This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Is was mentioned that we might be overlooking some aspects in the FAQ. Are there any discussions or ideas that someone thinks is missing? If so I'm happy to dig a bit and see if we can find a NPOV way to include them. Insomesia ( talk) 11:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
AN ANI report regarding conversations on this talk page has been posted at User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia North8000 ( talk) 14:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It is funny that "homophobia" is largely treated as a legitimate term here, while " hoplophobia" is not, even though they both have the same degree of [il]legitimacy.
From the "hoplophobia" article:
"Hoplophobia is a pejorative neologism originally coined to describe an 'irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them.'"
Homophobia is also normally used as a pejorative ( link), and it is also a neologism (it was coined in 1972 by George Weinberg in his book "Society and the Healthy Homosexual")
From the "hoplophobia" article:
"Hoplophobia is not a true phobia, and it is not recognized as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. The meaning and usage ascribed by Cooper falls outside of the medical definitions of true phobias. For example, phobias require that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual."
All of that also applies to the word "homophobia".
At least Cooper's term was constructed intelligently, using two Greek terms. Weinberg's term on the other hand was constructed from "homo" (which is ironically a disparaging slang term for homosexuals), and "phobia" which is from a Greek word for "fear". Neither the Latin nor the Greek terms "homo" have anything to do with homosexuality; they mean "man" and "same" respectively. The "homo" in "homophobia" references homosexuals (literally: "fear of homos", which is understood to mean "fear of homosexuals"), and the only time "homo" means "homosexual" is when it is used as a slang, a slang that is considered offensive no less.
The difference here is that the PC crowd likes the word "homophobia", but they don't like the word "hoplophobia". – MaximRecoil ( talk) 14:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an absolutely ridiculous thread seemingly created by someone who not only hates gays, but is part of the gun lobby. North, you should know better than to show any empathy with the OP. Let's not go over the arguments about the meaning of homophobia again. Its common English usage is clear, and it is real. Hoplophobia is paranoid American political bullshit. HiLo48 ( talk) 19:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Something must be done to stop systematic trolling on this page.-- В и к и T 19:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a fundamental problem here, that the whiners about the word just don't get. Yes, homophobia IS a pejorative term. That's because being anti-homosexual is not a nice thing to be. It's got nothing to do with what the roots of the word once meant. Most people who routinely use the word word (NOT meaning fear of homosexuals) DO mean it as a negative term. So deal with it. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The edits suggested by the OP are based on original research and emanate from false premises that the words homophobia and hoplophobia are related to the extent that the holpophobia article should be a model for re-editing this article. Black Kite (and others) have provided solid researched examples that completely refute this notion. More importantly, no reliable sources have been presented to support the theory, and until such sources are presented, there is no basis for a talk page discussion. If sources can be found to support this novel idea (and not just the individual components: neologism, pejorative, holpophobia, psychological fear, political correctness, gay puppies, etc.) then we can weigh the prevalence of those sources against other abundant sources to determine how to incorporate those ideas into the article with due weight. Pro tip: a fringe minority theory probably will not get top billing in the lede.
Continued discussion based on original research and trying to navigate this minefield of logical fallacies will not improve the article. We require reliable sources. General discussion about the topic that are not grounded in editing according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not acceptable because this is not a forum for general discussion. When several editors suggest that this may be the case, it would be wise to listen. - Mr X 03:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
This is the textbook definition of disruptive. We have been over and over and over this from every conceivable angle, and these arguments are going absolutely nowhere. Over the course of more threads than I care to count and posts to at least two widely-read noticeboards, there's been input from a wide array of impartial, experienced editors, and the consensus remains that the claims being put forward about alleged problems in the article are without merit. To put it another way, the horse being beaten is dead and decomposed, and nasty little tatters of horseflesh are littering the ground. From a relevant guideline:
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.
If anyone who has a problem with this article has anything new to say, by all means, say it. Otherwise, please rest assured that you have made your point. Making it repeatedly or more loudly is both an exercise in futility and a highly effective method of irritating those who disagree with you. I assume your intent isn't to disrupt, so I cannot help supposing that you will let the horse rest in peace at long last. Rivertorch ( talk) 06:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hatting anything that you disagree with is a recipe for making the problems with this article worse. The same goes for directing inquiries and comments about the problems to places where you make YOUR side of the argument. This type of abuse is already currently in the header and you are talking about making it worse rather than fixing it. North8000 ( talk) 11:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
To me, it means "as of right now". It doesn't seem very accurate to say something to the effect of "this fact is true to date" in 2012, when we are backing that statement up with a source from 1999.
Here is the edit I'm talking about: [5]
Honestly, I can't think of any legitimate reason to revert that edit.
Now, maybe it IS true, "to date". But we need a more current source before we can say that in the article, regardless of what anybody would prefer to have the article say. Belchfire- TALK 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the Swedish medical textbook Dynamisk Psykiatri (2003 ed.) by Johan Cullberg deals with the curing of homophobia as a psychiatric disorder. Previous editions (1993 ed. and such) dealt with curing homosexuality. I would like it to be included in the article somehow, but I lack exact knowledge. Perhaps someone with access to a copy could add more. -- Auric 02:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Strange enough the Associated Press (whatever that is) just announced they are to stop using the word homophobia (link here) as they don't agree with the meaning of the word. Bit of a coincidence...Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"Also dictionary definitions are never more than a starting point for determining the scope of a given article. One reason for that has to do with the rapidity with which language evolves." should be removed from the first FAQ. It's unnecessary and makes it longer than it needs to be, and, given that three of the four inline citations in the article for the definition are dictionaries, a bit of a strawman. NE Ent 23:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of that sentence. Those who want to change the scope of this article are not "championing that the article should be limited to a dictionary definition", to the contrary, they are ignoring dictionary definition of homophobia and insisting that the word should be defined by defining two different words - homo and phobia (which would literally mean fear of the same). That is WP:OR and has nothing to do with dictionary definition of homophobia.-- В и к и T 00:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
proposal withdrawn; see new #Intro proposal #2 below |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I find the current introduction to be incoherent relative to the body of the article. These are the first two sentences:
Is the topic of this article the word "homophobia", or is it the topic which can perhaps be best described as "opposition to homosexuals and/or homosexuality"? The introductory sentences suggest the former, but the article suggests the latter. I propose changing the introduction to more accurately describe the topic and scope of the article. For example:
Thoughts? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The new definition replaces "Range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality..." with "Opposition toward homosexuality..." which is not the same. I agree with Insomesia that this change would be the first step towards renaming the article to "Opposition toward homosexuality". I can't support the definition which would describe all antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred as simply "Opposition". Imagine this definition: "Opposition to people from other countries is commonly referred to as Xenophobia". Ridiculous.-- В и к и T 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
|
For the record, I would never propose or support changing the title of this article. The current title, Homophobia, is the most common name used for the topic of this article, and this topic is clearly the primary use of that word. But let's not confuse the word homophobia (and all of its meanings) that is the title with the topic, which is not all of the word's meanings (see WP:NOTADICT).
That said, I understand the objection to simplifying the description of this topic to mere "opposition to ...". That's a valid criticism. Will give that more thought. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC) minor revision -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC))
Taking all of the above into account, how about just changing the second sentence to get rid of "definitions" and distinguishing "irrational fear" as a possible basis, and changing "is" to "encompasses" in the first sentence? Current intro:
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred.
Proposed intro:
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.
-- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is the phrase "irrational fear" instead of simply "fear"? Is there a "rational fear" of lgbt? NE Ent 02:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a lot that I could respond to, but that wouldn't do much to actually work towards improving the article. All I'll say say is it's a stretch to claim that we're all prejudiced. One can vote to civil union rights/visitation rights/etc., without voting for gay marriage. I have only stated my personal POV in order to keep where I'm coming from clear. This is not a religious issue for me, nor is it a personal battle. You can think what you want, HiLo, but you're still wrong. You can't apply a lack of support for anything else and say that it means opposition. (Oh, I don't like watching Dr. Who, so I think that it should be banned for everyone? Not quite a fair assessment.) This isn't about judging my POV. This is just about me stating where my cards lie to avoid mischaracterization. Moving forward: I agree with No unique names. I think that we need to be careful to avoid a tonality where we begin generalizing people groups, and labeling their reasons. It's a two-way street regardless of what side you're on. I think that the removal of the word "irrational" would be implying that there is no "rational" fear, which simply can't be proven, nor is it true, I would argue. —Maktesh (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The third sentence of the first Lead paragraph currently reads:
In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."
This seems a little off to me for a couple of reasons. First off, the beginning paragraph of the Lead is supposed to define the the subject generally without getting too specific. ( WP:MOSBEGIN) This sentence is a very specific direct quote from a single person. (Unfortunately I don't know enough of the sources to know whether it is NPOV, but the "dehumanize" and "deny their humanity" bits seem a harsher than, say, what I get when I look up homophobia on Miriam Webster or Dictionary.com.) I think it also bugs me because the language seems rhetorical instead of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias (See WP:Quotations).
Second, per WP:LEAD, the Lead should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. I've read through the body of the article and I can't find anything in the body about dehumanizing or denying humanity. The only thing in the body I can find that resembles the quote in the Lead is in the "Distribution of attitudes" section where a study found that "hatred of gay people, anti-Semitism, and racism are 'likely companions.'" Even then, the statement in the Lead is much stronger than what the body is saying.
Anyway, I suggest that the 3rd sentence of the Lead should be moved to the body, possibly to the "Efforts to combat homophobia" section. I'd make the edit myself, but I seem to remember this being a fairly controversial article, so I figured I'd just propose it here. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 20:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, stability and consensus were already acheived; please read archives as that it why they are kept. Let me correct the confused/misled: the purpose of encyclopedic "leads" is to introduce the subject first by defining it and then by explaining what the article is about by highlighting some main points. If the lead were simply a summary or outline, it would be called such. I agree with Insomnia in that such recent edits with drive-by consensus are disruptive. -- CJ Withers ( talk) 22:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm against it in the lead, but, more importantly, the idea expressed above that someone must be consulted because that individual wrote the lead is essentially the antithesis of the community development of a Wiki. It also seems to run afoul of WP:OWN. -- No unique names 05:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request the following passage be ADDED to the Homophobia page in the Distinctions and Proposed Alternatives section:
Stephen M. White and Louis R. Franzini introduced the related term of “heteronegativism” to refer to the considerable range of negative feelings that some gay individuals may hold and express toward heterosexuals. This term is preferred to “heterophobia” because it does not imply a fear-based constellation of negative thoughts and emotions, as the corresponding term “homophobia” correctly implies in the attitudes of prejudiced heterosexuals.
Reference:
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
White, S.M., & Franzini, L.R. (1999). Heteronegativism? The attitudes of gay men and lesbians toward heterosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 37 (1), 65-79.
December 3, 2012
COI of Editor: Louis R. Franzini, Ph.D.-- Co-author of referenced journal article— Preceding unsigned comment added by LRFranzini ( talk • contribs) 3 December 2012
First, the most commonly used term ‘‘homophobia’’ unfortunately implies a pathological level of fear or dread which may overstate the attitudes and emotions of some people. An alternative term, ‘‘homonegativism’’ (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), refers to the entire spectrum of negative sentiment toward homosexuals, from dislike through hostility and hatred to actual fear. We offer the corresponding term, ‘‘heteronegativism,’’ as it applies to gay men and lesbians who dislike, hate, or fear heterosexuals. ‘‘Homophobia’’ and ‘‘heterophobia’’ will only be used in the present study in reference to feelings of extreme, unreasonable fear or dread of people of the other orientation and to refer to scores on assessment instruments. Otherwise, the more encompassing and less clinical terms ‘‘homonegativism’’ and ‘‘heteronegativism’’ will be used to refer to the range of negative feelings that people of one sexual orientation may hold toward people of the other.
The second caution regards the appropriateness of the use of the term ‘‘heterophobia’’ in reference to homosexuals. It is clear that many homosexuals are often subject to discrimination and violence. Fear of particular hostile individuals or threatening situations is clearly quite rational. However, the generalization of such fear to the innocuous social situations typically described on questionnaires could be considered irrational.
While the terms ‘‘phobia’’ and ‘‘negativism’’ are by no means interchangeable, because phobia is considered a part of the more encompassing negativism, theoretical statements regarding negativism would generally be expected to hold true for phobia as well. Thus, the expectation that gay men and lesbian women would experience less negativism toward heterosexuals than the reverse suggests that homosexuals would also report less phobia than heterosexuals. (pages 66-67)
It should probably be noted at some point that fear of homosexuals is not the only meaning for the word "homophobia." "Homo-" is Greek for same, and "phobia" is fear. Thus "homophobia" can and is used to describe the fear of sameness of monotony. I'm having trouble finding a date when first used in this sense, but sources on this definition http://phobialist.com/ , http://guidewhois.com/2011/04/fear-of-monotony/ , http://www.fun-with-words.com/phobias_e-h.html . I am not suggesting that it should be a major part of this article, but it should at least be given a sentence under the "Origins" section. I recommend this at the end of "Origins:"
Homophobia can also be used to describe the fear of monotony or sameness. This definition is not commonly used, and due to misunderstanding chronophobia (fear of boredom) may be used in many cases.
This could all be sourced to the guidewhois link, is short enough not detract from the more common meaning, and links to a subject better equipped to handle this definition. I do feel that detracting from the more common meaning would be a mistake.
Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawaygull ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Please explain to me how stating that one of the biggest news sources in the country is removing the term 'homophobia' from their Style Book, quoting and explaining their stated reason as to why, and noting the alternative term they will is a violation of WP:NPOV. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
No, that's wrong BK. Just because it says "blog" somewhere doesn't make it an opinion piece. Belchfire- TALK 21:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is information about Associated Press decision in "Ad-hominem label" section? I looked the sources, and there is no mention of Ad-hominem.-- В и к и T 20:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I reverted per WP:NPOV because (1) the wording said x is fact in Wikipedia's voice rather than describing it as the stated opinion of an AP editor and (2) the addition made zero mention of the notable reactions to the announcement. The modifications subsequently made by Black Kite and NE Ent have resolved my concerns. Rivertorch ( talk) 20:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Restored comments by Americans for Truth about Homosexuality and Christian Concern -- NPOV means we balance comments from the left with comments from that right, not that we don't have any POV statements in articles. NE Ent 01:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, so... using that criteria, how do you justify leaving in Slate? Belchfire- TALK 02:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring.
There's a very American slant to all that's above. This is a global encyclopaedia. Here in Australia there is simply no question that in our version of English homophobia is NOT about a fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. It's all about negative attitudes to homosexuals or homosexuality. I ask people to read this article from one of our quality newspapers to see that it has nothing to do with a phobia. Maybe there's a linguistic difference between our countries. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
If the English language is anything at all, it is rich in exceptions to its own rules. I can easily come up with 100, 500, or 1000 examples of English words with contemporary definitions that are derived precisely from their Latin, Greek, French or German roots. The fact that some words have evolved means absolutely nothing.
Got anything else? Belchfire- TALK 08:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
From the Hoplophobia page:
So... explain to me how so-called "homophobia" doesn't have such a disclaimer up front and center?
-- Glynth ( talk) 20:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
please focus on the article NE Ent 12:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Restoring this section to visibility. MrX, you prove my point about Wikipedians and the tyranny of the majority. And don't tell me I have to suggest a specific change or else you're allowed to remove this section. That's never been the case anywhere else - or has it become a new standard I was unaware of when one of us eeeevil "rednecks" start to "abuse our free speech", as you guys put it earlier, per the link Black Kite provided? I've mentioned clear problems with the article. I said what needs to be done. You just refuse to discuss it. You aren't interested in an intellectually honest discussion. You aren't interested in improving the article so that it is intellectually honest. You just want to bury the problem for reasons I need not speculate on but should be obvious to the reader. -- Glynth ( talk) 20:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Definitions: Homophobia, Heterosexism, and Sexual Prejudice
-- Glynth ( talk) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
As some elitist punks keep deleting, I will keep editing. If you don't like it, deal with it. Ban me if you must, which will prove how imperialistic you really are. Also, do not worry, I am screening this and posting it on the web once you ban me for incompetence to figure out reality.
Now, let us try again. People with Panic Disorder will find a great offense to this term considering it leans in the direction of changing the definition of phobias in which in turn change the definitions of panic attacks and disorders. This isn't an opinion. It is a fact, and it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure that out. Agoraphobia isn't fear of someone being a bridge, which is what this whole article seems to indirectly suggest. This is obviously leaning against any scientific facts that would disprove this whole article in an instant. I do not make the facts, I just repeat them. If you do not like it, contact your local government officials and change the word of phobia, which you will be hated even more than you are now. Thanks.
Source: Agoraphobia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001921/ Secondary sources: Phobia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia
I do not see the word 'discrimination' in any other words. This point still stands. Delete it again if you wish imperialists. My point still stands and will always stand when I enter sociology to attack this pitiful excuse for a term.
That FAQ should be the entrance to a controversial section on this page. Please do understand. Also, the word is 'Uncivilized'. To add to this, wikipedia is supposed to be 'unbiased' and resort to facts and information. Not having a controversial section to the word homophobia that is still part of the word homophobia is 'not' displaying unbiased facts and information. What is the difference between this and news sources? Sounds like this is also reporting 'news' as well in my book. The problem doesn't stem from the news. It stems from people. Last time I checked, people made this article. The news is an entity that cannot survive without people. (And yes, my previous posts were supposed to be provocative, because that is how change comes with people who refuse to listen to reason.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that is 'unbiased'? That leans directly with the LGBT community only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for the rant, except to ツ Jenova20, considering he called me a troll and was the one who decided to first be provocative. (Although you deleted the evidence Black Kite) I didn't notice the Ad-Hoc and the Severe Mental Disorder parts of the Criticized section. Please feel free to delete all conversations. I reside in Massachusetts and many were surprised on how the word was defined. I was surprised there wasn't a 'In reality, the word would actually translate to' section, which would be separate from The Criticism and Definition section. This would be different in the sense that it would go into great detail of the suffixes and prefixes (Assuming) of the word.
I disagree with both, and I have the right to not forgive you ツ Jenova20 considering I have PDD-NOS with Panic Disorder. Also, considering I dated a sexist 'lesbian' and agoraphobia exists, it is hard NOT to believe that homophobia as a Psychological disorder does NOT exist. The only way I got her to date me is complicated, but she was in fact a lesbian. I mean, by God, I fear her because she was the most uptight, sexist, hypocritical cheating woman I have ever dated and hit the worst list. I shouldn't have answered you ツ Jenova20 since you do not deserve an answer, but whatever. Also note that I do not have homophobia, I just don't stand with their morals, even when I was rebelling against Christianity. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Of course you would say that AFTER the evidence of the contrary was deleted. Either way, no I have not found what I wanted. I wanted the etymology of the word without media, news, and appeal to population fallacy bias as a section in this. However, someone with your caliber will never understand Psychology nor the true definition of "Phobia". "an exaggerated and often disabling fear usually inexplicable to the subject and having sometimes a logical but usually an illogical or symbolic object, class of objects, or situation—" ---- "Extreme and irrational fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation. A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder (a neurosis), since anxiety is its chief symptom. Phobias are generally believed to result when fear produced by an original threatening situation (such as a near-drowning in childhood) is transferred to other similar situations (such as encounters with bodies of water), the original fear often being repressed or forgotten. Behaviour therapy can be helpful in overcoming phobias, the phobic person being gradually exposed to the anxiety-provoking object or situation in a way that demonstrates that no threat really exists." - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia I will bring up also what a previous person said. "From the Hoplophobia page: Hoplophobia is not a true phobia ... For example, phobias require that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual. So... explain to me how so-called "homophobia" doesn't have such a disclaimer up front and center? " No beating around the bush kids, whether it is the burning bush, George Bush, Bush Jr, or just a regular bush. Yes, that includes homosexuals and Liberals. "— Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Considering that wasn't me who responded, you proved nothing but your bigotry. We call them people who hate homosexuals, people who had bad experiences with homosexuals, and etc. How do you like it if someone called you heterophobic? Or yet, let us assume you have an actual phobia. Can I say that you are afraid that you may actually be a bridge considering you are afraid of them? Or better yet, say you hate bridges just because you fear them? How about them apples? Just because your bigoted closed-minded insolence decides to apply a term and expects it without backlash does not mean that there will not be backlash against you recruitment and indictment people as to go far as such labeling them as criminals to the extent of punishing those who may actually have a fear of homosexuals. When you mess around with words in the Science department, or better yet, Psychology, we all know Christians are not the only problem; that is assuming they were one in the first place. So let's try this again, shall we? Instead of voicing your worthless opinions and attacking a straw man, how about answering the two questions I have asked? What will it hurt, besides your pitiful agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
So, when did the word "Phobia" mean hate? And do not source google. Their definitions have been screwed up since day one. Even Wikipedia disagrees with their definitions and you obviously didn't read a word I said. If this is about you, then change it to "HiLo48 definition of Homophobia". If this is about different countries, states, and etc, then add different sections. However, no one gave you the authority to decide what is and isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
Wrong. You are entitled to your facts, but not your opinions. When facts and opinions clash, you have to go the Etymology root in this case, in which is definitely not on his side. As I said previously, if you have a problem with the definition "Phobia", take it up with the Wikipedia "Phobia" page or better yet, Psychologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The article clearly suggests that phobia means fear and/or Morbid Fear. I do not see hate in any part of the article that Phobia actually and accurately encompass. If one was to define the word properly, they wouldn't be mindless sheeple following the news media. They would add a media section and a definition section. Unless, of course, you know the real meaning of phobia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Then take out the word phobia and then you will see where this article lands. If you wish to be imperialistic, start here:
"(2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear". [9]"
"— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DarkGuardianVII (
talk •
contribs)
03:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Then as I said, take it out if it is 'irrelevant'. That includes from homo"phobia" as well. You will see where this lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I am arguing for the Etymology of the word on this page, not to change the definition of so called 'reliable' sources. However, you are clearly against it considering it dramatically changes the definition ten-fold. The Etymology is poorly written and rushed. Also, you said "Phobia" is irrelevant when the Etymology clearly states "Morbid Fear" on this page. So, are you going to delete it or admit you are wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Then what is preventing you from deleting the suffix? Affix? Or (Technically) an Interfix? This talk section is also about "Phobia", so stop pulling that fail card. In the case of "Common usage", we have things defined as possibly "informal", slang, pejorative, and other things because the definition is off. Just like the word bitch and fag. Fag is a cig butt and bitch is a female dog. Bastard is also considered a person born out of wedlock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
User:DarkGuardianVII has "been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE". I suspect this thread will die now. How long before someone else wants to fight this fight? HiLo48 ( talk) 07:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Is was mentioned that we might be overlooking some aspects in the FAQ. Are there any discussions or ideas that someone thinks is missing? If so I'm happy to dig a bit and see if we can find a NPOV way to include them. Insomesia ( talk) 11:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
AN ANI report regarding conversations on this talk page has been posted at User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia North8000 ( talk) 14:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It is funny that "homophobia" is largely treated as a legitimate term here, while " hoplophobia" is not, even though they both have the same degree of [il]legitimacy.
From the "hoplophobia" article:
"Hoplophobia is a pejorative neologism originally coined to describe an 'irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them.'"
Homophobia is also normally used as a pejorative ( link), and it is also a neologism (it was coined in 1972 by George Weinberg in his book "Society and the Healthy Homosexual")
From the "hoplophobia" article:
"Hoplophobia is not a true phobia, and it is not recognized as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. The meaning and usage ascribed by Cooper falls outside of the medical definitions of true phobias. For example, phobias require that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual."
All of that also applies to the word "homophobia".
At least Cooper's term was constructed intelligently, using two Greek terms. Weinberg's term on the other hand was constructed from "homo" (which is ironically a disparaging slang term for homosexuals), and "phobia" which is from a Greek word for "fear". Neither the Latin nor the Greek terms "homo" have anything to do with homosexuality; they mean "man" and "same" respectively. The "homo" in "homophobia" references homosexuals (literally: "fear of homos", which is understood to mean "fear of homosexuals"), and the only time "homo" means "homosexual" is when it is used as a slang, a slang that is considered offensive no less.
The difference here is that the PC crowd likes the word "homophobia", but they don't like the word "hoplophobia". – MaximRecoil ( talk) 14:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an absolutely ridiculous thread seemingly created by someone who not only hates gays, but is part of the gun lobby. North, you should know better than to show any empathy with the OP. Let's not go over the arguments about the meaning of homophobia again. Its common English usage is clear, and it is real. Hoplophobia is paranoid American political bullshit. HiLo48 ( talk) 19:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Something must be done to stop systematic trolling on this page.-- В и к и T 19:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a fundamental problem here, that the whiners about the word just don't get. Yes, homophobia IS a pejorative term. That's because being anti-homosexual is not a nice thing to be. It's got nothing to do with what the roots of the word once meant. Most people who routinely use the word word (NOT meaning fear of homosexuals) DO mean it as a negative term. So deal with it. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The edits suggested by the OP are based on original research and emanate from false premises that the words homophobia and hoplophobia are related to the extent that the holpophobia article should be a model for re-editing this article. Black Kite (and others) have provided solid researched examples that completely refute this notion. More importantly, no reliable sources have been presented to support the theory, and until such sources are presented, there is no basis for a talk page discussion. If sources can be found to support this novel idea (and not just the individual components: neologism, pejorative, holpophobia, psychological fear, political correctness, gay puppies, etc.) then we can weigh the prevalence of those sources against other abundant sources to determine how to incorporate those ideas into the article with due weight. Pro tip: a fringe minority theory probably will not get top billing in the lede.
Continued discussion based on original research and trying to navigate this minefield of logical fallacies will not improve the article. We require reliable sources. General discussion about the topic that are not grounded in editing according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not acceptable because this is not a forum for general discussion. When several editors suggest that this may be the case, it would be wise to listen. - Mr X 03:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
This is the textbook definition of disruptive. We have been over and over and over this from every conceivable angle, and these arguments are going absolutely nowhere. Over the course of more threads than I care to count and posts to at least two widely-read noticeboards, there's been input from a wide array of impartial, experienced editors, and the consensus remains that the claims being put forward about alleged problems in the article are without merit. To put it another way, the horse being beaten is dead and decomposed, and nasty little tatters of horseflesh are littering the ground. From a relevant guideline:
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.
If anyone who has a problem with this article has anything new to say, by all means, say it. Otherwise, please rest assured that you have made your point. Making it repeatedly or more loudly is both an exercise in futility and a highly effective method of irritating those who disagree with you. I assume your intent isn't to disrupt, so I cannot help supposing that you will let the horse rest in peace at long last. Rivertorch ( talk) 06:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hatting anything that you disagree with is a recipe for making the problems with this article worse. The same goes for directing inquiries and comments about the problems to places where you make YOUR side of the argument. This type of abuse is already currently in the header and you are talking about making it worse rather than fixing it. North8000 ( talk) 11:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
To me, it means "as of right now". It doesn't seem very accurate to say something to the effect of "this fact is true to date" in 2012, when we are backing that statement up with a source from 1999.
Here is the edit I'm talking about: [5]
Honestly, I can't think of any legitimate reason to revert that edit.
Now, maybe it IS true, "to date". But we need a more current source before we can say that in the article, regardless of what anybody would prefer to have the article say. Belchfire- TALK 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the Swedish medical textbook Dynamisk Psykiatri (2003 ed.) by Johan Cullberg deals with the curing of homophobia as a psychiatric disorder. Previous editions (1993 ed. and such) dealt with curing homosexuality. I would like it to be included in the article somehow, but I lack exact knowledge. Perhaps someone with access to a copy could add more. -- Auric 02:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Strange enough the Associated Press (whatever that is) just announced they are to stop using the word homophobia (link here) as they don't agree with the meaning of the word. Bit of a coincidence...Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
"Also dictionary definitions are never more than a starting point for determining the scope of a given article. One reason for that has to do with the rapidity with which language evolves." should be removed from the first FAQ. It's unnecessary and makes it longer than it needs to be, and, given that three of the four inline citations in the article for the definition are dictionaries, a bit of a strawman. NE Ent 23:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of that sentence. Those who want to change the scope of this article are not "championing that the article should be limited to a dictionary definition", to the contrary, they are ignoring dictionary definition of homophobia and insisting that the word should be defined by defining two different words - homo and phobia (which would literally mean fear of the same). That is WP:OR and has nothing to do with dictionary definition of homophobia.-- В и к и T 00:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
proposal withdrawn; see new #Intro proposal #2 below |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I find the current introduction to be incoherent relative to the body of the article. These are the first two sentences:
Is the topic of this article the word "homophobia", or is it the topic which can perhaps be best described as "opposition to homosexuals and/or homosexuality"? The introductory sentences suggest the former, but the article suggests the latter. I propose changing the introduction to more accurately describe the topic and scope of the article. For example:
Thoughts? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The new definition replaces "Range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality..." with "Opposition toward homosexuality..." which is not the same. I agree with Insomesia that this change would be the first step towards renaming the article to "Opposition toward homosexuality". I can't support the definition which would describe all antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred as simply "Opposition". Imagine this definition: "Opposition to people from other countries is commonly referred to as Xenophobia". Ridiculous.-- В и к и T 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
|
For the record, I would never propose or support changing the title of this article. The current title, Homophobia, is the most common name used for the topic of this article, and this topic is clearly the primary use of that word. But let's not confuse the word homophobia (and all of its meanings) that is the title with the topic, which is not all of the word's meanings (see WP:NOTADICT).
That said, I understand the objection to simplifying the description of this topic to mere "opposition to ...". That's a valid criticism. Will give that more thought. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC) minor revision -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC))
Taking all of the above into account, how about just changing the second sentence to get rid of "definitions" and distinguishing "irrational fear" as a possible basis, and changing "is" to "encompasses" in the first sentence? Current intro:
Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred.
Proposed intro:
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.
-- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is the phrase "irrational fear" instead of simply "fear"? Is there a "rational fear" of lgbt? NE Ent 02:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a lot that I could respond to, but that wouldn't do much to actually work towards improving the article. All I'll say say is it's a stretch to claim that we're all prejudiced. One can vote to civil union rights/visitation rights/etc., without voting for gay marriage. I have only stated my personal POV in order to keep where I'm coming from clear. This is not a religious issue for me, nor is it a personal battle. You can think what you want, HiLo, but you're still wrong. You can't apply a lack of support for anything else and say that it means opposition. (Oh, I don't like watching Dr. Who, so I think that it should be banned for everyone? Not quite a fair assessment.) This isn't about judging my POV. This is just about me stating where my cards lie to avoid mischaracterization. Moving forward: I agree with No unique names. I think that we need to be careful to avoid a tonality where we begin generalizing people groups, and labeling their reasons. It's a two-way street regardless of what side you're on. I think that the removal of the word "irrational" would be implying that there is no "rational" fear, which simply can't be proven, nor is it true, I would argue. —Maktesh (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The third sentence of the first Lead paragraph currently reads:
In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."
This seems a little off to me for a couple of reasons. First off, the beginning paragraph of the Lead is supposed to define the the subject generally without getting too specific. ( WP:MOSBEGIN) This sentence is a very specific direct quote from a single person. (Unfortunately I don't know enough of the sources to know whether it is NPOV, but the "dehumanize" and "deny their humanity" bits seem a harsher than, say, what I get when I look up homophobia on Miriam Webster or Dictionary.com.) I think it also bugs me because the language seems rhetorical instead of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias (See WP:Quotations).
Second, per WP:LEAD, the Lead should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. I've read through the body of the article and I can't find anything in the body about dehumanizing or denying humanity. The only thing in the body I can find that resembles the quote in the Lead is in the "Distribution of attitudes" section where a study found that "hatred of gay people, anti-Semitism, and racism are 'likely companions.'" Even then, the statement in the Lead is much stronger than what the body is saying.
Anyway, I suggest that the 3rd sentence of the Lead should be moved to the body, possibly to the "Efforts to combat homophobia" section. I'd make the edit myself, but I seem to remember this being a fairly controversial article, so I figured I'd just propose it here. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 20:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, stability and consensus were already acheived; please read archives as that it why they are kept. Let me correct the confused/misled: the purpose of encyclopedic "leads" is to introduce the subject first by defining it and then by explaining what the article is about by highlighting some main points. If the lead were simply a summary or outline, it would be called such. I agree with Insomnia in that such recent edits with drive-by consensus are disruptive. -- CJ Withers ( talk) 22:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm against it in the lead, but, more importantly, the idea expressed above that someone must be consulted because that individual wrote the lead is essentially the antithesis of the community development of a Wiki. It also seems to run afoul of WP:OWN. -- No unique names 05:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request the following passage be ADDED to the Homophobia page in the Distinctions and Proposed Alternatives section:
Stephen M. White and Louis R. Franzini introduced the related term of “heteronegativism” to refer to the considerable range of negative feelings that some gay individuals may hold and express toward heterosexuals. This term is preferred to “heterophobia” because it does not imply a fear-based constellation of negative thoughts and emotions, as the corresponding term “homophobia” correctly implies in the attitudes of prejudiced heterosexuals.
Reference:
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
White, S.M., & Franzini, L.R. (1999). Heteronegativism? The attitudes of gay men and lesbians toward heterosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 37 (1), 65-79.
December 3, 2012
COI of Editor: Louis R. Franzini, Ph.D.-- Co-author of referenced journal article— Preceding unsigned comment added by LRFranzini ( talk • contribs) 3 December 2012
First, the most commonly used term ‘‘homophobia’’ unfortunately implies a pathological level of fear or dread which may overstate the attitudes and emotions of some people. An alternative term, ‘‘homonegativism’’ (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), refers to the entire spectrum of negative sentiment toward homosexuals, from dislike through hostility and hatred to actual fear. We offer the corresponding term, ‘‘heteronegativism,’’ as it applies to gay men and lesbians who dislike, hate, or fear heterosexuals. ‘‘Homophobia’’ and ‘‘heterophobia’’ will only be used in the present study in reference to feelings of extreme, unreasonable fear or dread of people of the other orientation and to refer to scores on assessment instruments. Otherwise, the more encompassing and less clinical terms ‘‘homonegativism’’ and ‘‘heteronegativism’’ will be used to refer to the range of negative feelings that people of one sexual orientation may hold toward people of the other.
The second caution regards the appropriateness of the use of the term ‘‘heterophobia’’ in reference to homosexuals. It is clear that many homosexuals are often subject to discrimination and violence. Fear of particular hostile individuals or threatening situations is clearly quite rational. However, the generalization of such fear to the innocuous social situations typically described on questionnaires could be considered irrational.
While the terms ‘‘phobia’’ and ‘‘negativism’’ are by no means interchangeable, because phobia is considered a part of the more encompassing negativism, theoretical statements regarding negativism would generally be expected to hold true for phobia as well. Thus, the expectation that gay men and lesbian women would experience less negativism toward heterosexuals than the reverse suggests that homosexuals would also report less phobia than heterosexuals. (pages 66-67)
It should probably be noted at some point that fear of homosexuals is not the only meaning for the word "homophobia." "Homo-" is Greek for same, and "phobia" is fear. Thus "homophobia" can and is used to describe the fear of sameness of monotony. I'm having trouble finding a date when first used in this sense, but sources on this definition http://phobialist.com/ , http://guidewhois.com/2011/04/fear-of-monotony/ , http://www.fun-with-words.com/phobias_e-h.html . I am not suggesting that it should be a major part of this article, but it should at least be given a sentence under the "Origins" section. I recommend this at the end of "Origins:"
Homophobia can also be used to describe the fear of monotony or sameness. This definition is not commonly used, and due to misunderstanding chronophobia (fear of boredom) may be used in many cases.
This could all be sourced to the guidewhois link, is short enough not detract from the more common meaning, and links to a subject better equipped to handle this definition. I do feel that detracting from the more common meaning would be a mistake.
Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawaygull ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Please explain to me how stating that one of the biggest news sources in the country is removing the term 'homophobia' from their Style Book, quoting and explaining their stated reason as to why, and noting the alternative term they will is a violation of WP:NPOV. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
No, that's wrong BK. Just because it says "blog" somewhere doesn't make it an opinion piece. Belchfire- TALK 21:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is information about Associated Press decision in "Ad-hominem label" section? I looked the sources, and there is no mention of Ad-hominem.-- В и к и T 20:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I reverted per WP:NPOV because (1) the wording said x is fact in Wikipedia's voice rather than describing it as the stated opinion of an AP editor and (2) the addition made zero mention of the notable reactions to the announcement. The modifications subsequently made by Black Kite and NE Ent have resolved my concerns. Rivertorch ( talk) 20:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Restored comments by Americans for Truth about Homosexuality and Christian Concern -- NPOV means we balance comments from the left with comments from that right, not that we don't have any POV statements in articles. NE Ent 01:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, so... using that criteria, how do you justify leaving in Slate? Belchfire- TALK 02:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. Nevertheless, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring.
There's a very American slant to all that's above. This is a global encyclopaedia. Here in Australia there is simply no question that in our version of English homophobia is NOT about a fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. It's all about negative attitudes to homosexuals or homosexuality. I ask people to read this article from one of our quality newspapers to see that it has nothing to do with a phobia. Maybe there's a linguistic difference between our countries. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
If the English language is anything at all, it is rich in exceptions to its own rules. I can easily come up with 100, 500, or 1000 examples of English words with contemporary definitions that are derived precisely from their Latin, Greek, French or German roots. The fact that some words have evolved means absolutely nothing.
Got anything else? Belchfire- TALK 08:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
From the Hoplophobia page:
So... explain to me how so-called "homophobia" doesn't have such a disclaimer up front and center?
-- Glynth ( talk) 20:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
please focus on the article NE Ent 12:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Restoring this section to visibility. MrX, you prove my point about Wikipedians and the tyranny of the majority. And don't tell me I have to suggest a specific change or else you're allowed to remove this section. That's never been the case anywhere else - or has it become a new standard I was unaware of when one of us eeeevil "rednecks" start to "abuse our free speech", as you guys put it earlier, per the link Black Kite provided? I've mentioned clear problems with the article. I said what needs to be done. You just refuse to discuss it. You aren't interested in an intellectually honest discussion. You aren't interested in improving the article so that it is intellectually honest. You just want to bury the problem for reasons I need not speculate on but should be obvious to the reader. -- Glynth ( talk) 20:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Definitions: Homophobia, Heterosexism, and Sexual Prejudice
-- Glynth ( talk) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
As some elitist punks keep deleting, I will keep editing. If you don't like it, deal with it. Ban me if you must, which will prove how imperialistic you really are. Also, do not worry, I am screening this and posting it on the web once you ban me for incompetence to figure out reality.
Now, let us try again. People with Panic Disorder will find a great offense to this term considering it leans in the direction of changing the definition of phobias in which in turn change the definitions of panic attacks and disorders. This isn't an opinion. It is a fact, and it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to figure that out. Agoraphobia isn't fear of someone being a bridge, which is what this whole article seems to indirectly suggest. This is obviously leaning against any scientific facts that would disprove this whole article in an instant. I do not make the facts, I just repeat them. If you do not like it, contact your local government officials and change the word of phobia, which you will be hated even more than you are now. Thanks.
Source: Agoraphobia http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001921/ Secondary sources: Phobia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia
I do not see the word 'discrimination' in any other words. This point still stands. Delete it again if you wish imperialists. My point still stands and will always stand when I enter sociology to attack this pitiful excuse for a term.
That FAQ should be the entrance to a controversial section on this page. Please do understand. Also, the word is 'Uncivilized'. To add to this, wikipedia is supposed to be 'unbiased' and resort to facts and information. Not having a controversial section to the word homophobia that is still part of the word homophobia is 'not' displaying unbiased facts and information. What is the difference between this and news sources? Sounds like this is also reporting 'news' as well in my book. The problem doesn't stem from the news. It stems from people. Last time I checked, people made this article. The news is an entity that cannot survive without people. (And yes, my previous posts were supposed to be provocative, because that is how change comes with people who refuse to listen to reason.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that is 'unbiased'? That leans directly with the LGBT community only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for the rant, except to ツ Jenova20, considering he called me a troll and was the one who decided to first be provocative. (Although you deleted the evidence Black Kite) I didn't notice the Ad-Hoc and the Severe Mental Disorder parts of the Criticized section. Please feel free to delete all conversations. I reside in Massachusetts and many were surprised on how the word was defined. I was surprised there wasn't a 'In reality, the word would actually translate to' section, which would be separate from The Criticism and Definition section. This would be different in the sense that it would go into great detail of the suffixes and prefixes (Assuming) of the word.
I disagree with both, and I have the right to not forgive you ツ Jenova20 considering I have PDD-NOS with Panic Disorder. Also, considering I dated a sexist 'lesbian' and agoraphobia exists, it is hard NOT to believe that homophobia as a Psychological disorder does NOT exist. The only way I got her to date me is complicated, but she was in fact a lesbian. I mean, by God, I fear her because she was the most uptight, sexist, hypocritical cheating woman I have ever dated and hit the worst list. I shouldn't have answered you ツ Jenova20 since you do not deserve an answer, but whatever. Also note that I do not have homophobia, I just don't stand with their morals, even when I was rebelling against Christianity. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Of course you would say that AFTER the evidence of the contrary was deleted. Either way, no I have not found what I wanted. I wanted the etymology of the word without media, news, and appeal to population fallacy bias as a section in this. However, someone with your caliber will never understand Psychology nor the true definition of "Phobia". "an exaggerated and often disabling fear usually inexplicable to the subject and having sometimes a logical but usually an illogical or symbolic object, class of objects, or situation—" ---- "Extreme and irrational fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation. A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder (a neurosis), since anxiety is its chief symptom. Phobias are generally believed to result when fear produced by an original threatening situation (such as a near-drowning in childhood) is transferred to other similar situations (such as encounters with bodies of water), the original fear often being repressed or forgotten. Behaviour therapy can be helpful in overcoming phobias, the phobic person being gradually exposed to the anxiety-provoking object or situation in a way that demonstrates that no threat really exists." - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phobia I will bring up also what a previous person said. "From the Hoplophobia page: Hoplophobia is not a true phobia ... For example, phobias require that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual. So... explain to me how so-called "homophobia" doesn't have such a disclaimer up front and center? " No beating around the bush kids, whether it is the burning bush, George Bush, Bush Jr, or just a regular bush. Yes, that includes homosexuals and Liberals. "— Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Considering that wasn't me who responded, you proved nothing but your bigotry. We call them people who hate homosexuals, people who had bad experiences with homosexuals, and etc. How do you like it if someone called you heterophobic? Or yet, let us assume you have an actual phobia. Can I say that you are afraid that you may actually be a bridge considering you are afraid of them? Or better yet, say you hate bridges just because you fear them? How about them apples? Just because your bigoted closed-minded insolence decides to apply a term and expects it without backlash does not mean that there will not be backlash against you recruitment and indictment people as to go far as such labeling them as criminals to the extent of punishing those who may actually have a fear of homosexuals. When you mess around with words in the Science department, or better yet, Psychology, we all know Christians are not the only problem; that is assuming they were one in the first place. So let's try this again, shall we? Instead of voicing your worthless opinions and attacking a straw man, how about answering the two questions I have asked? What will it hurt, besides your pitiful agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
So, when did the word "Phobia" mean hate? And do not source google. Their definitions have been screwed up since day one. Even Wikipedia disagrees with their definitions and you obviously didn't read a word I said. If this is about you, then change it to "HiLo48 definition of Homophobia". If this is about different countries, states, and etc, then add different sections. However, no one gave you the authority to decide what is and isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC) |
Wrong. You are entitled to your facts, but not your opinions. When facts and opinions clash, you have to go the Etymology root in this case, in which is definitely not on his side. As I said previously, if you have a problem with the definition "Phobia", take it up with the Wikipedia "Phobia" page or better yet, Psychologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 03:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The article clearly suggests that phobia means fear and/or Morbid Fear. I do not see hate in any part of the article that Phobia actually and accurately encompass. If one was to define the word properly, they wouldn't be mindless sheeple following the news media. They would add a media section and a definition section. Unless, of course, you know the real meaning of phobia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Then take out the word phobia and then you will see where this article lands. If you wish to be imperialistic, start here:
"(2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear". [9]"
"— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DarkGuardianVII (
talk •
contribs)
03:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Then as I said, take it out if it is 'irrelevant'. That includes from homo"phobia" as well. You will see where this lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I am arguing for the Etymology of the word on this page, not to change the definition of so called 'reliable' sources. However, you are clearly against it considering it dramatically changes the definition ten-fold. The Etymology is poorly written and rushed. Also, you said "Phobia" is irrelevant when the Etymology clearly states "Morbid Fear" on this page. So, are you going to delete it or admit you are wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Then what is preventing you from deleting the suffix? Affix? Or (Technically) an Interfix? This talk section is also about "Phobia", so stop pulling that fail card. In the case of "Common usage", we have things defined as possibly "informal", slang, pejorative, and other things because the definition is off. Just like the word bitch and fag. Fag is a cig butt and bitch is a female dog. Bastard is also considered a person born out of wedlock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkGuardianVII ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
User:DarkGuardianVII has "been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE". I suspect this thread will die now. How long before someone else wants to fight this fight? HiLo48 ( talk) 07:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)