Talk:Homophobia/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Homophobia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Who is going to count as an academic?

Since the drumbeat right now is "need academic sources", I want to point out a problem: it's going to be very hard to find ones who aren't immediately going to raise POV issues.

There are next to no academic cites. Nearly every one of those listed now, however, is vulnerable to challenge. To take a few:

The George Yancey cite misrepresents his point (that different discrimination categories are in fact different). It's not really an academic cite anyway.
The AVERT cite goes to a page which misrepresents the history of the spread of AIDS.

In general, the neutrality of a lot of the sociological/psychological academics is going to be disputable; the "queer theory" types are going to be Right Out. But then, do we get to cite theological academics? How academic does it have to get-- Episcopal Divinity School, but not Wheaton? I expect that the latter will get labelled POV, but not the former (though from a historical and ecumenical perspective EDS is wildly unrepresentative). Mangoe 14:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggested that by academic sources we require this to be articles published in peer-reviewed journals only: that is, a more stringent form of the current requirement for sources on wikipedia. There's a PDF article here with guidelines to students about identifying academic journals.

Naturally, this can include articles by academic theologians, if the articles were published in peer-reviewed journals. And it can include articles by academics publishing in queer theory, providing they're publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The academic cites may well disagree with each other, but it will set a higher standard than exists at present.

I'm happy to leave in the cite to Kelly Boggs if I can rewrite the sentence to point out that this is an example of how some homophobic bigots falsely claim that they're "not homophobic" while spouting ugly nonsense about LGBT people. Otherwise, it goes.Yonmei 17:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I cut Kelly Boggs because she's not notable, not because I find her "ugly." Yonmei, do you really think trash talk about a writer who isn't even in the article anymore is a constructive use of this page?DanB_DanD

I thought the Kelly Boggs citation was still in the article, but looking again, you're right, it's gone. My comment would have been better without the "ugly" adjective, for which I apologise. Yonmei 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe, there is no reason to exclude either queer theory writers or theologians, if they are notable and if they are actually writing about homophobia rather than asserting a view of homosexuality. WP:NPOV means that the editors endorse no point of view, not that no strong opinions are to be cited in an article on a controversial topic.

If the consensus of reliable sources presents one particular strong POV, the neutral editorial position is to give that POV the greatest prominence in the article.

DanB†DanD 18:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the standard of "journal citations only" is far beyond the verifiability standards of wikipedia. Taken to its extreme, I could argue that we should only allow scholarship that has won Nobel Prize. I believe we wikipedians should argue the merits of each source individually rather than assert an unecessarily abstract standard that is arbitrarily high. MPS 18:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the standard of "journal citations only" is beyond the usual standards of Wikipedia. Editing this article has proven to be contentious beyond the usual standards of Wikipedia: restricting citations to peer-reviewed articles only does not seem arbitrarily high (as "only allow scholarship that has won a Nobel Prize" certainly would be) but as a reasonable benchmark for all POVs to agree to.Yonmei 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Only considered pejorative by its critics?

Is there really anyone who doesn't think the word is pejorative? The debate is just over whether or not the pejorative meaning is morally and/or scientifically justified, right? DanB†DanD 03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

well according to Yonmei, "objections to homophobia as 'pejorative' are invariably from homophobes". i was one of the persons maintaining to have "homophobe" identified as a pejorative and i think Yonmei has inferred there and several other places that i am a homophobe. r b-j 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yonmei and CovenantD, do you really want to argue that "homophobic" is not pejorative in the same sense that "racist" is pejorative? DanB†DanD 03:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do. Of course there are those who don't view the term as pejorative. Those who see it as any other type of phobia, for instance. Is arachnophobia a pejorative word? Hardly. It's when homophobia is incorrectly applied that it becomes pejorative, but that's in the use of the word and not it's meaning. (It's usually misused, BTW. I don't consider Rbj to be a homophobe, for example, and think Yonmei is reacting irrationally by making the accusation ;) CovenantD 03:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"homophobe" is used in the same way as racist or sexist or bigot is used. it is not used in the same way as arachnophobia is used. i can't imagine anyone feeling good about being labelled a "homophobe" except maybe for the folks at Westboro Baptist Church who would wear the label as a badge of honor. it simply is disparaging or, at least, discounting. it is not a compliment or a term of endearment. i cannot see why anyone would think it's not pejorative and am still at a loss for why there was so much resistance to this in the article. r b-j 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Having taken a quick look at pejorative I can only conclude that "homophobe" is absolutely not pejorative. It is not a term of disparagement, it is merely a descriptor. We may not like its connotations, no more than we might like the connotations associated with "murderer" or "rapist", but just as those terms it is merely a neutral descriptive term. If employed incorrectly, of an individual who has no animosity or oppositional attitude towards same-sex relations, then it can certainly take on a pejorative aspect, but not otherwise. Haiduc 04:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So, it's your contention that neither the word "homophobe" nor the word "murderer" implies disapproval of the person to whom it refers.

DanB†DanD 05:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dan, you may have misread me. The word "volcano" may well "imply disapproval" especially if used by those living at its feet, but it is not pejorative. The presumption of a word being pejorative implies the existence of another, neutral term for the same concept. If "homophobe" is pejorative, then please tell me what neutral term does it displace. Haiduc 12:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It replaces a variety of phrases - "cultural conservative," "opponent of gay activism" etc.

Going by the word in Wikipedia, pejorative always implies contempt and disapproval.

Most homophobes in the US - Santorum is a good example, and so is Orson Scott Card - don't like to have their bigotry against LGBT people defined as bigotry: they want to believe that their bigotry is just normal thinking, that it's not discrimination to oppose same-sex marriage or to argue that the police have a right to break into bedrooms and arrest same-sex couples. This is nothing new: it's extremely uncommon for a bigot to identify themselves as a bigot, because if they know their beliefs are bigoted, they're on the road to becoming not a bigot.

That's where the contention arises - that homophobes do not want their bigotry to be defined as bigotry, precisely because a bigot is a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false, and homophobes in the US and in many other places are unwilling to acknowledge that their prejudices against LGBT people, from which derives their opposition to equal civil rights for LGBT people, have been challenged and proven to be false.

So, yes, I agree that homophobe is pejorative, and there is controversy about applying homophobic to a person or to a belief. The appropriate place to deal with this is under Critics of the term, which I disagree should be under Etymology and usage. Critics of the term do not disagree with what homophobia means - they merely do not want the word applied to them.Yonmei 09:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Political figures - are Santorum and Keyes really the most notable?

It seems weird that our political section focuses on one former state representative and a presidential also-ran. Are these two rather absurd individuals really the most important politicians accused of homophobia? In the eighties, Reagan and Bush Sr. were the target of extremely vocal national campaigns describing their failure to acknowledge or actively combat the AIDS epidemic in the US as homophobic - this campaign helped change the drug approval process in the US, with far-reaching effects.

It would also be nice if this section weren't exclusively US-focused. The UN officially disapproves of homophobia, and has criticized a number of national leaders for anti-gay policies, including Robert Mugabe.

Sorry Yonmei, adding signature. DanB†DanD 17:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you sign this, whoever wrote it?

I agree - I think this section as it stands should be merged with Critics of the term, which should be moved from Etymology and usage to a separate section.

A section about political homophobia should be more international - indeed, the whole page could do with being more international. Yonmei 09:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that in its present rudimentary state "political figures" fits under "critics of the term" but if better developed it wouldn't, so I think it ought to be left here in hopes of being improved. DanB†DanD 17:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to the LGBT civil rights movement in the United States

Both examples provided were of American politicians opposed to equal civil rights for LGBT people: as suggested above, I added Reagan, and edited the title.

The previous version of the section was too one-sided, strongly implying that no opposition to LGBT civil rights could be called homophobic. While it has been argued that people oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people for some other reason than homophobia, there is currently no example of this in that section or on the page: it would be better to provide an example of such opposition than to leave it as a theoretical case. (Note: this is an open-ended request to *find* such an example and include it on the page itself, not to start arguing that in principle such examples exist.)

The Reagan sub-section needs more sources, or link to the article on the AIDS epidemic on the main Reagan page. Yonmei 14:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs, 21 Nov 2006, for editing/discussion on Talk page

Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or against people who are or who are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered.^[1] It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of LGBT people, or of sexual acts assumed to take place between same-sex partners (see sodomy), or of cultural or social behaviour assumed to be typical of LGBT people.

Homophobia is generally used to assert bigotry^[2] towards LGBT people, or prejudice against people or behaviour assumed to be typical of LGBT people.

When the term homophobic is used to describe a person or a group, this is considered pejorative, in the same way as bigot is pejorative, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always controversial. See Critics of the term.

I really don't know what the "see also" link to the Critics of the Term section is doing in the lead paragraph. It seems extremely clumsy - of course they will see that section if they continue to read the article! The article should be organized to read smoothly.

I think the argument that the word is not pejorative may stem from confusion about what pejorative itself means. It doesn't mean "insulting" or "prejudiced" - it just means "connoting disapproval." It isn't pejorative to call a word pejorative!

Whoa, wait a minute...where did this "acts assumed to be typical" stuff come from? If you want to put it in you need a source. It seems to me that it's either unnecessary (if you're prejudiced against LGBT, of course you'll also disapprove of things associated with them) or an OR/POV extension of the definition - the idea that disapproval of (for example) anal sex must be based on homophobia because of the popular association of gay men with anal sex.

And again, I think having "see also" links in the main paragraph is clumsy - the lead paragraph should be a focused summary of the article, not a list of associated concepts. So I'd like to get rid of "see sodomy" which I think is POV anyway. DanB†DanD 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

it's Yonmei trying to take over the article and inject her POV again. we should keep it simple and truthful. "homophobic" is pejorative. (that doesn't meant that it isn't also an insult, and i can't think of any circumstance where one approves of the person or thing that one sincerely insults.) "homophobic" is akin to bigoted against gays, but, from the Webster definition, one does not have to go so far as bigotry against gays to be homophobic. mere discrimination regarding gays is sufficient for the label to be applied in an NPOV article without qualifying such use with "alledgedly homophobic". but that is not the case with regard to disapproval of or opposition to some particular pro-gay legislation. when "homophobic" is applied in that case, it better be qualified one way or another or such use clearly shows POV. r b-j 00:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make this into a personal argument. I've asked you this several times already. Thank you. Yonmei 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

i accidently hit Enter before i finished the Edit summary line (which i cannot edit, now). Yonmei's definition was not congruent to the reference cited. if you're going to cite something, make it agree to what is cited, otherwise POV slips in. r b-j 00:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree with the definition as it stands? Or disagree? Yonmei 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to the circumstances of this dispute

“

It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of LGBT people, or of sexual acts assumed to take place between same-sex partners (see sodomy), or of cultural or social behaviour assumed to be typical of LGBT people.

”

Needs a citation -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for one thing out of this discussion - wording that includes the aknowledgement that it is not inherently pejorative, but is viewed that way by some. I have yet to see any other phrasing that allows for that reality. CovenantD 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an informative presentation of neutral terms used in a pejorative way such as gay, liberal, PC, and radical[1]. I agree that the article needs to reflect the intrinsic neutral nature of the term. Haiduc 04:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The cited document classes "homophobia" as a "social justice term", with "discrimination" and "oppression". Those are not neutral terms; they are terms of moral judgement, exactly as I would interpret "prejudice". So you've pulled out a source that argues agianst your point. Mangoe 11:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I've been viewing this as a "the sky is blue" issue, but obviously given the contoversy it isn't - so we're going to need a source to call it pejorative in the lead.

And I don't think the folks down at "critics of the term" are good candidates, as "deceptive rhetoric" (clearly a partisan POV) and "pejorative" are hardly the same thing.

So at the moment, I think we should just drop the mention from the lead.

DanB†DanD 18:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That is completely illogical. You've essentially said that since someone is objecting to being called this, we should omit admission that it is a pejorative term. ??? Mangoe 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Our "critics of the term" say that the word falsely describes homophobes as irrational, not simply that it expresses disapproval of them. This is too specific a point of view to be part of a general description of the word - the purpose of the lead paragraph.

DanB†DanD 19:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a word for those opposed to homosexuality (but not in a bigoted/discriminatory way)? I mean someone who recognises the rights of gays, but overall disagrees with homosexuality, for religious/other reasons. (Eg. Alex Jones "opposes homosexuality due to his religious persuasion, he very strongly supports equal rights for homosexuals due to his libertarian political beliefs." Would it be (un)fair to label these people "homophobes" or is there a "less negative" term? JohnathanZX4 15:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mental retardation

I would suggest that we consider the above-mentioned article as an example of a balanced treatment of a term that some would automatically consider pejorative, and that has certainly been used that way, but is not intrinsically so. Haiduc 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a mentally retarded son. The phrase is used in a medical diagnostic sense to objectively characterize abnormally impaired development. As with "gay" it has been absorbed into the lexicon of schoolyard taunting, but as "homophobia" has not (to my knowledge anyway) seen such usage, there is no parallel.

Assuming you believe in homophobia as a category, ask yourself this: would you in some way think less of a person whom you saw as homophobic? Mangoe 11:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The parallel is there since you yourself claim it is used to denigrate. As for thinking less of people, that is not how I relate to others. The fact that someone may have a problem, or difficulty, is not a reason for me to use them as an ego prop, placing them on a lower rung than myself. I have been friends with fascists, racists, anti-semites, and Moslem jihadists, to say nothing of homophobes. We all have problems, and we do not solve those problems by rejecting people. But to defend these various philosophies by labeling the mere invocation of their name as "pejorative" does nothing but gag the discussion. Haiduc 00:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's stick to discussing the subject itself, please, and try not to personalise the discussion. Thanks. Yonmei 20:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine then. Produce a citation from someone who equates homophobia with prejudice and also claims that it isn't pejorative. Mangoe 20:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, I agree that homophobia is a pejorative, just as racism is. That doesn't mean that people should avoid using the word to describe homophobic behaviour, or avoid using the word to describe racist behaviour: it means that we should note, in the article, that it is considered pejorative. It is part of the issue that many people who express homophobic opinions about LGBT people, or who campaign to have homophobic prejudice protected by law, do not want their opinions or their political activism to be described as homophobic, because they (rightly) perceive that to be pejorative. Yonmei 11:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Identifying comments

Please sign your comments - I'm left unclear who wrote what. Thank you. Yonmei 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Part of that is being created by you propensity for point-by-point insertions into earlier contributiions, which separates them from the signatures already present. Mangoe 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's very difficult to follow the threads when comments are inserted in the midst of another's post. CovenantD 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

i probably have the original guilt for doing that. but when some person makes several disparate points, all of which are deserving of comment, i can't think of a more appropriate place to respond. and i try to indent in such a way that it is clear that all insertions come from the same person. r b-j 03:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh. I try to clarify when responding point by point by cut-and-pasting signatures to the paragraphs I am responding to: like r b-j, I thought it was clearer that way. But, if there's a general feeling against this practice, I will try to avoid it for the future. Yonmei 11:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It breaks up the chronology of the comments, which I find particularly disorienting, and it's frowned upon in some guideline or other. Thank you both for understanding. CovenantD 11:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I started to add some comments to the section below and realized that it may have happened there. I hope I've correctly attributed the first paragraph of each thread to Mangoe, based on indentation and tone, but if I'm wrong please remove or correct them. CovenantD 12:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And one for Dan in the Popular Culture thread. CovenantD 12:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections to be removed outright

There are a bunch of sections which I think should be removed:

Opposition to the LGBT civil rights movement in the United States - This is just a list of opponents. It's obvious (and I suspect stated) that political opponents to LBGQT causes are going to be routinely tagged as homophobes, so there's no need for this section. Mangoe 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If you feel that Reagan, Santorum, or Keyes did not exhibit homophobic behavior when Reagan ignored the AIDS crisis because most of the victims in the US were gay men, or Santorum argued that gay men ought to be prosecuted for sexual acts in the privacy of their own bedrooms, or Keyes severed contact with and support for his own daughter, then you can make that argument. Or (certainly for Santorum and Keyes) it could be argued that they are not notable enough to serve as examples, and that this section ought to be made more international and include only notable figures known for their homophobia - but I still think Reagan's disregard of the AIDS crisis would qualify.

If only notable figures were to be included, with examples of specific homophobic actions, then Clinton's setting up "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" and signing the anti-Constitutional DOMA would also qualify, as would George W. Bush's use of anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendments as an electoral tactic to stir up support among the Christian right. These are specific examples of homophobic political behaviour by notable individuals: cut Santorum and Keyes for being non-notable, make it international, and include other significant figures such as Margaret Thatcher, who supported the homophobic Section 28 law in the UK, and Robert Mugabe, who argued that lesbians and gays deserved to die, and other such homophobic figures . Yonmei 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that these examples are tendentious. I mean, I personally have no use for Mugabe, and while my perspective on Reagan is more conflicted, perhaps some of the blame for the AIDS crisis can be laid on his shoulders. But what you are doing is personally passing judgement on these figures. If the pope, speaking ex cathedra, condemns homosexual relations, is that homophobia, or just a contrasting moral view from a responsible spokesman? That's precisely how we are getting into trouble here. Right now we just have a list of politicians with whom you don't agree, and whom you have labelled pejoratively and dismissively. Mangoe 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yonmei, again you betray any alledged pretense of being objective or NPOV here. to call Clinton either a homophobe or simply an opponent of LGBT civil rights is dumb. nothing less that dumb. it has no concept of political compromise, of "doing what you can with what you have" and while he was Commander-in-chief, Clinton did not have the political capital to do what it is you want in the American military. the other betrayal of any pretense of objectivity is that you are literally acting like Nixon (or W for that matter: "if you ain't fer us, you agin' us") with an enemies list of simply anyone that doesn't do what you want them to do. besides clearly partisan (which is not NPOV), that is simply immature. why not simply say "anyone whom Yonmei declares to be homophobic is homophobic."? oh, i guess you've already said as much. r b-j 03:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't personalise the discussion in this way, r b-j.

I agree that it would be inappropriate to call Clinton a homophobe. But, it is completely accurate to point out that he was an opponent of equal civil rights for LGBT people at two significant points in his career: his renunciation of his initial support for LGBT people serving openly in the US military, and initiating the homophobic policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Pursue": and his signing DOMA, which is a homophobic repeal of Article IV of the US Constitution.

The distinction to be made is between someone's personal beliefs, and political actions. I would oppose calling Ronald Reagan a homophobe, but I support describing his failure to address the AIDS crisis as homophobic.

Yonmei 11:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But Yonmei, Rbj has a point. What you oppose or support is irrelevant. What's relevant is a reliable source that refers to these people and issues as homophobic. Only then should they be included, and only in that context. Simply labeling something homophobic, as you have done above, is not enough and could even be considered Original Research. CovenantD 12:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That's actually a fair point, CovenantD. Obviously, to be included in the main article we need cites from notable people discussing the homophobic actions/statements of notable people: and if we also have cites from notable people claiming that the homophobic actions/statements of notable people, we also need reactions to the claims that "homophobia isn't homophobia if - ". (All as you suggest below.)

What I object to, however, is trying to get personal discussions started on the Talk page about other issues than the article. This Talk page is long enough as it is without that, without considering the adding opportunity for dissension and bad feeling that is thus created. We should be discussing the article Homophobia: unavoidably, we may need to discuss homophobia itself: we should not be discussing Homosexuality, and we should not be discussing other editors of this article. Selmo suggested we take this to mediation, but I'm hoping that it won't come to that: let's just try to stick to the point. Yonmei 13:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

that's not true Yonmei. you do not object to getting personal about this when it is you who are the one getting personal. would you like me to point out your specific quotes? you have been the original personal attacker all along, beginning with repeatedly calling your opponenets "homophobes" and continuing to falsely identify points from me about your clear bias, as evidenced by your words, as a personal attack so that you do not have to respond to those points. Selmo eventually pointed this out to you and you still have not responded to points i have made about the obvious bias and POV pushing you do by simply (and falsely) labeling it "personal attack". if you're true to form, that's what you'll do with this "personal attack", rather than respond to it. you say you want "to stick to the point", but the problem is that the point you want to stick to is so full of POV and bias that it is unacceptable as content to Wikipedia. r b-j 16:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rbj, if you believe everything you've just said about me is true, I repeat Selmo's suggestion that you take this issue to WP:MEDCOM rather than keep repeating it and repeating it on this Talk page. Thank you. Yonmei 16:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Homophobia in popular culture - This section doesn't discuss use of the word in popular culture; it lists incidents of egregious behavior which was then attacked as homophobic. Again, it's padding. Mangoe 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm less certain about this: it seems to me less easy to make a case that the documented incidents of homophobic behaviour are really notable. "Popular culture" is such a shifting phenomenon. Are there any instances which have their own articles on wikipedia? Yonmei 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

These sections are not much good as they stand, but both are notable topics. In particular, the discussion over Eminem has been a big part of the word homophobia becoming widely known and used, so is significant to the cultural history of the term. DanB†DanD 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't disagree about this, but then perhaps it should be under "usage/etymology".? Yonmei 20:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see moving this to a historical section; the problem is that it is a list of incidents without any particular context, as it stands. I'm not a pop-cultural-following guy, and my reaction to these incidents based on their current context is that they don't tell me anything more than that celebrities say ill-considered things and get criticized for doing so. I knew that as a general principle, so as they are presented the incidents aren't really notable in the present context (though of course they would be mentioned in articles about these celebrities). Mangoe 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And I think the use of accusations of homophobia in politics is extremely notable. However, I'm not thrilled with the retitling of the political section - "Opposition to the LGBT civil rights movement" is the subject of a completely different article.

DanB†DanD 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you just stated a better title for the section, Accusations of homophobia. It could then be subdivided into Politics and Popular Culture, or whatever breakdown seems logical. That would allow for a neutral reporting of incidents that have been labeled homophobic without any judgement being made by Wikipedia. CovenantD 12:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a brilliant solution: kudos to you. Yonmei 16:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph of Homophobia as leading to a climate of prejudice is pretty bad. And the Classification section, seemingly incomplete, is really devoted to a long section pushing-- and I emphasize "pushing" because it's hardly heutral-- the theory that the moral distress of those who identify themselves as homosexual is to be resolved by overturning their preexisting moral system. Obviously, that is not neutral, but an endorsement of the moral neutrality of homosexuality. Mangoe 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Classification" section has a single source, which is in Italian. I hate to lose it because it's one of our few academic references, but English sources are preferred in the English Wikipedia, and it does seem to specific a point of view to be the classification system Wikipedia endorses. DanB†DanD 19:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove the classification section. At the moment however it is probably the least neutral section in the article. It needs to be more txanomic and less prescriptive. Mangoe 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

While English language sources are preferred, others are not prohibited if there are no English language equivalents available (if I recall correctly). CovenantD 12:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

avoiding POV in popular culture and politics

There is a simple way to largely avoid POV trouble in these sections - we report notable accusations and discussions of homophobia by third parties. We do not, ourselves, describe beliefs or actions as homophobic or endorse the judgments of others. We simply say what has been said by notable people about notable people. DanB†DanD 04:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have an issue with this entire article: The word "homophobic" is, in and of itself, obviously biased. The word shouldn't even exist. Since it does, any article on it is going to be POV. Here's what I mean: Many people who would be labeled as homophobic by certain other people, would not label themselves as such. I doubt that a so-called "homophobe" would even recognize that there is such a thing as homophobia. Worse yet is the construction of the word, which literally means "fear of the same". The only way this article might avoid Point Of View would be to start out with an introduction such as this: " 'Homophobia' is a common vernacular term used to describe anti-homosexual sentiment and activity.", and maintain the article with that non-biased idea in mind. I'm having trouble describing why I think the term is biased. I suppose that it is because many people do not believe that it is even possible to be prejudiced against homosexuals (At least, not in the same way that it is possible to be prejudiced against someone of a different ethnicity.); the term in and of itself thus begins with an assumption of opinion. Is there anything we can do about this? Zebraic 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Including, where appropriate, the response to the accusation? It would go a long way to showing how context is used to frame the debate over its use. CovenantD 04:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. Yonmei 11:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just fine

I think that the page is just fine the way it is. I don't notice anything that would hurt or offend. The article is just fine the way it is.

"Is" Pejorative?

I find it odd to have an unqualified "is", since it's clear from this talk page that not everyone thinks homophobia "is" pejorative in every usage.

Further, many many many wiki articles do not mention "pejorative" in their intro paragraphs (or for some, not even at all!), despite the words having common pejorative uses: liberal, nazism, sexism, hippie, amnesty, mental retardation, etc.

Given how pejorative usage is treated in most other articles, I don't think an equative wording like "is pejorative" belongs in the intro paragraphs for a word that is not used exclusively in a pejorative sense. Either treat it like most other articles and create a "Pejorative Use" sub-category, or modify the intro to more accurately state that homophobic "can often have a pejorative meaning", or some other qualification to make it clear that it is not always and only a pejorative term. Anything else smells suspiciously of POV. Ludling 17:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've changed my tune and think it ought to be taken out of the paragraph too. DanB†DanD 17:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So let's just say "can be". Haiduc 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a moderate POV is any less biased than an extreme one. Were we to say "can be" we would be contradicting all the folks who assert "always is" or "never is." And at the moment, our only possible sources for the judgment are a minority partisan viewpoint. At the least, we should take it out until we have a better source. DanB†DanD 19:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No objection. Haiduc 19:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(we've been over this time and time again.) being a long-hair hippie, i might not think of "hippie" as pejorative either, even though sometimes i'm embarassed by what i hear coming out of the mouths of other long-hair aging hippies (South Park and Tommy Chong make good hay out of this). but, other than Fred Phelps or Westboro Baptist Church (who might wear the label as a badge of honor), i cannot think of any use of "homophobe" that is not pejorative. can you name or cite a few instances of the use of the word that are clinical and not disparaging or pejorative? r b-j 19:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was my starting perspective too -- it seemed like common sense. However, clearly the designation is controversial, and as such we need a reputable source for it at least. Also, it seems to me that the judgment that homophobia is pejorative like the word prejudiced is pejorative is OR. DanB†DanD 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

it is not OR, it is English. the reason it "seemed like common sense" to you simply is that it is common sense, which has sufficient qualification in itself to be used. rather, the burden is upon you to show that there is a common use of the word "homophobia" or derivatives "homophobic" or "homophobe" that is clinical and not pejorative. it's sorta like saying that the term "asshole" is not pejorative because it has a clinical use and i would ask you to produce evidence of that clinical use of the word. r b-j 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asshole

As you see, the Random House dictionary cited at dictionary.com describes asshole as "vulgar," "slang," or an "insulting form of address." In the same dictionary, insults such as nigger are described as "offensive slang," while even the softer negro is noted as being "often offensive." Retard is listed as "disparaging." This is the same dictionary to which we source our definition, and clearly part of its purpose is to identify pejorative vocabulary - but it does not so identify "homophobia" or "homophobe."

Appeals to common sense are meaningless when clearly your common sense is not that of your fellow editors, and you cannot find an external source to verify it.

DanB†DanD 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Even Wikipedia itself doesn't mention "pejorative" for asshole. So why does homophobia get special treatment? Not every word used to describe a negative concept is pejorative. I highly disapprove of murder, but murder is the word used to describe the act, regardless of whether I aprrove or not. Ditto homophobia. Ludling 22:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

it calls it "abusive" in the very first sentence: "an abusive term for a person". the common sense and forthrightness of such inclusion in asshole is all that this is. why should asshole say in the very lead sentence, the definition, that it is "an abusive term for a person" yet, not even in the fourth sentence you can acknowledge the simple common-sense fact that "homophobe", though not abusive like "asshole" is, in its normal use, a pejorative. the deletion of that fact is itself POV. r b-j 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's another discussion of the topic, presenting "sexual prejudice" as a more neutral term: [2] Haiduc 20:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't seen this on the talk page when I cut it from the lead. But I think it's better suited to "similar terms," as Herek (the coiner) says it applies to all prejudice based on orientation, including any instances of anti-straight prejudice. DanB†DanD 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc, even Yonmei drew some lessons from the last POV war and refrained from the POV deletion of "pejorative" that earlier set off the edit dispute that got the page frozen. Can't you also learn that? r b-j 22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's rather an odd tone to take.

Can we find an objective source for this "objective fact"? If not, I think it has to go. It's not necessary -- in fact, it's OR -- to disprove an assertion by finding counterexamples, as you suggested above should be done. A wikipedia editor cites the judgements of others, he doesn't collect evidence and make his own judgment.

DanB†DanD 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rbj, I have run out of arguments. If you insist on imposing this interpretation of the term even though other editors, such as myself, feel it is absolutist and discounts other valid interpretations, there is nothing more I can say. I close with the reminder that we are addressing matters that are very fluid, dynamic, and most accurately represented in shades of gray, not black and white. Haiduc 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

there are additional editors besides you or Yonmei. if you insist on deleting it, another edit war will likely break out when the other editors such as MPS or Mangoe come back. your deletion of the simple and accurate acknowledgement that "homophobic" is a term of disapproval (which is all "pejorative" means) is POV. it was last October just as it is now. for the same reasons that all too many words were typed. i didn't get in the way of that particular edit of Yonmei, and i thought by not trying to delete the whole thing, there was finally some acknoledgement that the issue was settled. please review the talk page for the last 2 months and also around July when this was an issue back then. i'm not going to retype everthing here. please lengthen your memory and draw some lessons from the past so we don't have to repeat it. r b-j 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's distressing to me to see that you respond to requests for a source with simple insistence on your point of view and threats of an edit war. I've added a fact tag - take your time, but you must source controversial statements. DanB†DanD 23:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at category:prejudices, in which this article is included. I would be nearly impossible to convince me that anything else in that list is not pejorative. Indeed, the category would appear to be nothing more than a list of "unacceptable" social biases. Mangoe 23:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what anyone can convince you of.

It certainly doesn't matter what a Wikipedia category page says!

It matters what can be cited to reliable, third-party sources.

By the way, it's kind of amazing how quickly we've begun ignoring the results of the ongoing mediation. Selmo has not had much to say, but one of the few things he has said was to endorse my suggestion of sticking to academic sources whenever possible.

Well, far from using academic sources, we now have editors sticking their own version of "common sense" into the article with no source whatsoever. It's a bit much.

DanB†DanD 23:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

what reliable, third party sources would you say is necessary for asshole to link to for stating the obvious that it is an abusive term? r b-j 23:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

the dictionary DanB†DanD 00:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

the word "abusive" is not in that reference. my question remains unanswered. r b-j 00:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

because of the direct application of the English language on this, the burden is on you to show significant use of the word, homophobe, in a clinical non-pejorative manner. r b-j 23:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that would mean we were arguing about the truth.

We're not.

We're collecting verifiable, third-party information DanB†DanD 00:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

no. we're arguing about POV and whether or not this article gets to be tailored to the liking of either the anti-gay or of gay-advocates. deletion of this obvious characterization of the word (just as "asshole" is obviously characterized as "abusive" even though your dictionary definition didn't mention the word) is as POV edit. that is why there is resistance to it. r b-j 00:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake. Okay, I get it. We'll just wait for the mediator. DanB†DanD 00:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to break the logjam

I've thrown in the towel on "pejorative", but I've also managed to work more 'academic' material into the "critics" section. Anyone happy???? Mangoe 13:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

any explanation for why (the towel)? r b-j 18:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that saying that homophobe is pejorative and identification of people or groups as homophobic is controversial is just fine - there's a similiar 'graph in the Racism page. Giving that information is neutral.

The biased second 'graph that I just deleted was not neutral: like the old "critics of the term" 'graph, it gave only one side of the argument.

Yonmei 20:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As has been stated before, what you believe is not necessarily relevant to what should be in the article. And has also been stated before, any assertion that it is definitively a pejorative term is too absolute to be acceptable. Your inclusion of an old, depreciated version has been reverted accordingly. Let's move forward, not back. CovenantD 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe - thanks for the work on "Critics" - unfortunately, it now duplicates a lot of the material under "Similar terms" - particularly the paragraph on Herek added yesterday. In which section do you prefer to keep this info? It's silly to have it twice.

Also, on your second par for the intro, just cut by Yonmei - I agree it needs sources, and I also don't think it's a good summary of academic critics such as Herek, who faults the word for focusing on individual psychology to the exclusion of broader social structures - which has nothing to do with irrationality, as both psychology or social institutions may be both rational or irrational.

DanB†DanD 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The initial section is a summary. It is therefore not only appropriate but usual that it may repeat (in lesser detail, of course) material from the meat of the article. It lacks references, of course, because they are unnecessary; the detailed presentation is sufficiently referenced.

I decided to forget "pejorative" for a variety of reasons. However, the new second graf points to a common cause between the various critics: the connotation issue which various people have been trying to suppress from the article for months. Well, now we have two academic sources within the field raising objections, as well as those nasty homophobes at the CWA, so at this point I'm taking acknowledgement of that connotation as a necessary component of the article.

I don't really want to carry the whole "critics" section into the beginning, and anyway people would object (and I would agree) that such placement would be too prominent. However, WP:LAYOUT says

Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow. If further introductory material is needed before the first section, this can be covered in subsequent paragraphs. Introductions to biographical articles commonly double as summaries, listing the best-known achievements of the subject. Keep in mind that for many users this is all they will read, so the most important information should be included.

(my emphasis) The connotation and it controversial nature are important enough that they should appear in the summary. A little repetition isn't a bad thing. And there aren't "sides of an argument" here, at least until someone produces an academic who is willing to say that the word lacks that connotation. That's going to be hard, especially with Weinberg saying right from the start that he intended that sense. Mangoe 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe, if other editors insist on including (not as the first sentence, since that should be left for the most neutral and objective "dictionary definition") in the intro non-dictionary uses of "homophobia" such as disapproval or opposition, then i think it's reasonable to insist that there is criticism of the term and of that usage in the intro. but if that implication is not put in the intro, must we insist that the criticism of that usage also be put there? i really think that this "pejorative" thing says something far less controversial (and far more obvious, which is why there is no NPOV opposition to putting in there, even Yonmei has now understood this for which i praise her for). something about this word being controversial should be there. i am not so sure what it should be, but i am certain that one controversial side alone should not put their spin on it without something from the "critics of the term" or whatever you would call the other side. r b-j 00:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD, i can live with "can be" (i've never reverted nor objected to that), but somebody's gonna call it a "weasel word" or something, and i still have never heard a realistic example of the use in a "clinical" non-indignant manner. like Fred Phelps visiting his physician and while using a tongue depressor and looking in his mouth, the doctor says "I'm afraid, Mr. Phelps, that you've come down with a serious case of homophobia." r b-j 03:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. If only it were that easy.

While some may think of it as weasel words, I don't believe they are in this context. Rather, they are an accurate reflection of the usage of the term as opposed to it's definition. The article itself has a quote from George Weinberg, originator of the modern term, in which he describes it in clinical, non-judgemental terms, and the 'graph about the search for alternative words reflects an implicit understanding that it's carrying two related but dissimilar concepts. CovenantD 03:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mangoe, the sections where your additions duplicate existing content is not the initial summary and a more detailed later section, but two sections of the body at roughly the same level of detail: "similar terms" and "critics of the term." DanB†DanD 06:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm..... I see what you mean, and you're right, the two sections overlap too much now. I'm thinking maybe to split the "similar words" section up and fold most of it into "critics", while putting the rest further up. Mangoe 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't we using LGBT?

Because the intro graphs are still under discussion, I didn't make the other change I think needs making: alter "homosexual people" to "LGBT people". LGBT people is the standard term on Wikipedia and elsewhere - I can see no reason to use the non-standard "homosexual people". Yonmei 20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The biphobia article is pretty bad, but one of its few sourced points argues persuasively that homophobia and biphobia are not necessarily the same thing, cited to this study in the Archives of sexual behavior. Prejudice against transgendered people may be something else again.

Prejudice against bisexuals or transexuals for their same-sex relationships would be homophobia, but I think that's implicit in the definition as it stands.

DanB†DanD 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

wow! my head's spinning. i didn't expect to see Mangoe yank that out and even more so to see Yonmei put it back in. (you guys didn't get each other's passwords, did you? :-) the reason i opposed the generalization of "homosexual" to "LGBT" in the intro only is because it's not in the dictionary and reflects an evolution of terminology that one side prefers (making it mildly POV). the reason why "LGBT" appears to be the "standard term" here at Wikipedia is because of so many articles about the topics written by LGBT people themselves and on topics where the root concept did not have a previous existence before the coinage of the acronym "LGBT". if the article was titled "LGBTphobia", then it would be equally inappropriate to replace LGBT- with homo-. r b-j 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of LBGTQ-whatever here is definitely problematic. The word was coined in the context of homosexuality, and (for example) Herek barely mentions bisexuality in passing, and transsexuals not at all. Mangoe 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The price of academic research (rueful smile)

I have been doing some looking-up on Google Scholar for the past few days - hence my absence from discussion here, as it was becoming clear that we needed to begin to do what we had agreed to do and cite arguments with academic discussion only - and have consistently been running into one major problem:

I keep finding academic articles I can't use because they're pay-per-view or subscription-only.

I assume this is a problem for everyone, not just me - so if anyone's got answers about how we get around this, I would appreciate it.

It's possible, always, to contact the author/s of an article and ask to be sent a copy. In my experience, academics are usually willing to oblige a polite researcher if they have the article available in PDF form: and I have done this before when I wanted to use scholarly references in a published article but didn't want to pay for a subscription to a journal's web page. Effectively, however, this means using non-linkable references in the article - citing by author name, page number, etc. People who want to follow up on the references will *also* have to write to the author and/or pay for a subscription to the journal. How acceptable is this? Yonmei 14:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Go to a library. Most of this research should be in paper journals which should (hopefully) be in most any good library you can find. I would use my Penn access to get these articles offline, but I really just don't have the time at the moment. CaveatLector^Talk 16:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with using subscription-only journal articles for references. That includes virtually all scientific articles in all fields (although there are more and more exceptions these days). Restricting ourselves to what's available free online would require us to omit much scholarly research and most books, which doesn't make sense. As CL suggests, people who want to follow up on a reference can visit their local university library. bikeable (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That is also reflected in policy/guidelines which basically state that references do not have to be on the web, nor even easy to find, just that they must be available for others to find. CovenantD 19:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As a mediator

I ask what people think about going to Medcom. Wiki eZach| talk 03:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

i don't know what it means to "go to Medcom". i s'pose i'm game for it. my head is still spinning after seeing Mangoe and Yonmei swap positions regarding what should be an uncontroversial characterization of the word homophobic and i find myself reverting the intro to a version supported by Yonmei. (i'm very happy and hopeful about this.) i dunno what to think anymore. r b-j 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what it is either. Does it require that, until "Medcom" reaches a conclusion, anything that anyone challenges must be removed from the article? That's what seemed to be implied on the RfC page, and I don't think this article is really in such desperate straits. DanB†DanD 06:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It means the Mediaton committee. Wiki eZach| talk 11:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of you, but never mind MedCon, I want to throw a party. For the first time since I saw this page, we have intro paragraphs that I can agree with and that it looks like most of the regular editors of the page can too. Hooray! *celebrates*

It won't last, mind you. Yonmei 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A thoughtful view on the subject (also posted at the mediation page)

A thoughtful view on the subject the controversial article “homophobia”:

Foundation: There are three different schools of logical thought on the very simple subject of fraternal anogenital copulation (AKA; homosexuality, gay sex, androphilia, sodomy, buggery, anal sex, or what ever one may prefer to call this phenomenon. [There is often orogenital copulation and osculation involved as well, but for brevity’s sake I shall not attempt to address those under this subject.] At its simplest and most basic level, “it” is a conduct that a significant number of human beings engage in and indicate that they enjoy with great fervor and as a result, many of these same humans also endorse it as an enjoyable practice for others to join in on either with them personally or with a partner of their own choosing. Logically speaking there can be no denying that engagement in the conduct of this practice is the defining criteria for who is, or is not labeled by others as a participant in this conduct. If one is known to freely engage in this conduct or professes such, one is also assumed to be an endorser of its practice. There are also those who do not engage in, or who are not known to engage in, such conduct, but who non-the-less endorse its practice (albeit for others) in what is often described as a person’s “lifestyle” choice.

More specifically the above mentioned three schools of thought are as follows:

1. That such conduct is a good, natural, and nurturing expression of love and commitment between two people who just happen to be of the same gender and that the resulting diversity in society is a benefit to everyone; and also that there are no negative effects to the participants or to society in general as a result of its practice. This is often called the “progressive” school of thought.

2. That such conduct is a bad, unnatural, depraved and lascivious form of vice and abuse and that it puts participants at high-risk for communicable diseases, mental and emotional distress, suicide, and may lead to other destructive behaviors such as drug use, alcoholism, sado-masochism, prostitution, pedophilia and pederasty and other vices. Included in this school of thought is the assertion that such conduct also leads to negative effects upon society in general such as divorce, the breakdown of the family, recruitment, predation upon vulnerable members of society, and political and anti-religious oppression upon those who oppose it as a matter of faith, morality, or principal and consequently its practice should be discouraged as much as possible by social, political, legal, and/or economic means. This is often called the “traditionalist” school of thought.

3. That such conduct is no one’s business and is a personal private choice and that anyone who so desires should be allowed to engage in such conduct without fear of discrimination, sanction, or reprisal; and that there are no inherently negative aspects to its practice. This is often called the “libertarian” school of thought.

Correlation: “Homophobia” is a word that has been used to describe those who oppose the conduct we are discussing, mainly those who ascribe to the “traditionalist” school of thought. Its etymology would suggest that it characterizes the “sufferer” as displaying or harboring a “fear” of those who practice such conduct. This terminology (if understood in this light) appears to “explain away” the moral, religious, or principled opposition to this practice. Used in this way, it can and often is (and I cannot stress this strongly enough) regarded as deeply offensive to those who hold to the “traditionalist” school of thought. It says to the “traditionalist” that the speaker apparently believes that the “traditionalist” to be a fool, a dupe, a rube, or in denial because the application of the emotion of “fear” leaves the “traditionalist” no room or opportunity to express his or her opposition in a logical or intellectual dialog because he or she is not being consulted about his or her opinion or beliefs, but is rather being “diagnosed” and “labeled” as being emotionally defective, and therefore beneath the speaker and as such any further discussion becomes pointless because the speaker has already established his or her own mental superiority over the “homophobe” and any further opinion or protest from the “traditionalist” can thus be disregarded. “Traditionalists” understandably feel that the term is being used in a pejorative way against them and that the term “homophobe” is then a psychoanalytical epithet and may even be considered tantamount to blasphemy by religious “traditionalists”. Regardless of whether any dictionary defines “homophobia” contrary to this usage, “traditionalists” point to the history of abuse that they have suffered by supporters of the other schools of thought on this subject and continue to regard it as a deeply offensive term.

Conclusion: By accepting that the offensiveness of the term “homophobia” effectively shuts down debate on the “traditionalist” school of thought regarding the greater subject of the conduct generally termed “homosexuality”, we see that the term indeed qualifies as a pejorative, and that its definition and associated article should therefore be conspicuously labeled as such. In addition to this I recommend that the more general and less offensive term “anti-homosexualism” be reinstated as a separate article (which still exists here and was created sometime ago by this author to address this very same growing controversy, but was (unwisely in my view) immediately “redirected” to the “homophobia” article). To my knowledge, the term “anti-homosexualism” is not considered offensive by any of the three schools of thought and better fits much of the subject matter contained in the current “homophobia” article. Splitting the article between the two terms would, in my view, solve the lion’s share of the current controversy by providing a general title that addresses the larger subject matter that cannot be squeezed or coaxed into the narrow meaning of “homophobia”. Thus a more general term would allow for a more balanced article to be created that addresses a wider scope of the meanings and senses of the concept and the subject matter. This would allow for an article of greater depth to be created and thereby provide more opportunity for editors to include content without conflicting with other content. --Britcom 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am misquoted on the page.

I accidently came across this page and to my suprise found myself misquoted in it. While the way my online article (Yancey) is cited implies that I precieve homophobia exactly the same as racism and sexism, the whole point of my article was to point out that this was not the case. The fact of the matter is that I argued that there is a qualitative difference between homophobia and racism and sexism. Surely the author of this entry can find a better example than my article to make this point. It is misfortunate that some will follow the link to the article and not see the argument they were expecting or if some perpetuate this misquotation in other work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.129.254 (talk)

while you left your IP number, would you like to sign this, so we know who is speaking (or typing)? r b-j 21:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was clear from the page. I am the Yancey who authored the article in this section. I have no interest in getting into a debate about homophobia. I just want my citation removed or have it accurately reflect the contents in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.129.254 (talk)

Sadly, this "author" is not even bothering to sign with his/her IP number. Kukini 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the anon is George Yancey, the point is valid. The source [3] takes pains to build walls between homophobia and racism/sexism. Citing it as a case of the opposite sentiment is flawed. I advocate removing the current Yancey-based bit entirely. (viz: "Likewise, George Yancey, writing in Christian Ethics Today associates "sexism, racism, class distinctions, or homophobia" and views them all as "varieties of discrimination," although he argues that they are not identical. [7]") PS: Get over the whole "not signed" thing, please. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

no, we don't "get over" that. we ask people who drop in out of nowhere and say they've been misquoted to say clearly and unambiguously who they are and leave no plausible deniability of whom they represented themselves to be. if i was so motivated, i should be able to attempt to track down George Yancey independently and ask him if he left this message. i will counter that your "get over" point is misguided. r b-j 08:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

But he did identify himself. my online article (Yancey). He identified himself as the author of the Yancey citation. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You certainly could contact George Yancey, and ask him that, whether or not he adds four tildes to the ends of his messages or not. (I've done the exact same thing myself with Brian Josephson.) It's pretty easy, since there's a link to a George Yancey website in this article. There you can learn that he is a prof at U. North Texas, and a Google search (GIYF!) on "george yancey unt" yields [4] which includes his email address. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Yancey's actual point of view would be a good one to include. Sadly, although he is an academic, we are sourcing the comment to a speech he made to a group called "Christians for Biblical Equality" -- not his academic work as such. Is the anon who posted above able to hook us up with some academic publications in which Yancey has put forth this perspective? DanB†DanD 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the citation and left it in the article. I think it should remain as it is there. And WHATEVER to "get over the whole..." comment...what was that about? Unsigned talk does not have the same pull as signed talk in wikipedia. - Kukini 07:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of where you get that from. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, new users may not realize that it's polite to sign your posts, and that not doing so makes talk pages more difficult to follow and disputes more difficult to resolve. DanB†DanD 08:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup...anyways...take a look at my edit to the citation in question in the article. Best, Kukini 08:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You and RBJ are forgetting WP:BITE. Even a "Hey, George, could you add ~~~~ to the end of your messages so we know who you are?" would be immensely better than "Bah, this guy doesn't even sign his posts." - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I could improve in this manner, although I did take time to try to make the adjustment requested within the article. Anyways...happy holidays to you as well. --Kukini 22:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I have not followed protocol with this. I am not sure even now if I have signed it correctly. This is my first time ever doing this at Wikipedia and I only do it now because my talk was so badly misquoted. I would think that it would be best to remove it completely as I think that the adjustment still implies a similarity that I do not make. It would be in the interest of the writer of the page to do so since as a scholar I would now mistrust any other citaiton of information given in the article. I would have to wonder how much sloppiness is incorporated into the writeup. Nevertheless I did not mean to cause some sort of firestorm for not signing my name and I will now leave this issue alone. The writer of the desciption can decide if further changes are needed. DrYancey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.75.157 (talk)

You sign posts by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~. This will automatically log the time of your post and your user ID -- or your IP number if you have not yet registered an account.

You should realize, however, that it's considered a bit inappropriate to edit articles about your own work, as you are not an impartial judge of its importance or its meaning (see the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). And of course, since Wikipedia editors are anonymous except for their IPs and account names, anybody could easily show up here claiming to be the author of a cited study or the president of the United States - it doesn't make much difference either way to the value of your editing. DanB†DanD 05:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Kukini reverts Mangoe with the summary (Having read the Yancy reference, this statement still clearly represents what it Yancy stated, regardless of "intent," which is something we cannot surmise.) Well, then I am missing the point of the entire paragraph. Is it only to prove that homophobia is a type of discrimination? Because the Coretta Scott King quote immediately previous suggests that they are somehow linked, which Yancey patently does not. A case of misappropriated soundbitery. If Yancey is to be included, it should be presented as contrast, e.g. "While acknowledging homophobia as a sort of discrimination, African-American theology scholar George Yancey disputes the notion that it is linked to racism or sexism." - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

why is the page still protected??

it appeared that they protected the page right when the active editors, who were previously hotly disputing content and motive, were just starting to really get along (i count myself in this group). in fact, this was protected very soon after i reverted Mangoe's edit to one of Yonmei's which was quite remarkable, i think. also, the mediation page says that the mediation is "closed". it's not in arbitration, it's been protected way longer than Wikipedia policy (unless the ArbCom makes a special ruling otherwise, which they haven't to my knowledge). Note to admins:" this should be unprotected as per wikipedia policy. at least until another bona fide edit war sparks up. r b-j 08:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Woo, the page is unprotected! Fight! Fight! Fight! DanB†DanD 18:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Pic okay?

The Westboro Baptist Church, widely viewed as homophobic, promotes its anti-gay views through protests at schools and funerals.

I've been thinking our battlefield ought to be spruced up a bit. What about the pic below as an illustration? Not too POV? Even Phelps agrees that Phelps is homophobic, right?

"Critics of the term" polemicists vs. non-polemicists

I think it's pretty misleading to be lumping in Concerned Women for America, a political lobby group with a giant anti-gay axe to grind, in the same category as George Herek, an academic who prefers the terms "sexual prejudice" and "heterosexism" because they more accurately depict the institutional nature of anti-gay prejudice than does the psychological focus of "homophobia." As the section is written, the CWA are sort of piggybacking on Herek's academic standing and neutrality -- when in fact their points of view could not easily be further apart.

To make this clearer, I think there ought to be a separate section for use of the term by political groups like CWA, distinct from academic discussion of its meaning.

DanB†DanD 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Phobia

Could this be classified as a regular phobia, such as fear of spiders, or lightning, etc., or is it seen more in the sense of racism and sexism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnathanZX4 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Non-dispute related add

I would like to request the Template:Discrimination sidebar be added to this page. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Homophobe. Hah. So if someone hates Pedophiles they must be a Pedophobe?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.172.225 (talk) 03:44, January 13, 2007 (UTC)

Children cannot consent to sex. Adults can consent to sex. I hope you are capable of understanding that there is a profound difference between consensual sex between adults, and an adult raping a child. You may not agree with certain kinds of sex between adults, you may consider them to be wrong. Even if that is your belief, it is wrong to lump in adult behavior with child abuse. You're comparing apples and oranges. Joie de Vivre 21:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that children can consent to sex, they do it all the time. A corrected statement would read, "Children cannot legaly consent to sex." This fact is very often overlooked. It is the law that decides what is right and wrong, not nature. And as we know, at least in a democracy, the people make the law. Therefore it is a circular argument if on the one hand something should be made legal, because it happens in nature, verses on the other hand something should be considered good because it is legal. Just because a thing happens, does not make it good, neither is a thing good just because it is legal. Ultimatly we all must decide what is good and what is bad. Where we look for guidance is often telling about who we are politicaly. Some look to precedent, some look to scripture, some look to nature, some look to emotion, and some look to society.Britcom 08:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, some children masturbate, and some children engage in sexual and bodily exploration with their peers. What I meant is that children cannot consent to sex with adults. Are you going to contest that? Joie de Vivre 14:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in a certain sense. Children are minors. Minors cannot legally concent though they often do give illegal concent to sex with adults. Let us use an example. In one of the US states, a girl of 16 can give legal concent, however a boy 17 cannot. If the two both voluntarily have sex, who is the statutory rapist? OR, if a boy of 18 (the age of consent for boys in said state) and a girl of 15 both have voluntary sex, who is the rapist?Britcom 19:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that some countries separate under-age sex laws from rape laws. For example someone having sex with a 15 year old in the UK is not the offence of rape. It is an offence of having sex with a minor. However, having non-consensual sex with a 15 year old would be rape. The US has the concept of 'statutory rape' which blurs the line between actual consent and legal consent. But I'm not sure this lenghthy discussion in respone to a fairly obviously trolling anon comment is helping much... WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "minors", I said children. The original reference was to the word pedophile, which refers to an adult who is primarily sexually attracted to prepubescent children. The continuum between childhood and adulthood, and whether or not it is appropriate to engage in sexual activity with people along that continuum is not the point I was trying to make. Your willingness to skew the meaning of the word "child" to include older teenagers shows your unwillingness to respond to my original point. Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality is inappropriate, because animals and prepubescent children are not capable of giving consent to sex with an adult. Child rape and animal abuse are not comparable to consensual sex between adults. Joie de Vivre 19:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, this isn't going anywhere. Let's remember how this debate started (with a troll). It doesn't seem to me to have much to do with editing the article on Homophobia however and probably should be drawn to a close. WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)