING HOMOSEXUAL, etc etc.Daenumen (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Again, you've got the meaning wrong. Check your sources again. It's not actually a phobia. Henrymrx (t·c) 13:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Let me try to explain this one more time. I am pretty sure absolutely no one (other editors, correct me if I am mis-speaking on your behalf) cares (in regards to including it in the article) what the heck premise you are trying to make - whether we disagree with it or not. We care whether there are reputable sources stating the SAME thing, the weight the addition is given (a minority position CANNOT be the same length as the entire rest of the article), the wording used, the removal of bias, and the removal of your POV from it. THAT is what we care about.
We do NOT want to see you keep on posting what you think victimized homophobia is about over and over again. We want you to FIX the potential addition, reach a consensus on it, provide accurate citations before it's inclusion. PERIOD. Please do NOT keep posting your explanation of what vicitimized homophobia is here. We honestly dont care - we read it the first 4 times you posted it. That is NOT what this discussion is about.
I have reviewed your proposed addition one more time, and NOT A SINGLE citation is valid or validly used. NONE.
Here's an example of the (assuming good faith) mistake you keep making. Let's say I write an article saying "The sky appears blue because when sunlight is refracted through the water molecules in the atmosphere, the blue wavelength is reflected to our eyes" (cite). Let's say that the (cite) tag there goes to a reference on the color blue... "blue is on the cooler end of the spectrum of light visible to the human eye..." - and let's assume that there are NO other problems with my reference (valid source, author is an expert in his field, etc). Do you see the problem? The premise in my sentence is "why does the sky appear to be blue" - thus my citation is WRONGLY used. My citation simply explains what the color blue is. It does not explain why the sky is blue or support that statement in any way. The citation is thus improperly used - just like your link (to an otherwise invalid - ie: not medical experts - reference) to the college page. You were discussing the prevalance of homosexual rape causing homophobia and reference a help page on date rape that does not discuss anything in your premise except that date rape exists. WRONG. You need a valid citation showing a high prevalance of homosexual rape and ANOTHER citation (if not covered in the original) showing how that makes heterosexuals into homophobes. You have NO valid citations stating that. THAT is a BIG problem since it is the ENTIRE premise of your addition.
And that is the exact thing you are doing - repeatedly. Not citing the premise of anything you are discussing, picking invalid references (none experts in the field) and so on. That invalidates ALL of your citations.
Next, you repeatedly discuss this as a medical condition (as in medical disorder), yet you do not cite a single medical expert in the field. That is NOT permitted. Period. That invalidated the use of those citations.
Next, you discuss medical and psychological matters and cite a religious site. THOSE are not valid citations either. PERIOD.
Next, you (even after admitting earlier that such incidents, per documented proof, are minor) write sentences indicating this is the majority reason for homophobia, such as "It is greatly underappreciated that much homophobia stems from 'heterosexual antagonists' amongst homosexuals, manifesting as psychological bullying of individuals." - Greatly underappreciated by who? Who MUST be a respectable medical authority on the matter, NOT some religious site. PERIOD. You write "MUCH homophobia" - which dismisses the weight of the entire rest of the article, even though you yourself agree that reported cases of such are minimal.
Next, you assume that, because you think this should have greater weight, and because you think such things are underreported, that you can give this claim greater weight. That too is NOT true. If it's not DOCUMENTED, it does NOT matter what you think. Wikipedia is NOT about YOUR original research. If it is not DOCUMENTED by a respected EXPERT in THAT field, it is NOT inclusion worthy, no matter what you think. Quite simply put, what you think is irrelevant. You are NOT a valid source. You cannot use other articles about OTHER topics to justify YOUR beliefs or the beliefs of invalid sources. Nor can you use articles and references about DIFFERENT matters to the PREMISE you are trying to make as a valid source. They are not - just like in my example above.
It's really that simple.
So, please stop disrupting the talk page here, by repeatedly reposting your premise. IF you decide you are ready to discuss what's wrong with your proposed inclusion, come back and talk to us. But, repeating YOUR definition of what victimized homophobia is over and over again, instead of dealing with the issues we presented to you, will get you nowhere. Honestly, it does not matter how many times you repeat yourself - we heard you the first time. Address the issues we have presented, or your inclusion will NOT be allowed.
On a side note, what you describe in your proposed article edit sounds like a different type of psychological disorder. One I hope that if anyone has such, that they will find true, educuated, help (a real psychiatrist) to overcome their problem - and not someone like Dailey who doesnt seem to have any peer reviewed documents (that I could find - via searching 60+ links to his "work") or some religious group claiming to know something amount mental medical conditions.
RobertMfromLI | User Talk 14:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Whether you believe it or not, we are trying to be patient with you. The page itself, at the top, says "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information." yet you made a MAJOR addition, and we assumed good faith, removed it and sent you notes. You read the notes and a warning, and even posted you would not do so again - then made even more edits to the article to try to include the same thing. After being warned multiple times, that borders on vandalism. Yet again, we have tried to assume good faith and have tried to work with you - even after near incivility on your part where another editor had to remind you to be civil. Yet we are still here trying to help you. So, relax, STOP discussing your opinion on what victimized homophobia is, and instead focus on finding valid references as we outlined, then work on revising the article text as we noted above. Instead of reporting you a while back, we're still trying to work with you and get this point through to you. You can either work with us and address the issues to reach a consensus, or give up


Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC).
Apologies, but I feel I must comment on this statement made by Daenumen: "1. yes the agenda of the article is to highlight THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT ANGELS! that they too are in part responsible for homophobia. even from the most basic view: homosexuality is required to be homophobic, you have to accept this."


That statement is offensive and bigoted. By that reasoning, black people were in part responsible for the discrimination and poor treatment against them in the past because they were black. The same would apply to women or any other group ever discriminated against. That is truly barbaric and offensive. Sadly, it seems to be the gist of your proposed article addition "it's their fault really, because they're gay - if they weren't, then homophobia wouldnt exist!" - that's like saying that if Joe wasnt in front of John's gun when Joe aimed it at John and pulled then trigger then Joe wouldnt be dead - so it's really Joe's fault.


At this point, I am revising (and rescinding) my offer to help. With such a hateful bias applied in your reasoning here and in the article, I refuse to work with you, and will not agree to such additions in this or any similar article. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I would support this assesment. I see walls of text, screaming and lots of "forum" type discussion posts. I also saw somebody ask if somebody else was "mental"? From an editor less than a week old, jets better be cooled quickly or this will need to be "escalated". My 2 cents. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I must back up Robert. I see nothing constructive coming from Daenumen, just lots of original research that isn't properly backed up. Please cease and come back when you have sources. Frankly, I doubt you'll actually be able to do that, because you're advocating what appears to be a new theory. If you can back it up with credible research, I would suggest taking it to an academic journal. This isn't the place for that. Henrymrx (t·c) 18:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

-

I think this has gone on for long enough. Daenumen, I suggested you write your additions to a sandbox page and solicit feedback to reach consensus. So far, the consensus has been that your material violates policies regarding original research, reliable sources and not maintaining a neutral point of view]. Suggestions have been given on how to comply with these policies, which you do not appear willing to hear. It also seems to me that discussion has turned away from how to improve the article and towards you defending your additions against what you claim to be unreasonable demands. That is not the purpose of an article's discussion page, and in fact violates talk page guidelines. It might be best if everyone took a time-out. If we cannot come back to this in a few days like educated adults, the next step will be (I think) arbitration. I don't believe that would do you any good, though: the result is typically everyone being told to follow Wikipedia policy, which is all we are asking you to do. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Robert and Tech, no need for us to keep dragging this on, explaining it dozens of times to Daenumen just for him/her to provide the same arguments to keep it in, find us reliable sources, and we can add it to a small section in the article. CTJF83 chat 22:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


---


"ho·mo·pho·bi·a   /ˌhoʊməˈfoʊbiə/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] Show IPA

–noun unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. Use homophobia in a Sentence See images of homophobia Search homophobia on the Web

Origin: 1955–60; homo(sexual) + -phobia"

seems someone doesnt know how to use a dictionary.


there is a lack of coverage, homophobia is likely more prevelant that homosexuality. there is also a homosexual agenda to criminalise all homophobic people (just take a look at wiki homophobia).

the requirements you make, i am discussing, are both contrary to the guidelines (ie your role is not to eliminate points of view, or to comment on truth). i have provided more than enough information that clearly indicate the sources are from a professional academic who has based his research on PUBLISHED OFFICIAL BODIES.

if this is invalid the entire current homophobia article certainly is invalid, as it is largely cited on teritary blogs. (and this is what you are persisting to not listen to).

i have used all citations EXACTLY according to wikiguidelines, policy and requirements for content addition. infact i even cited a selection of them.

no, i used the university site to validate 'aquaintance rape' as both existing (as verified by a respected organisation), and also as the site detailed some of the key principles of its exactment. that is in agreement with wiki guidelines, as the commentary i have presented reflect those same principles.

i have also related the reprocussions of rape, ie mental and physical effects through tertiary sources, hence what i have done is:

validated by secondary source as to the very existence of the phenomena and reputible verification of principles included in discussion now the phenomena is validated as being authentic, and disposing to such principles, the phenomena itself is probed by teritary sources to define the subsequent effects ie PTSD etc etc, ie the phenomena has a relation to mental health, and phobia (be them temporal or long lasting).

i have discussed and raised another source i will add, in our discussions that use the results of published offical bodies to define that 1/3 of all child molestation is performed by 3% of the society ie within the homosexual community.

it is only a wonder to me why you have delayed giving actual help until now wrt the actual difficulties in the sources, as you can see them.

AGAIN, (where did you learn to read??) i have not mentioned 'medical' anywhere in the addition, i am refering to condition as in the 'homophobic' condition, as it is a condition that some people have, both inside and outside of the homosexual community.

its greatly underappreciated by the media (which is pro-homosexuality), by homosexuals (again pro-homosexuality), and the general public, who can only go on what IS PERMITTED BY THESE TWO GROUPS. (again, this is against wiki-guidelines, and you are in breech of them).

its not just 'some religious site' (how can you be so prejudice????), Dailey is a respected and educated academic.

this is not original research, this is a research that is not being permitted to express its view publicly, ie in breech of wiki-guidelines, as it is sourced, and it is known.

the problem is not just documented by professionals in the field, it is widely accepted by such bodies as universities as an issue, that is highly undereported due to the nature and severity of the crimes being commited with respect to the psychological&physical damage that they do.

again, please read more carefully, i have not stated this is a medical condition, i have defined that the condition has psychological and physical reprocussions, as does the antagonism that largely drives such things.

well the problem here is that, if i do what you say:

1. i am changing the article to become pro-homosexuality (ie you are enforcing a breech of wiki policy) 2. i am not helping to provide information for these people. 3. i would then be adding something that is in breech of wiki policy, which i am not about to do.


---

no the statement is not offensive or bigoted, if you are a homosexual, you as much as anyone else should know that homosexuals also commit crimes, infact, in certain regards, like child sex abuse, they are disproportionalty more likely to commit such crimes (on a statistical basis), though this likely means that there are a few individuals who do it repeatedly, rather than suggesting all homosexuals are child abusers.

please dont assume that every heterosexual wants homosexual guts for garters, it just isnt true. (its an illusion of grandeur that you are antagonising with )

believe it or not, certain black people where, you do realise no all slaves were 'caught in big nets', many were sold by emperors into work. so yes, to generalise all black people are angels is simply wrong, they faught back alot aswell, burnt many ships.

nowhere in my addition have i suggested to go out and hurt anyone including people of different races or sexualities, no where. the article is written on a compassionate grounds for people that have been abused and are afraid. im sorry that you cannot empathise with that.

again, racism and homophobia are quite different things, and this is one of the more prominent prejudices that are being used to oppress people WHO ARE IN FEAR. homophobia is a fear, (racism is what you put down on your census), violent racial activism is frowned upon, and has many links with RACIAL PRIDE. familiar?

accidents do happen. both are to blame, john for weilding a gun without caution, and joe for not respecting john for having a gun (not paying attention). it certainly doesnt condone killing, or guns! (your biased at the end, ie what you 'understand' from the information of the circumstance, is YOUR PREJUDICE. a very good example.)


considering i have been incinuated as a hate speecher, liar, idiot, bigot, equivalent to a racist etc etc, you cannot expect to be treated with respect can you? treat those how you expect to be treated? (again our discussions have been proof to the addition i wish to make: there is a huge great deal of pride and prejudice in the homosexual community, both of which are detrimental within the community itself, and for others that should cross paths with it. in the like, much opposition is due. i do not condone violence or hate speech of any description.)

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"

and this particular view, is being ignored.....(despite sufficiently sourced according to citation regulations, and general citation practice, ie there is not a point made in the discussion that is not supported by citation).

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

exactly what i have done......

i have not been expressing personal views, however the moderators have been instigating argument, ie provocatively claiming the addition is wrong, without providing verifiable proof that is reciprocated in the wiki-guidelines.

id rather follow the wiki guidelines, that non-sensical logic, prejudice and bias.

the views expressed in the addition are open, ie do not specificate to one group, and has discussed effects for the wider community.

i believe the main resentment these individuals (whom i am led to believe are primarily homosexuals) are against any reference linking homosexuality and pedophilia, and are effectively breeching international law by assisting pedophilia to remain covert within the homosexual community, and use such terms as homophobia inappropriately (as henry defined above, and no other moderator commented against, and is also included in the article itself), to prevent any attempts at breaking down this organisation for the safety and harmony of the wider community.

i am following wiki guidelines, not prejudice and bias enforcement of specific pro-homosexuality opinions. i have no intention to breech guidelines.

also, i had provided a link to the addition i wished to make, yet you all seem persistent on commenting on this page, if it is a breech of regulation, it was not by my error alone (i am also new to wiki).


thanks Daenumen (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to continue this discussion, please continue it on a special page in your userspace such as User:Daenumen/Homophobia and please don't continue it here.
SINCE you believe we have acted inappropriately, or that our perspective is the one that is biased, (and due to additional points following this) I am asking for administrator review of this matter. At this point, you have made derogatory remarks, made claims against us (of bias, POV pushing and worse), called at the very least me (and possibly others) names, and are ignoring every effort we have made to try to reach a consensus to get whatever valid portion of your contribution included. I will bring this to WP:ANI and allow an admin to review this and provide their input.
Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 13:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC for ongoing debate in this article

Daenumen (first as anon) recently (9/1/2010) added unsourced, POV and OR content to Homophobia without soliciting discussion as requested on talk page. Good faith assumed and msgs left. Editor acknowledged, yet tried again (multiple edits - but we still tried proceeding in good faith) and has initiated a heated conversation on talk page. Daenumen has now made claims of bias and pov pushing against the other editors involved (who had reached a different consensus than him), has (now and earlier) made derogatory remarks, called others names, and refused to accept/discuss or act on any matters we unanimously have brought to his attention. Plz see talk page from link provided to bottom, as well as talk pages of those involved. Warning (and apologies): but this will be a lot of reading.

Outside review of this would be greatly appreciated. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Daenumen, I have decided to bring this to RFC first, to get outside, unbiased review of this. If that does not solve this, end the name calling and disparaging remarks, then we can bring this to WP:ANI. When an item is brought to RFC, random and uninvolved editors will review and comment on the situation. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 14:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary of events not indicated on this Talk Page

Breakdown of issues noted with submitted (and since reverted) revision: User:RobertMfromLI/RFC1 (this is an inclusive summary of the combination of issues noted by multiple editors. Not every editor involved in the consensus may agree with all entries) 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • (09/02/2010-09/03/2010) Anon editor registered an account (Daenumen) and continued trying to make same additions (hence indicating anon and Daenumen were same person). Editor received three "official" warnings, and one polite warning with helpful tips.
  • (09/04/2010) Editor Daenumen acknowledges warnings and creates proposed additions in his own userspace.
  • (09-04-2010-09/05/2010) Multiple conversations take place, and Daenumen indicates he disagrees with our opinions and statements, and revises the page multiple times (after already having received 7 warnings and various messages indicating he should not do so without fixing issues and reaching consensus).

During the process, as indicated in the RFC, the additional behavior took place, which I will not reiterate or explain here, as all reviewers can simply read above, and the following talk pages to form their own conclusions: User_talk:Daenumen, User_talk:Ctjf83#Homophobia

Ancilliary Conversations: User_talk:TechBear, User_talk:Ctjf83#Homophobia_Discussion, User_talk:RobertMfromLI, User_talk:Fastily

Editors involved: 90.206.186.26 (talk page) <-same user as-> User:Daenumen, User:Threeafterthree, User:TechBear, User:Ctjf83, User:RobertMfromLI, User:Henrymrx

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • RfC Comment. Very recently, similarly odd suggestions from this user at Talk:Atheism, but without the actual edits to the page itself, just talk. I'm not sure that a content RfC here is the right way to go about this; perhaps WP:RFC/U would be more appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I actually picked "Policies and Guidelines" to focus on the user's proposed contribution that is in contention, as opposed to their conduct, but I will refile there (if it is felt by all that I should) 18:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC). In weighing the list of such (which I have typed up here: User:RobertMfromLI/RFC1 I made that decision. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 18:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The user's pattern of disruptive talk page editing can also be reviewed (at great length) on Talk:Phlogiston theory. I don't believe the content arguments on any topic were plausible... In this case, I see no reason to prolong, and possibly encourage, such behavior. WP:RFC/U if required.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I Daenumen (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


--- RfC moved to a more appropriate board (thanks Fastily!) RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • RFC Comment - Daenumen's edit is both unsourced by him and unsupported by any reliable source. Roscelese (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
To clarify that comment, Daenumen provides sources, but they are not reliable sources. If reliable sources that he had not cited supported the edit, it could be salvageable, but unfortunately for Daenumen, it's just made up. Roscelese (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Does anyone else have a problem with this whole opening paragraph? I can well agree that this may represent the imprecise way the term has come to be used, bud we not be more precise in the use of language than this? The first paragraph should, IMHO, define homophobia as a fear of homosexuals. The material presented as paragraph 1 should be moved to a lower section to talk about use in the vernacular (which may be inappropriate use.)

To lump all "negative attitudes" into the category of homophobia is a judgement statement that is at odds with the definition of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesafetyblitz (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You'd think that as I did, but I've come to learn the term is typically used to describe all negative attitudes and emotions towards homosexuals. Hope I clarified.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Homophobia" is the fear of homosexuality. This should not be confused with homosexuality being either illegal or regarded as a sin. These are quite different concepts. Something may be regarded as sinful but not illegal, illegal but not regarded as sinful, or feared but neither sinful nor illegal. Traditionally homosexuality was regarded as sinful, but was neither illegal nor feared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Victimised homophobia (more sources??)

the link to the edit i wish to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daenumen/Homophobia_Classification

apparently ctjf83 believes the sources are not sufficient.

i have raised that there are many insufficient sources in the homophobia page, so these too need checking properly.

i think its very important that the article should be unbiased, ie express homophobia not only from the suffering that homosexuals have at the hands of people in fear of them, but also from the perspective of those who for good reason are afraid of homosexuals and homosexuality, which the article clearly is not detailing.

i have used both secondary and tertiary sources in the article, feel free to make additional source suggestions. i have attempted to narrate the psychological mechanisms of such phobia with support from tertiary sources as proof of validity of the existence of the phenomena, and secondary sources as proof for the discussion being held where appropriate.

thanks.

Daenumen (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As I explaiend here, your sources are either from Wikipeida, or clearly biased articles, there is like 2 good sources, you need more than that. CTJF83 chat 19:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
??? i need more than 2 sources you think are good? there are more! tertiary sources are still useable. i think you need to read the guidlines about sources. Let me expound further: homophobia is something that typically non-homosexuals suffer from as a condition, much like homosexuality. the article here on wikipedia appears to be souly from a pro-homosexual perspective, and the sources that are currently there reflect that biased. It is a fallacy to believe that a source itself is not biased: there has been no historical source ever that was unbiased, and of course some more than others. in terms of an encyclopedic description of Homophobia, this should present both views FOR CLARITY AND COMPLETENESS, as much as is possible. As a moderator you should be encouraging the article to be unbiased in its totality, NOT SUPERIMPOSING 'ONLY' YOUR BIAS ON THE ARTICLE.Daenumen (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that Ctjf83, with tens of thousands of edits is familiar with the guidelines about sources. You may wish to heed his advice on that. Also, I find it very disengenuous that your first response seems to indicate that "well, if I cant add my content, maybe we should remove the content I dont like and dont think is sourced properly" - so, PLEASE clarify what you really meant, because all I see is that implication, which I am sure (or at least hope) isnt what you were trying to imply. This article has always been in contention, and consensus has been reached on that which you are now trying to pick apart. I'd be more worried about ensuring your references fit WP's guidelines. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


Wow (just read what you wrote), even if you provided hundreds of references, I would be entirely against the inclusion of that text unless it were re-worded properly. It is very biased, makes way too many generalization, makes way too many inferences, makes way too many connections without valid reasons for the connections. RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

it seems like ctjf83, you cannot read either, my first response was not to remove other sources, it was an additional comment that i made as a result of having checked all my sources wrt wiki policy, in terms of placement content and agreement with the discussion.

i accept a consensus has been reached, it is however a strongly biased one, and that is reflected by the source material, much of which is primary and of questionable source origins. the general article favours one view over another, and as such has only represented homophobia in a pro-homosexual light, such that 'homophobia' as a phenomenon in its own right has been avoided in the discussion.

I am sure my references fit WP's guidlines, i checked through them all, i also sought other guidance sources with respect to citations. it is in agreement with the policy.

AGAIN, if you could read, you would notice that the article only appears biased in comparison to the current homophobia article, which is ENTIRELY PRO-HOMOSEXUALITY BIASED. the content i wish to add is in relation to HOMOPHOBIA, not 'gay rights' or 'gay pride' by demonisation of homosexual opposition WHICH FOR A HOMOPHOBIC PERSON IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITION IN WHICH THEY ARE PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY TERRIFIED OF HOMOSEXUALS TYPICALLY BECAUSE OF HOMOSEXUAL RAPE.

IT IS A TRAVESTY THAT ARTICLE BIASING IS BEING PERMITTED ON WIKIPEDIA.

Daenumen (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

First STOP your uncivil attitude, that will get you no where! What good does it do to link someone to a whole Wikipedia page, which they then have to read to verify your reference, why don't you do a little extra work, and get the source off the page and put it here. CTJF83 chat 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with Ctjf83, the article is ABOUT homophobia, not explaining how people justify homophobia. What you are attempting to write is no different than attempting to write Neo-Nazi "race science" into the racism article and then citing Klan websites as proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.53.28 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to show that is a real and recognised condition in medical circles Daenumen? There is a gay panic law in parts of America this could be linked to? But... again i don't believe there was ever much scientific research into whether that actually happens. Thanks Jenova20 09:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Health risks involving Male to male sex

The problem with male to male sex is the health risks involved-particularly if they practise anal sex.The fact is the lining of the rectum is extremely fragile and vulnerable to rupture.The comeback will be no doubt 7 times as many heterosexuals practise anal as homosexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.86.147 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the homophobia article, as opposed to anal sex? CTJF83 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's make this 100% clear to the OP, who may not realise it. Anal sex is also practised by heterosexual couples. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Best ignore him Ctjf83, he clearly said male to male instead of simply anal sex. He's targeting specific groups without evidence. Probably just a troll, and you're right that more straight people practice it than otherwise. Thanks Jenova20 09:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Including repressed homosexuality in the lead

Hi, I think this would be a good paragraph to include in the lead:

It has been theorised that some or most people who are homophobic have repressed their own homosexuality.[4] A controlled study of 64 heterosexual men found that only men who were found to be homophobic (as measured by the Index of Homophobia)[5] experienced erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images.[4]

References

  1. ^ Air Minded: Air power & British Society http://airminded.org/biographies/noel-pemberton-billing/
  2. ^ Philip Hoare, Oscar Wilde's Last Stand: Decadence, Conspiracy, and the Most Outrageous Trial of the Century., Arcade Publishing, 1999, p.40; see also Kettle, Michael. Salome's Last Veil: The Libel Case of the Century, London: Granada, 1977.; Jodie Medd, "'The Cult of the Clitoris': Anatomy of a National Scandal," Modernism/Modernity 9, no. 1 (2002): 21–49
  3. ^ "The New Adventures of Ellery Queen" copyright 1940, renewed 1967, and printed in "The Ellery Queen Omnibus", International Polygonics, Ltd., NYC, ISBN 1-55882-001-9
  4. ^ a b Adams HE, Wright LW, Lohr BA (1996). "Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?". J Abnorm Psychol. 105 (3): 440–5. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.440. PMID 8772014. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Summarized in an American Psychological Association press release, August 1996: "New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal".
  5. ^ Index of Homophobia: W. W. Hudson and W. A. Ricketts, 1980.

Any thoughts? -Javsav (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


"It has been theorised" is passive language. You always need to state who has theorised it.
The lead is a summary of information in the article. Consensus should not determine what is in the article, but source material. The article should be a representation of the most authoritative information on homophobia taken from the most reliable sources. Its structure and content should mirror available literature on homophobia. Wikipedians should not decide what does into the article by talk page discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been theorised is referring to the source that is cited specifically after the sentence. You're right that the lead should be a summary of the article, this section is within the article and hence I summarised it in the lead. This content is from a reliable source. I don't know why you are saying that wikipedians should not decide what does [sic] into the article by talk page discussion, I originally entered this into the article and was told to discuss it on the talk page, as it suggests at the top of this talk page by saying that any proposed changes to the article should be discussed on the talk page before editing them into the article. Consensus is the basis of wikipedia, as it allows many individuals to decide on what is or is not appropriate. --Javsav (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

per your suggestion, edit:

It has been theorised by scholars at the University of Georgia that some or most people who are homophobic have repressed their own homosexuality.[1] A controlled study of 64 heterosexual men found that only men who were found to be homophobic (as measured by the Index of Homophobia)[2] experienced erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Adams HE, Wright LW, Lohr BA (1996). "Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?". J Abnorm Psychol. 105 (3): 440–5. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.440. PMID 8772014. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Summarized in an American Psychological Association press release, August 1996: "New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal".
  2. ^ Index of Homophobia: W. W. Hudson and W. A. Ricketts, 1980.

--Javsav (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Weasel#Unsupported_attributions. I know it's supported by a citation, but passive voice is not encyclopedic. Try "Scholars at the University of Georgia theorize that some or most people who are homophobic have repressed their own homosexuality."
My point about the construction of the article is that it really should be rewritten. It comes under assault, more frequently within the past couple months or so, because it is the result of dozens and hundreds of edits here and there. It should be made into a coherent, tight article that reflects the most recent authoritative information on homophobia. That doesn't happen by getting consensus to add a sentence here, or remove a sentence there.
Apologies for the sic. I cut my index finger open with a knife. It takes me three times longer to type than normal. I don't catch all my typos. --Moni3 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


I think it definitely belongs in the article, but not the lead. One study isn't enough to establish scientific consensus, and homophobia has such a wide range of manifestations that probably don't all overlap with repressed homosexuality. Roscelese (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about your finger Moni3, lol. Well I might try to incorporate it into the article better, as at the moment it is buried within another section. I will give it its own heading as 'repressed homosexuality' --Javsav (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This Article Tries to Dignify a Slur Word

It is an attempt to establish a biased POV by employing definitions, instead of addressing substance. A phobia is a mental disease. The DSM-IV lists no such mental disease. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC))

We've been here before, EnochBethany. No reliable source material will support your claim. Stop disrupting the article. --Moni3 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
To grossly summarize (for EnochBethany), the word is "homophobia", the word used for years is "homophobia", though the term when pulled apart may imply a medical condition, nothing supports such, and thus the word does not. The word to use in the article is indeed "homophobia" because Wikipedia does not create language or terms - it simply has (or doesnt have) pages on such words and terms. The implications of the word aside, it is indeed the accepted upon word. Side note, a phobia can also be an irrational fear that is not necessarily a medical condition. And besides, I think the article, as fragmented and as in need of a rewrite as it is, does at least a passingly adequate job of explaining what homophobia is. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Homophobia would be anything offensive to homosexuals rather than an irrational fear of homosexuals Moni3. Although there are gay panic laws in parts of America, which actually give lenient sentences to people who specifically target gay people in crimes like murder and GBH and then claim gay panic. Not fair and as far as i can see, no proof of it exists. Thanks Jenova20 09:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no such thing as a "gay panic law." Murderers have attempted to raise a diminished capacity defense, which courts typically do not allow. 184.242.62.80 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you may be wrong there as this might only be a Facebook group but it's still worth looking into "http://es-la.facebook.com/group.php?gid=130005393685173" Besides, with so many countries allowing it as a defense there must be a few with a law like it. Thanks Jenova20 13:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Move to anti-homosexuality

Homophobia suggests a fear of homosexuals. People are not afraid of it they just dislike it Conservativ (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is the common word. English usage isn't always logical. Have a look at "This Article Tries to Dignify a Slur Word" just above. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia in the media

I'm starting ideas up for this article User:Jenova20/Homophobia in the media Any suggestions and additions, please take a look. Thanks Jenova20 12:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Homophobics

Homophobics don't hate homosexuals, homophobic people just hate homosexuality inside themselves. This is a Freudian paradigm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrosay (talk • contribs) 13:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That may be the definition you're familiar with, but the word is also used to describe those who hate homosexuals, at least in some parts of the English speaking world. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider major re-writing or merge

Homophobia has nothing to do with this article. This article is about the highly politicised term that gay activist use to call people they don't like and if it should be kept the same the lede should reflect that. While people who are afraid of homosexuals probably don't like them, they wouldn't hold protests against them as they'd be drawing out the very people they are afraid of. Thus it would be irrational to call them homophobic since, most likely, they'd rather stay home most of the time fearing that any person they're near may be homosexual than draw out the very thing they're afraid of.Props888 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Take the time to read up on Wikipedia policies before you try editing any of the articles or talk pages here. Start with WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm well aware of thoose policies and I violated none of those though you could argue SYNTH I suggest you take some time to read WP:TITLE and WP:MOSINTRO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Props888 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
If you must have sources for a well known fact,http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/h/ho/homophobia.htm, heres just one quote "[Homophobia] has been criticized as a pejorative, loaded term intended to discredit or silence opposition to any of the political or social issues connected with homosexuality (see LGBT social movements). Critics of the term have often alleged that it creates a climate of intimidation by demonizing one side of the debate."Props888 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a pretty old word. It probably has multiple uses these days. The lead starts off "Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards...." Surely that's a pretty good catch-all. HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. "Props888" = Prop 8. He/She is clearly trying to further an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenlightracer (talk • contribs) 05:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Props888 Homophobia, racism, they're all discrimination but to deny the meaning and tell others that they are not insulted or discriminated is far fetched and unbelievable.
Homophobia has been around a long time and you can't always tell what will offend others.
Plus your username here also doesn't help since proposition 8 in itself is a homophobic law to discriminate against families and gay people.
Thanks Jenova20 09:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Way to assume good faith, WP:NPA, and SOAPBOX, first off I haven't even thought of the resemblence between my name and some Californian legislation that (ironically) deals with this topic. Secondly, instead of addressing the cited quote you make an assumption about my name and make an assumption from that implying I'm trying to push an agenda. Yet I could have deduced the same thing from your name (with less assuming), 1.The rainbow arranged colors in your name are almost certainly not in there for stylistic effect 2. The LBGT movement's most recognised symbol is the rainbow 3. Therefore you ally yourself with the movement 4. Therefore you are pushing a gay agenda. Thirdly, where have I denied that racism or discrimination against gays is bad. Which brings me to my point if you were racist/discriminatory most people would probably not trust anything you say, right? So if I don't like what person x says it'd be pretty beneficial to me if I labeled him/her a racist. However I'm surely no authority on determining who's racist and who's not, though it wouldn't matter if he/she's really a racist as long as I successful paint them as one. Similarly if I wanted same-sex marriage legalized wouldn't it be beneficial to coin some subjective term like "Gayophobia" with negative connotations and all that good stuff to call all the people who disagree with my goal (which the source criticizes the word for almost always being used in that way)? Fourthly, you need not look far to find evidence that homophobia wasn't a word created in good faith by some english scholar who found it necesary to make a word rather than use the already existing ones 1. "Homo-phobia" what might someone seeing this for the first time think it means? Fear of things that are the same? Fear of animals in the genus homo? It certainly couldn't be the fear of people who are homosexuals it's way too specific to just warrant the prefix homo-, note how Triskaidekaphobia, a term coined by someone within the medical field which isn't a pejorative actually makes sense from a linguistic standpoint, whereas homophobia does not 2. It can be easily exploited for political gain 3. It wouldn't be a stretch to accuse it of possibly being the gays' "me too" answer to racism, anti-semitism, sexism, etc.Props888 (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a shame that usernames have derailed this discussion. I don't think mine carries any connotations relevant to this discussion, so, Props888, how about responding to my observations here? - "It's a pretty old word. It probably has multiple uses these days. The lead starts off "Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards...." Surely that's a pretty good catch-all." I'm aware of the word's existence from back in the 1960s, and where I come from it pretty much meant what it's said to mean today - a hatred and/or fear of homosexuals and/or homosexuality. And I must add, please don't look for logic in the English language. It isn't there. Words mean what they mean, not what they "should" mean. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Even so are we supposed to ignore what the word "should" mean lets say I make up three words "Nahzis":Another word for homosexuals "Nixons":Republicans "Hatredophiliacs":People who live in the southern U.S., do you think the respective groups will love theses words so much that they'll require everyone to call them by those words?Props888 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, another thing about the English language is that no-one is required to use it in any particular way. Many people find the word homophobia a useful one. If you don't, you're not obliged to use it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The original poster under this header makes the ridiculous argument that the term "homophobia" somehow only refers to actual "fear" of homosexuals. To get a more realistic take on this, compare the term "xenophobia" ("hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or of their politics or culture"). While the suffix "-phobia" can translate as "fear" in the sense of timerity, the usage in both homophobia and xenophobia entails more than that. It includes hatred, discrimination and opposition. Homophobes and homophobic organizations commonly engage in open opposition to homosexuals and gay-rigths issues, and frequently engage in fear-mongering. Bottom line: the dictionary definition of homophobia is: "irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality," which is precisely what the article covers. MishaPan (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Props888 says, "you need not look far to find evidence that homophobia wasn't a word created in good faith by some english scholar who found it necesary to make a word rather than use the already existing ones." There's so much wrong with this sentence, it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, he is presuming bad faith without providing any evidence for it. (Presumably, the writer's argument is that Dr. Weinberg was gay; but why should that disqualify him? How is that evidence of "bad faith"? Should an African-American be excluded from doing any studies--or coining any words--about African-Americans? What rational basis is there for this argument?) Second of all, one doesn't have to be an English scholar to invent a word. English is a living language, with the largest vocabulary in the world; new words enter the dictionary every year. Besides, Props888's objections are dealt with in the article under the header, "Criticism of meaning and purpose". MishaPan (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said anybody's attributes disqualified them from doing anything my point is if lets say you wanted someone to write a book about America would you choose A. The president of the U.S. B. A middle eastern terrorist or C. A scholar with as little bias possible and to use wikipedia as an example why don't we let PETA write their own page is it because **gasp** wikipedia hates animals and wants to disparage the group in every way possible or because they likely wouldn't make as balanced an article as non-affiliated contributors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Props888 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Props888 - can I politely suggest that you stop using those extreme comparisons. They don't help your case. I find them just confusing. I lose track of the point you're making. Just stick to RELEVANT facts, and opinions where they are relevant to the content of the article. If you think a particular writer or source is biased, just say so, and say why you think that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Fine, all I'm saying is, 1. After about 10 irrelevant replies would somebody actually look at the quote and source 2. Take a step back from personal opinions and look at the possibility that homophobia may not be a benign term (have you ever heard of a doctor diagnosing someone with homophobia or someone self-identifying as a homophobe) 3. Look at some of the sources, International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (which allied itself with NAMBLA) screams no more of, "Come here for the most reliable and unbiased source for gay issues ever!", than Conservapedia or the Westboro Baptist Church; also, Michael Kimmel is, by no stretch of the imagination, a mainstream writer/author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Props888 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Also the sentence, "In some cases, the works of authors who merely have the word "Gay" in their name (Gay Talese, Peter Gay) or works about things also contain the name (Enola Gay) have been destroyed because of a perceived pro-homosexual bias [62]", makes a serious and almost unsubstantiated claim with only one source, a book with no link, with a title that makes me question whether it actually states supported facts or is merely a myriad of rants about how bad and immoral America/Americans are and that we all need to accept the author's beliefs stemming from their "highly developed" level of thinking before it is too late. I then looked at the articles and none of them even hinted to the fact that their name (Gay) was also a synonym for homosexual, let alone that it somehow destroyed their reputation.Props888 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
"(have you ever heard of a doctor diagnosing someone with homophobia or someone self-identifying as a homophobe)"
Have you ever heard of a doctor diagnosing racism?
Doctors diagnose phyical conditions, phychiatrists diagnose mental conditions.
Racism and homophobia would be neither of these as there's no physical manifestation.
I tend to agree with your last point about the books aswell and their need for good sources and unbiased labelling.
Jenova20 14:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia

I’m generally unimpressed with arguments from etymology that ignore how languages develop over time. There is far more nuance in English to the term “phobia” than can be gained just from looking at the Greek/Latin. For example, “hydrophobia” as the old symptom synonym for rabies described an aversion to drinking water, not a fear of water otherwise.

Just like “misanthrope” is far more accurately understood as “judgemental/distrustful of people” rather than “hater of people”, homophobe is far more accurately understood as “aversion to homosexuality” rather than “afraid of homosexuality”. Disgusted by homosexuality sounds like the exact description of a homophobe to me. Paul Austin (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Internalized Homophobia

While reading the linked article on the internalized homophobia study by the University of Georgia, I found that the authors of the paper themselves did not conclude that homophobia is an indicator of repressed homosexual feelings and, in fact, offered another theory and called for more research to be done. My addition to the final paragraph under "Internalized Homophobia":

The authors did note at the end of the paper, however, that these findings are not necessarily confirmation of such a psychoanalytical theory and suggested further study. Their alternative theory suggests that anxiety stemming from exposure to homoerotic images "may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men." The authors also noted that "anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection."

Considering this is clarification coming from the same study by the same authors, and that it is extremely relevant to the discussion and the paper itself, I cannot understand why it should not be included on the page. If we leave the conclusion of the paper out of the article, we are guilty of cherry-picking facts that support our worldview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.166.42 (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Religion and quote "Homophobia"

I think this article makes a mistake in potraying Conservative circles of Religion and their stance aginst Homosexuality. I think article should state how some Conservative Religious folks don't hate gay people but do not approve of Homosexuality (whether an orientation or an act or whatever). -Angel David (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a section where it claims they hate gay people. Is there a section I have not properly read stating such? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Under the "Classification" section in the "Religious Attitudes" part, it says quote "Several world religions contain anti-homosexual teachings" which sort of implies that the Religions are "Homophobic". But my point is that we should state that those religions oppose Homosexuality but do not preach hatred against Homosexuals.-Angel David (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
That would be overreaching any source cited here. And, on an incidental note, virulently not true. There is no one set of teachings reagrding homsexuality among religions, let alone within a given religion. Some Christian churches welcome gay members, and have gay pastors, etc. Some (Westboro, et al.) openly call for their heads, picket their funerals, etc. I don't think we can legitimately claim that all religious people (which is inherently vague to begin with) "don't hate gay people". There is a lot of hate as well as there are a lot of those who disapprove but support. To paint it as one or the other is to gloss over the diversity of views in the religious community. Regardless, the statement in the article is NPOV. It simply states that many religions have teachings against homosexuality. It is not up for us to use our own judgement about what we think is morally true or offer opinion; we use verifiability as our compass. To make sweeping statement about religions in general is not only simplistic, it's original research without any reputable source to back it up.Jbower47 (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
(To AngelDavid) Incorrect. You are mixing up multiple "things". The religions do indeed contain anti-homosexual teachings, such as those in the Bible. The religious organizations do or do not adhere to those teachings (or do so to a certain extent, such as vilification instead of murder). See my point? The statement as it is, is accurate. You are mixing up the practice of religion with religions containing such teachings. Analogy: If a library contains a certain book, that does not mean said book is read, or even available for loan. The teachings are in many religions (Christianity of ALL sects, Judaism, Islam (death penalty in those three) and numerous others), whether followed, reinterpreted, taught or not. And finally, numerous do preach hatred, even in the form of murder. In some countries, being gay warrants (due to religious beliefs) the death penalty. Isn't that a very blatant form of hate? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro-homosexual Bias

This article has great examples of homophobia, and homophobic persons, and the definition of this article is so broad that anybody disagreeing with homosexuality is labeled a homophobe. Homo-meaning same, phobia-meaning fear. Or taken from fear of homosexuals. Many people against homosexuality do not fear it, and have many homosexual friends. They just do not agree that one male having sex with another male, or a woman having sex with another woman, is right, and of which both actions are unnatural, even in the animal kingdom.

The article also displays a picture of gay protesters at church, stating "Kansan" but whatever that word means is not easily known. They also appear to be from a radical church that church goers are also against.

The entire article seems to be written and guarded by pro-homosexual attitude people. Describing people as having a "negative" attitude towards homosexuality simply because they do not promote it or agree with is also just rhetoric, and is not negative. Negative and positive are words based on opinion.

Where in the article does it differentiate between disapproving of gay acts and not gay people? Which those against homosexuality frequently admit, as many have gay friends.

Also see the article about xenophobic. The definition is much better and more specific than the definition in this article. The fact that one talks about race, and one about homosexuality, yet both are so different, points to the fact that the article discriminates against those with opposing viewpoints, and is highly subjective.

It might suprise you to know that phobia also means aversion to. Not all words mean exactly what they are supposed to mean etymologically. Antisemitism only refers to Jews because at the time the word was created they were the only semites outside of the Middle East. It still retains its definition as being only againist Jews while Anti-Arabism and Islamophobia are used againist Arabs and Muslims. Xenophobia also states that it is hatred or fear of foreigners not just fear. Everyone has a right to agree or disagree with certain prejudices including but not limited to racism, antisemitism or homophobia. However it is when these create results that others can see such as not hiring someone or denieing one group the right to adoption that suddenly it goes from prejudice to discrimination. Where this article does mess itself up however is that it states these attitudes can be put towards transgenders, transsexuals and intersex which is no longer homophobia or even sexualism but a form of transphobia which is more properly a form of sexism. There is already a section about opposition to the term.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Well then I'd advise you to take the link to the article "Homophobia" in article "List of phobias" off of the header "Psychological conditions" as it no longer is (or) was never about the phobia in the psychological sense, defined as; "irrational, disabling fear as a mental disorder", and is a "common usage" of the term outside the scientific terminology (as you have elaborated on yourself)... To further strengthen my case, I will give the example of the terms "Gynophobia" and "Androphobia" and point out how they are not being classified under "Sex Discrimination", not even under the umbrella term "Discrimination" as they are actual "Psychological conditions". Although I know none and even if non exists, placing the link of this article under the header "Psychological conditions" in the "List of phobias" article is a form of discrimination (refer to; "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder#Perception_and_discrimination") against people who are homophobic in the sense of the psychiatric condition of homophobia, a concept which this article is clearly not about.Gabzlab00 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, "Kansan" refers to someone from Kansas, but I agree that image caption represented a generalised offense as it was, as it maligned Kansans in general. The key identifying fact about those protesters is that they are from the Westboro Baptist Church (in fact, the image is described as being Jael Phelps, one of founder Fred Phelps's family), so I've changed it accordingly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested improvement

The article bashes religion in the "institutionalized homophobia" section, which is also very biased. It would be a good idea to change this. 71.204.179.212 (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How would you wish to go about doing this? Please give examples of what needs to be changed, so the specifics may be discussed. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Borders ‖ 20:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
After rereading the religion section I dont see much bias anymore (someone must have changed homophobic to anti-homosexual) but the UK/US section essentialy calls Republicans homophobes. (there is a difference between hating gay people and supporting traditional marriage) 71.204.179.212 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You're kind of switching topics here. I've made some edits to the religion part to clean it up, although some of it is still unsourced (and now tagged). As for your comment about Republicans, that's not what the article says - it says that Republicans are more likely to have "negative attitudes", and it is backed up by a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia/Archive_11&oldid=1086317443"