Talk:Homophobia/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Precursor paragraph

Apart from being completely unsourced, this entire paragraph is clumsily worded and doesn't really add anything useful; if any of it can be sourced, I'd suggest it belongs in the section below, not its own section - even the title was misleading. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Good remove. It did seem to be mostly WP:OR HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
• It wasn't completely unsourced. Although it didn't contain inline citations, it cited "some gender theorists", and specifically named one: "According to such theorists as D. A. Miller"... Anyone wanting to restire this text, with sources, could probably find who those gender theorists are with reference to a search engine, or by asking the person who added the information. Shrigley (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That'd be fine. As I said, though, it probably didn't deserve its own section and could be fitted into the succeeding paragraph if notable. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not possible to determine the person who added the prose. The "Some gender theorists" prose is in the first recorded revision of the article, that is attributed to an account that only existed at all because of a bug in MediaWiki, fixed in 2005, relating to old UseModWiki edits. The citations of Thomas (quoting Miller) and Butler were added in 2004. Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Psychologically sympathetic factors of homophobia

To start off, I once spoke to a female rape victim who'd developed a scornful attitude towards all men (including me.) I stifled my instinctive anger at her harsh words, but after hearing of her rapist's unspeakable actions, I had nothing but sympathy and understanding for her.

Well, on topic, I also once knew a self-confessed “homophobic” for so many years; I discovered he had been sexually assaulted by a homosexual male (in a public toilet facility) when he was 17 years old. Additionally, his fear was so potent that he confessed to urinating himself during film outings, so no one would question his reluctance to use the male bathroom.

In my experience, most "opposers" I encounter regarding this subject (that is, those who classify homophobes as uneducated or hateful) never consider such possibilities. It doesn’t even really have a place in this article, but perhaps someone could locate and insert an appropriate reference elaborating on this sort of occurrence.

Note: Please don't ask for any "details" on the assaults out of morbid curiosity. Frankly, I've had to deal with enough judgemental, heartless, pathologically critical responses from others already when discussing the behaviour of rape victims. Thank you.

LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Prejudice against an entire group of people based on a horrific personal experience involving an individual from said group isn't exactly rare (I can think of some personal anecdotes, too), but logic would indicate that it must account for a fairly small proportion of the prejudice that's out there. As you noted with your first example, it isn't exclusive to homophobic people, so a more general article (Prejudice?) might be a better place to add something (assuming there are reliable sources to support adding it). Rivertorch (talk) (never heartless, hardly ever judgmental, and have no idea if I'm "pathologically critical") 10:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not an article about heterophobia

This is not an article about heterophobia. If such a thing exists, then it needs its own article. Adding inadequately-sourced content to this article will not help readers understand the topic of Homophobia, at least in my estimation. - MrX 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

yes but heterophobia is such a small topic that there has been consensus to add it here by admins, please see Heterophobia and its talk page for more info. 3abos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Admins don't get to dictate content, so deleting the article and a suggestion to dump the body here is not such a great idea. It seems to me that the concept of heterophobia is a fringe reaction to homophobia. Any content here needs to be relevant to the subject of homophobia, well-sourced, and represented with appropriate DUE weight. - MrX 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleting the article with a suggestion to dump the body here isn't actually what any admin did. The consensus was to delete the content and leave Heterophobia as a redirect, not to add all of 3abos's content to the Homophobia article. The Heterophobia article wasn't deleted because it is a small topic as 3abos says, but because it was bad - see the deletion discussion for evidence of that. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. It seems that 3abos may have misinterpreted TParis' comment: "...but the subject is notable and deserving of an article. The section under Homophobia is a good start." - MrX 00:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I agree with you that the edits you reverted were inadequately sourced and I also think they were largely original research. The exact same content was deleted via AFD not long ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia (4th nomination). I strongly suggest that User:3abos make the case here on the talk page before continuing this rather point-y edit war. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect about the research being "original" Dawn Bard. Please actually see the sources themselves. The research is there, the sources are there. The only time i've used a blog entry or opinion I have explicitly stated that

Many people within the homosexual community have claimed that Heterophobia itself is detrimental to their cause

3abos (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My edits have been revoked again? I do not understand? 3abos (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe my case has been made, proper sources, proper research. The section on heterophobia will then be expanded by others. This is what wikipedia is all about. 3abos (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. What more do you think needs to be said about heterophobia, in the context of homophobia, that is not already included in the article? - MrX 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

are you saying that these aren't proper references()  ? or is your problem that heterophobia should have its own page? 3abos (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

He's not saying it's not properly referenced. He's asking why this needs to be included and what more needs to be said in the context of homophobia. –TCN7JM 00:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

is that the case Mr? if this is so it may be a good idea to start a Heterophobia page. 3abos (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As you well know, and as I mentioned up thread, the Heterophobia article was recently deleted via AFD for the fourth time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterophobia (4th nomination). Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So, do it! –TCN7JM 00:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case...don't do it. It'll just get deleted again. –TCN7JM 00:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

They weren't "inadequately sourced" and if they were there are many articles that are "inadequately sourced" let us delete them as well? 3abos (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

They were too inadequately sourced. You were using the Daily Fail fergawdsakes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If the topic of heterophobia is notable, then it should have it's own article. In fact, I'm not too keen on heterophobia being redirected here, because I think its confusing to our readers. It seems like a good start for an article would be the existing (heterophobia) content in this article. I haven't seen the article that you previously created, so I have no first hand knowledge of that content, but judging from the deletion review, I would say that you might want to draft it in you user space first and then have a couple of more experienced editors review it before publishing it. - MrX 00:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not create it as a stub that is then expanded by other editors. I mean that IS what wikipedia is all about! :D 3abos (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure. As I said (and TParis said in the deletion review) there is already content in this article with which to start the new article. - MrX 00:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually the Heterophobia article was deleted and redirected here as it was hopelessly non-notable as a subject but did deserve a section here on the main article/subject to which it concerned. If there is notable, reliably-sourced content that we should add then let's look at it. I think most of it was dismissed as OR and poorly sourced. Insomesia (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Spot on, and the DRV thread raised by 3abos has now been closed, endorsing the delete/redirect AFD close. There is no consensus here, there or anywhere else in support of recreating Heterophobia as a stand-alone article with content as proposed by 3abos. And the suggestion that he was "recommended to expand this current section" (here) would seem to have no basis in fact either. 3abos seems to be having trouble interpreting what the community is telling him. Stalwart111 01:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that we have policy that allows a subject to be redirected to an article about the opposite subject. So much for WP:ASTONISH. I agree that the subject is not really notable. Homophobia gets more than 1800 page views per day and Heterophobia gets about 50. - MrX 01:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Will re-add sections on heterophobia 3abos (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Heterophobia is a conservative construct generally used to undermine that homophobia exists/is really that bad/or that the gays do it too. Insomesia (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What? Did you not understand that there are objections to the inclusion of this content, not to mention that you are edit warring to force your will, against consensus? - MrX 02:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The content is sourced properly. Take a look for yourself. 3abos (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's really not. But if you wish start a new section proposing sources and content you think we need to add. Insomesia (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I really recommend that you don't ignore all this ^ and re-insert content that has firmly been rejected by consensus. Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing, and you have already crossed the line. - MrX 02:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

too late, the user has been indef blocked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Per suggestion somewhere, I have used the content from this article to create a draft page at User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/heterophobia for consideration to move to article space. I will leave it up for a week or so for anyone who wishes to craft and expand into a potential stand alone article. Anyone should feel free to edit.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to publish it now? It certainly seems like a solid start. Just a thought. - MrX 02:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Heterophobia is fully protected by consensus as a result of the last AFD. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And the subsequent DRV that endorsed said consensus close. But you'll note there were a few people (in both discussions) that suggested a properly-sourced, well-written, POV-and-attack-free article (basically the original subject to WP:TNT) would be okay. I think there would be a general consensus for the creation of such an article, per the time frame suggested by TRPOD. Stalwart111 02:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I just hope that we don't have to revisit this again in 48 hours. - MrX 03:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) In addition, at this point I am not really convinced that it is not just a POV Fork article, but that could be because the existing content was framed to fit in this article. I would like to see what is possible if approached as a stand alone subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Heterophobia is a conservative construct generally used to undermine that homophobia exists/is really that bad/or that the gays do it too" this bothers me and contains as much POV as 3abos has shown. It seems like the only purpose of including 'heterophobia' in this article is in order to discredit it. That's not acceptable per WP:NPOV. Does the thing actually exist? I am sure a handful of people might legitimately suffer it just like a handful of people are afraid of green things. It likely is a reverse discriminatory term. But slanting it solely that way just to bash it because it helps the evil anti-gays out there isn't appropriate. I'm thinking Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_opponent.--v/r - TP 15:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the talk page of the draft article has kind of headed in the direction of a much broader definition (based on available sources) and that line has since been nixed from the draft. Stalwart111 20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I was quoting an editor on this talk page and not the article. I reviewed the draft and it seems fine to me. But it also looks a lot like the pre-AFD version and I'm afraid it will be at AfD again.--v/r - TP 22:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, understand! The original draft (from what I can recall) suggested something similar... so yeah, confusion. And yes, the draft needs more work and I don't think it's ready for main-space yet - thus my enthusiasm for TRPOD's 1-week drafting time-frame. Stalwart111 22:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

given the constructive editing that is going on, I am willing to keep it for longer if needed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think what would help is if we first tried to discover what the general ideas on this topic are. Something like 1) Reverse discrimination, 2) Homophobic neologism, and 3) Medical term outside of the Gay-rights political controversy. Not necessarily in that order but containing all three points of view. Can sources be found to support each? What kind of sources are they (social/political/medical/academic) and what does the type of source say about what is it supporting? These things need to be discovered to write a balanced NPOV article which is obviously emotionally charged and controversial. Everyone needs to take a disinterested approach. 3abos is indefinitely blocked because he couldn't. But he is more obvious about it.--v/r - TP 23:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with TRPOD's revert, but the scare quotes should probably be removed from the section heading. I also recommend using italics instead of quotes in the first sentence, per WP:Words as words. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

the typeface fixes have been made. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The draft looks respectable but I have some concerns that have previously come up with this subject. First off which of the reliable sources actually discuss this concept in depth rather than just prop up that so-and-so used the term in some fashion? And perhaps more important, it seems many of the sources actually are talking about different definitions but we, in Wikipedia's voice, are presenting all of it as a real scholarly subject. Insomesia (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Are we? Where? If you mean by it's very existence than I hate to say it but we'd have to delete Justin Bieber as not scholarly as well. If you have specific concerns about verbiage, what are those concerns?--v/r - TP 13:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Would we? Howso? Are you implying that none of the sources at Justin Beiber actually are about Beiber? I'm confused. KillerChihuahua 14:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
      • It's hardly composed of academia nor does it present scholarly prose. 'Scholarly' is not a deletion criteria.--v/r - TP 14:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, I was confuzed about what you were referring to. KillerChihuahua 18:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    • You had me at deleting Justin Bieber. <g>  little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer  15:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I can support that! ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
        • Motion carries...now where did I put that delete button.--v/r - TP 15:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm pretty sure you just tag it {{db-bieber}} and another admin will be right along. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I support Bieber. Teammm ^talk
              _email 16:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
              • I support {{db-bieber}}! Dawn Bard (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
                • I blame Bieber for us going this far off topic...He must take the blame somehow...I support {{db-bieber}} also ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
                  • Agree, love the idea of {{db-beiber}}. But the article alone would not be enough to fix the problem. KillerChihuahua 18:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
                    • Can we not get a world-wide consensus to adopt WP:CSD#JB1 {{db-beiber}} as valid deletion criteria and find a Wikimedia 'Global Sysop' to carry out the 'deletion'?--v/r - TP 18:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
                      • Yes. Teammm ^talk
                        _email 19:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
                        • You all have deleter fever! - MrX 19:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
                          • The steward elections are still open. We could make support for {{db-beiber}} a litmus test. Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
                            • I hereby declare unequivocal electoral support for anyone standing on a pro-{{db-beiber}} platform in any context. Stalwart111 22:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Beibering aside (ha!) can someone address the concerns? What reliable sources do talk about heterophobia in depth and do they concur with one another? Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There are reliable sources; I'm not sure if any cover the subject with much depth. If you look at the draft article you can see that there are probably at least three meanings for the term. Some editors believe that we should not have an article where there is not a single, cohesive meaning. Personally, I would rather see an article that briefly covers each meaning in an sociological context, rather than redirect to an article about a different topic. The risk is that the new article would inevitably become a troll magnet, which I think is a poor reason for exclusion. Having said all that, I've added a few words to the draft article, but I'm disinclined to waste more time adding to it only to see it AfD'd for the fifth time. - MrX 13:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Draft Heterophobia article

So... this draft article has been sitting in stasis for a couple of months now and I just remembered that was the case. I'm still inclined to think there is a reasonably strong consensus for a standalone article, as opposed to a redirect to Homophobia. Have I misread this?

I'm also inclined to think that we should just ask for it to be moved to Heterophobia (currently a fully-protected title), semi-protect that article and add a link to Homophobia's See also section. The draft certainly needs more work but I don't think that will happen (based on the current work-rate) in userspace. Straw poll? Stalwart111 07:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose moving to main space at this time. It's a strange article at this stage, almost entirely about the word itself. Even the section that (supposedly) isn't about the word ends up being as much about the word as the concept. I suppose the word itself might be notable, but is it? I'm dubious. Also, the lede refers to reverse discrimination as though it's a significant issue, while the only mention of anything like that in the body of the article makes no such claim and is sourced to two rather esoteric applied psych books—not quite evidence of notability. I don't know. I'm still willing to be persuaded, but what I see in that draft doesn't persuade me. (Btw, I think the consensus you found had something to do with deleting Justin Bieber, not rescuing [[Heterophobia]]. I may be wrong.) Rivertorch (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I just meant broadly - more an opposition to the redirect rather than support for the article, if that makes sense. Should we perhaps be looking at taking the title to RFD for deletion? Stalwart111 09:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Whilst I'm not against a separate article either per se, I've read this draft a couple of times and not only is it only about the word (i.e. it's an extended WP:DICDEF), but it's a completely confusing mushmash in that there appears to be so many usages of the word that there is no agreement about what it actually means. (This isn't the writer's fault, btw). In some usages it appears to have nothing to do with sexuality at all. Also, it appears (as the article admits) not to be in common use in any scientific or social setting anyway. Black Kite (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's all spot-on. It does have multiple meanings, most of which are not about sexuality. All the more reason why it shouldn't redirect to a sexuality-specific article, no? Stalwart111 09:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: Little more than a WP:DICDEF, and a pretty shoddy one at that. The term doesn't really have any notability in and of itself except as an appropiration of Homophobia, to which it should redirect. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment since it appears that it is going to be difficult to make Heterophobia any more than a dictionary definition, why don't we accept that's what it is and make it a soft redirect to its Wiktionary page which has the three main definitions listed? Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd have nothing against that. Then we could cut back on he cover it gets in this artcle, per WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that either. If we did take it to RFD, I think there's a good chance that would be the result anyway. The draft could always sit there until a few more academic sources reveal themselves. Seems like a sensible solution for now. Stalwart111 10:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Rivertorch (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have no objection to the redirect, if that is a standard procedure for entries that seem unlikely to progress beyond dictionary definitions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• It is the usual method, and I have done so. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• what is the standard process for dealing with the relic workspace: User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/heterophobia - it has had many contributors and so doesnt seem to meet the general speedy criteria. does it need to go to MfD or do I get each of the contributors to agree to deletion? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something obvious, since it's a user subpage I don't actually see why you couldn't ask for it to be deleted under WP:CSD#U1? If one of the other contributors asks for it to be restored to their userspace, we can still do that even if it's deleted. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• doh - i did not scroll down far enough to realize there were those options. thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Addition to description of definition of homophobia.

As a gay man who has experienced homophobic abuse on a number of occasions ranging from verbal tattacks to physical assault, I have had plenty of time to ponder on what exactly the word "homophobia" means. I would like to add to the current description that homophobia is an illogical, irrational and UNEXAMINED prejudice individuals are CONDITIONED into accepting by social, cultural and/or religious influences.

For me it is a key point that homophobia is never truly, rationally examined and the question of how and from where these ideas have come is important. Is it possible to add any of these ideas to the Wikipedia definition? Chidambarstef (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Chidambarstef

thank you for your opinion. However, wikipedia content must be based on what the reliably published sources say about and how they define the topic. You can go to books.google.com and scholar.google.com and see if you can find sources that support your definition. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also kind of clueless isn't it? The ignorant masses are not known for their rationality, logicality, irreligion, etc. Those are exceptional properties a small segment of the population attain in any country. You come across as oblivious in not grasping this. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, please be mindful of the talk page guidelines. Thanks. Teammm ^talk
_email 22:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Bias?

"The official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, with which, however, many Catholics disagree, is that same-sex behavior should not be expressed."

This statement is very biased as it is written based on research done on the American (USA) Catholics. For example, in Poland, according to the recent research, over 90% of people don't support gay marriages, civil unions, adoption or even gay pride parades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.238.10.81 (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not really. Regardless of how homophobic Poles are, even if you do restrict it to countries like the US or UK, that is still "many" Catholics. Of course, it could be rewritten to make that clearer. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The teaching of the Catholic Church is more simple. Catholics recognize and love people with same sex attraction but believe that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.160.166.221 (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Synonymization with anti-gay attitudes

In spite of the definition given in the lead section, which equates the term with "antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred," the body of this article frequently describes the entire spectrum of negative attitudes toward homosexuality, encompassing unprejudiced attitudes that may be coupled with loving and sympathetic sentiments toward homosexual individuals themselves, as if all negativity toward homosexuality qualified as homophobia. Example: "Many world religions contain anti-homosexual teachings..." The placement of statements such as this in an article on homophobia implies that such things are, of themselves, homophobic. This is highly debatable and controversial POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by He who Geezes (talk • contribs) 01:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything is highly debatable on the Internet, but that doesn't mean we should debate it. Are you suggesting that homophobia somehow cannot be homophobia when it is religiously motivated? If so, can you provide a reliable source? Rivertorch (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Swap the word "gay" for "black" in an example to easily identify if it sounds offensive. Rivertorch is quite right with "Everything is highly debatable on the Internet". That's why Wikipedia policy makes sourcing and reliability important. Everything controversial must be reliably sourced and neutrally worded here.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As the many references support, the word "homophobia" is used much more expansively than a narrow reading of its definition would merit. In such a case, it would be non-neutral to restrict the article only to its dictionary meaning and ignore its much broader use. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Heterophobia

The source doesn't confirm that "the term heterophobia was coined by LGBT rights opponents to name reverse discrimination or negative attitudes towards heterosexuals and opposite-sex relationships. A direct ad hoc response to the use of "homophobia", it is an example of anti-LGBT backlash":

In the sexological literature, heterophobia first seems to have appeared in print in the controversial 1990 book by Eichel, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, in which he devoted a chapter to the "new" concept of "heterophobia," although I recall having heard and thought about it in the early 1980s. Eichel defined it similarly to Francoeur’s definition in his Dictionary. In 1996, Noonan referred to the term in his book, Does Anyone Still Remember When Sex Was Fun?, in which he equated it more with the generalized sex-negativity that exists in American society. In that book, he also introduced the concept of internalized heterophobia. In a chapter in a later book, he suggested that homophobia was, in fact, partially enabled and empowered by heterophobia, as noted above, and he argued that a systems approach was needed in sexology to help us elucidate the factors that influence our sexual attitudes and behavior. In late 1998, however, heterophobia appeared for the first time in the title of a book- the first comprehensive treatment of the subject by anyone inside or outside of sexology. In Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism, Daphne Patai tied the concept to what she called the Sexual Harassment Industry (SHI), which was being used, she argued, to separate men and women for often personal or political gain or self-interest.

The term "heterophobia" appeared also in the 1983 book by Joan Murray and Paul R. Abramson Bias in Psychotherapy ("In certain cases it may be appropriate to explore the roots of heterophobia, the irrational fear or hatred of heterosexual people"). IMHO the heterophobia section in this article should be deleted because is based on OR and false claim ("the term heterophobia was coined by LGBT rights opponents..."). GimbusTheGreat (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that section only exists because the original Heterophobia article was not notable enough and was merged into this one to save it. I have no comment on the OR claim as i have not read the section. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the passage may be substantially correct but the exact wording problematic. For instance, it probably shouldn't say the word was "coined" by a particular cohort unless that can be verified, but it may have been first promulgated by that cohort. You've provided a quote from a 1983 book. Can we be sure the term wasn't used before that? There was lots of LGB rights opposition before 1983. Anyone reading this have full OED access? That's generally the most reliable source for determining the first appearance of a word. Rivertorch (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OED (www.oed.com) currently has no words between 'heterophilic' and 'heterophony'. William Avery (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh. In that case, I guess we're back to the question of several months ago: is the term even noteworthy enough to be mentioned here? I'd tend to say yes, but mostly for pragmatic reasons, such as discouraging its recreation as a separate article. For the time being, I've made several changes, principally to reword the first sentence of the section to remove the claim about who coined the word. I actually wonder if the section shouldn't be shortened considerably, but I don't feel quite that bold this afternoon. Rivertorch (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Homophobic vs. Anti-Gay

I'm concerned about the term "Anti-Gay", being used under the blanket of "homophobia". After a dispute with a peer about the topic based on my experiences and what I saw as a divide between the two, one based on fear and misinformation, the latter being most often the result of doctrine, which generally frowns on the concept but rarely involves hatred of a gay individual. I cite the work of Jeff Chu, Christian Gay Author who interviews Westboro Baptist Reverend Fred Phelps, and asserts that the church is not homophobic, rather anti-gay, as their view on the topic is that it is their duty to rebuke gays and their advocates of their sins and save them from hell, which they feel is their god-given duty. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/jeff-chu-gay-westboro-baptist_n_3007845.html

As a term, "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, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs." The distinction you want to make is meaningless: there is no semantic difference between being homophobic and being anti-gay. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Anti-gay = Homophobic. It's as simple as that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Being anti-gay cannot necessarily imply having a phobia. The article is not neutral as it tries to enforce negative burden over whoever shows even disapproval or "antipathy". Homosexuality is a behaviour, not a race or ethnic group. Some people for religious or personal belief, disapprove it, and have the right to express it without being labelled as phobics. The problem with this article is that it was written and watched by activists.--46.65.115.43 (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You are partially correct. Homosexuality is not a race or ethnicity but it is certainly not a behaviour. It is a sexual orientation in other words its an unchosen mindset. Heterosexuals, Homosexuals, Bisexuals and Asexuals can all have sex with anyone but thats not what makes them their sexual orientation, it is the hormonal, emotional and psychological attraction behind it. Also your argument about religion is hilarious because religion is the only major sociological grouping that is pure choice (although some would include certain polical beliefs as another sociological grouping studied in conflict theory and in the case of rare ethnoreligious group it isn't a choice). The other part of your argument that is wrong is that you say that they are semi-justified because the Bible condemns same-sex sexual activity. You should read your Bible again and look at the deeper meaning behind those verses as well as verses that have been used to justify slavery, the subservance of women and various other discriminations. So yes being anti-gay is homophobic and if Christians looked at it the same way they look at people taking Christmas off the holiday cards which they call anti-Christian then you can see it only takes a small push to make something discriminatory. Discrimination can range from just refusing to talk to someone all the way up to Genocide. Its a big concept. Prejudice can range from a single stereotype to believing that a group is trying to take over the planet or indoctrinate people. So remember there are sociologists and other social scientists who are on wikipedia try to do some reasearch and analyze your posts before you post them.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

The start of this article says homosexuals are more likely to be victims of hate crime than any other minority but the article on Asexuality says asexuals are more likely to be discriminated against. What to do? 86.41.75.170 (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The term "hate crime" especially as it used in the common speech refers to hate assault. Discrimination is far broader of a term. Discrimination could refer to refusing to rent a house to someone because of their minority status or refusing to treat them in a hospital. However I do not believe that asexuals are more likely to be discriminated against. I do however believe that Asexual erasure is an issue but that is a whole different concept.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Asexuality" does not say that asexuals face more discrimination but quotes one study that says they do and one that says they do not. That article should explain which view is most commonly held, but that is an issue for its talk page. TFD (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Map

File:Status of gay persons.jpg

This map shows the status of gays and lesbians worldwide, analysing democracy, development, visibility, legal aspects, political presence. Some aspects like the colors of bug and divided countries may result unprecise as the mocolored United States (as there is a huge difference betweem some states). The cities classification show accurately the most integrating cities.Status of gay persons = (Human Development Index 2013 + Democracy Index 2012) + Legal recognition + (Gay Pride index 2011 + Gay visibility up to 10 + Political visibility up to 10) /3

Aless2899 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Insertion of this image on other articles in currently being disputed so such a request should not be taken until the matter has been resolved. From my reading, it seems the image fails the policies on original research.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Image should be deleted as WP:OR - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I second Knowledgekid87. Too much original research to incorporate into any article. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 00:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

thirded EvergreenFir (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Even the strongest consensus here will not lead to the file's being deleted; it is hosted on Commons and would need to be nominated for deletion there. I think the image is inappropriate for this or any other Wikipedia article, not so much because it's OR per se (we tend to allow more leeway with things like maps and graphs, as long as the information they convey is clearly presented, verifiable, and not misleading) but because it's vague, confusing, and arguably speculative. I'd encourage Aless2899 to consider working on a revised version, based on simpler criteria that are less subjective, and to solicit feedback before adding it to articles. Rivertorch (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch - I understand the use of contributors creating maps that compile information for heuristic purposes, but this seems to be completely WP:OR in that the user created their own index. AFAIK, the formula they used is not used anywhere else. If it is, a citation would be very useful and I would totally accept it as a heuristic. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't think offhand of an article where I'd accept it, heuristic or not. The formula used to appears to be based on subjective criteria, some of them hard to quantify or even to classify, and that means it wouldn't be a good candidate to illustrate any Wikipedia article, imo. Still, I think it's a fascinating map that with some tweaks might conceivably be useful for another project (e.g., Wikivoyage? idk). I see that discussion has also taken place at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 150#Wikipedia's obvious biases and prejudices where, if you skim past the offensive nonsense, you'll find some points relevant to what you're saying. In any event, there's not much point discussing the map here: consensus is not to include it in this article, and that's unlikely to change. Rivertorch (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the word Homophobia (and Heterophobia)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey guys. Reading through these archives a bit and seeing that this comes up now and then. I invite you all (probably to my detriment) to join the discussion here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#The_meaning_of_words_and_that_meanings_destruction For my personal opinion I believe both articles are named incorrectly and should be merged or filed under "Discrimination and/or hatred of Homosexuals" and "Heterosexuals" respectively. Peace and love to you all! :) 46.59.34.174 (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Homophobia is not just discrimination. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It includes hatred, prejudice and what not too. But all those things have their own place. Prejudice can be filed under the general article of homosexuality and so can religious opposition. For example under "criticism of homosexuality" or something. Same as for heterosexuality or heteronormativity. This is not about you guys who edit this article but about everyone and I posted a similiar notice under terrorism and I am discussing it under chemophobia and somewhat under an other article too. It is about what words are, how they are constructed and in which context we should use what word and why. I'm posting here and under terrorism because I see it has been an issue in the past. I see you are a student of sociology with a PhD! Please comment there concerning my note that psychologists use it with a different meaning than some sociologists. Please explain why you as a sociologist use it as you do and why you believe the suffix -phobia is a good one if it is and what criteria you sociologists use in the formation of new concepts and words in your studies. If you want to :P 46.59.34.174 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this not also currently considered to be the main article covering opposition to homosexuality, opposition of the type that does not include fear or hatred? North8000 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Propose closing this thread. Rivertorch (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013

Where is the 'Response'? This is clearly a bias page. On the page for 'Gay Agenda' you have a 'Response', and again are clearly bias. This is not balanced or simply fact based reporting. 50.45.147.246 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - Please be specific about what edit you are requesting. (bias is a noun or a verb; I think the word you are looking for is the adjective biased)- MrX 19:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Heterophobia

It shows definite bias to assume the term "Heterophobia" is used only by "LGBT rights opponents". It should be changed to more neutral wording, unless neutrality is no longer a concernScatach (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What do the reliable sources define it as? That's what we are concerned with. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked and am not sure which source would be bestScatach (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where to add this.

Homophobic individuals have been found to have lower academic performance. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812752 -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the term "Homophobia"

Empirical research does not indicate that heterosexuals' antigay attitudes can reasonably be considered a "phobia" in the clinical sense [1]. Heterosexuals who express hostility toward gay men and lesbians do not manifest the physiological reactions to homosexuality that are associated with other phobias [2].Owing to the absence of recognized clinical responses associated with phobias, the use of the term homophobia is generally recognzed by many as a defamatory artifice.

[1] Definitions: Homophobia, Heterosexism, and Sexual Prejudice http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html

[2] Shields, S. A., & Harriman, R. E. (1984). Fear of male homosexuality: Cardiac responses of low and high homonegative males. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1/2), 53-67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.178.150 (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Etymological fallacy yet again. Numerous reliable sources use the term to mean the fear or hatred of homosexual or homosexuality. This term is not only used in the clinical sense. Also see the FAQ at the top of this talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is the term the experts in reliable sources have chosen. You need to take it up with them. TFD (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Change the Lead

The lead makes it seem like homophobia is a choice, when it like all phobias are irrational anxiety disorders and should be treated as such 77.97.151.145 (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The term is used in ways beyond what a strict reading of the definition of the psychiatric term "phobia" would indicate. See the FAQ at the top of the page, or the Homophobia article... this issue is addressed plenty. Marteau (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel there should be a section on persecution and legal repercussions that happen to people who suffer with homophobia, an arachnophobic can say "I hate spiders" a claustrophobic can say "I hate lifts" but someone suffering from homophobia cannot say "I hate gays" without fear of legal consequences. 77.97.151.145 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? I'd be interested in hearing of a jurisdiction where simply saying that was illegal. But again, Homophobia is not seen as equivalent to many other words that contain the root "phobia". HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point. If I, as an employer, have a phobia about people who wear ties, and I refuse to hire anyone who wears a tie, legally I am in the clear because tie wearers are not a protected class. I suffer no legal repercussions because of my phobia.

The concept of protected classes is a sore spot with many people and arguments tend to become emotional and vitriolic. Discussions often become haunted by people with agendas and chips on their shoulder.

I'm not telling you what to do, but if it were me and I were to choose to pursue this (which I would not), I would of course avoid anything that does not have a top-notch source and that is not a good example of dispassionate scholarship . Marteau (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no point here. It's an etymological fallacy, which is discussed at the top of this talk page. The phobia in homophobia does not refer to a DSM-V phobia diagnosis. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a "phobia" per DSM. Removing citation of their standards is activist censorship.

"Homophobia" is not a phobia, by definition of the term, per DSM. But stating as much causes immediate reversion of the edit, because, well... I'd like to assume good faith but I have too much experience here to do more than pretend it's so for sake of argument and decorum, for now. The text I used was direct from the "hoplophobia" article, edited slightly for context, where apparently it's fine and well and good, but it's not good to say the same thing here. You cannot have it both ways, Wikipedians. And no, simply saying "etymological fallacy" as if that means anything relevant doesn't suffice as an explanation for your reversion. Quote: "The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning." So? If you're admitting it's not a true phobia, thus the "etymological fallacy" notion (it doesn't have to be a phobia even though it says "phobia" in the name), then what's wrong with pointing out that it's not a true phobia? Well, other than wanting to have it both ways: It's not a phobia but we can act like it is one for political purposes, and don't you dare point out that this is factually incorrect even though it's a common mistake and we go out of our way to point it out on the hoplophobia article.

Here is the "offending" text, which is completely factual, acceptable in other contexts as noted, and sourced:

The meaning and usage ascribed by proponents of the term falls outside of the definition of a phobia used by the DSM. For example, one diagnostic criterion of phobias is that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of homosexuals or homosexuality can exist, but are unusual.

If you want to fit it into the article in some other way than I did or change something minor (like use an appropriate alternate word for "proponent", as I'm not particularly happy with that word myself there - I guess you could say "some proponents" or "some activists")... fine, provided you're not burying it, but the notion that it's not allowed at all because of "original research" (despite the citation and the mention of DSM already in the article supporting this) or "etymological fallacy" (as if pointing out it's not something is equivalent to an argument that it should be that thing) is predicated on falsehood.

An encyclopedia should present facts and dispel common myths, not perpetuate them, let alone prevent myths from being dispelled because the myths are wrong (which is essentially the silly circle which is the "etymological fallacy" revert explanation). -- Glynth (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

References

See the FAQ on this talk page above. Your edit was WP:OR. Please read that and WP:RS. But you already know this (Talk:Homophobia/Archive_13#"Phobia"). Welcome back from your 6 month hiatus. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't address anything I posted, nor does the FAQ. But that's to be expected - because you can't and you don't care to. Like I said: Assuming good faith is foolish here. You do not get to dictate what is "original research", especially not in the face of citations. -- Glynth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's already in the article, second paragraph of the 'Classification' section. Your phrasing "The meaning and usage ascribed by proponents of the term..." is argumentative. The term is well-established in common usage, so the idea of there being "proponents" seems to be a fringe point of view or original research.- MrX 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sigh... you cited the DSM showing that homophobia is not listed there. I got that. Everything else you said was uncited. No one would assume from reading this article that is was a psychiatric disorder. A paragraph stating that it's not in the DSM is unnecessary. We already have Homophobia#Criticism_of_meaning_and_purpose. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet it is necessary on the "hoplophobia" page to have two paragraphs in their own section? What's the difference? FYI, there's already a paragraph stating it's not in the DSM. I've consolidated my citation with it and got rid of the term proponents (which as I stated, I didn't like either). Are you going to remove that, now, too? Someone else already did, claiming it didn't fit for some unspecified reason (simply using the insulting line "made by an editor who seemingly didn't read the text he added this to"). I don't want to get into an edit war, but that assertion was ridiculous. The text fits perfectly there and is a good, informative, and yes, relevant (not just to the article, but to that paragraph!) addition. -- Glynth (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. This article is much better quality than Hoplophobia (where you've already extensively opined). Hoplophobia should model this article, not the other way around. (PS, the reason it might be more important to mention it there is because it's a neologism and not a common word. Readers may mistake it for a DSM diagnosis, which they would not do here). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You've just used WP:OTHERSTUFF as a crutch in a manner it specifically proscribes against: Consistency is important. Moreover, the notion that people going to "Hoplophobia" will think it's a real phobia unless we spell it out for them whereas people going to the "Homophobia" article all already know it's not a real phobia and so we needn't spell out any such thing here is an unsubstantiated assumption (one which can quickly be disproven by looking around, even).

Now tell me, what exactly is wrong with the following change (first sentence already in existing article):

Homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical taxonomy of phobias, neither in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD); homophobia is usually used in a non-clinical sense. One diagnostic criterion of phobias specified by the DSM is that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment.

The valid criticisms of my previous addition are addressed (e.g. "proponent"), it's paired with relevant text, etc. And don't fall back on the "etymological fallacy" straw man. Read it for what it actually is. -- Glynth (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

References

The article already says it isn't in the DSM. Explaining why it doesn't qualify as a DSM phobia, by citing the DSM definition of phobia as a primary source and attempting to distinguish homophobia from that definition, is synthesis of a new argument.That wording should be removed from hoplophobia. If we had some sources explaining that the DSM had considered whether either was a phobia or not and had ultimately rejected it, we could cite those. But in the absence of evidence that either has ever seriously been considered as a DSM phobia, the whole thing comes across as unwarranted.--Trystan (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for actually being reasonable about this instead of just relying on the standard crutches like the (irrelevant) FAQ. I'm not entirely convinced, if only because I found that reference in "hoplophobia" to actually be interesting (regardless of its use elsewhere) and very good information, but I'll hold off on any edits for the time being. -- Glynth (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to your revised proposed edit, except to say that the last sentence seems like slightly unnecessary detail.- MrX 23:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think any reasonable reader would mistake homophobia for a psychiatric disorder. Also, in order to state that it is not a medical disorder, we would have to show that reliable sources on the subject generally point out that it is not a psychiatric disorder. This is just POV-scoring, an attempt to diminish a concept. We do not say for example that the Orioles are not birds, the Redskins do not have red skin, George Bush is not a recognized species of bush etc. TFD (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• I find the revised sentence interesting and helpful (my wife's doing her graduate studies in psychology, so she quotes me stuff from the DSM all the time) but I think it is the kind of clarification that would go better in either between parenthesis or in a footnote. Perhaps something like that could be a compromise here? ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a disorder called "homosexuality anxiety", which is a type of OCD. Here is a link to an chapter about it in Leading-Edge Health Education Issues. It points out, "It should not be assumed that people with HOCD are homophobic....Homosexuality anxiety is not caused by dislike of homosexuals, but rather a fear that the person will no longer have access to the opposite sex, something they highly value." Notice the article uses the term "homophobic" without seeing any need to point out that it is not in the DSM. We could use a hatnote "Not to be confused with Homosexuality anxiety" (and link to Primarily Obsessional OCD which discusses it) or make a note about the distinction somewhere in the article. Or we could just omit as too trivial to the topic. There is not an article yet. Perhaps Glynth and Adjwilley with their interest in fear of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder could write one. TFD (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No thanks, I have little interest in and knowledge of the subject: fear of homosexuality. I happened to have this article on my watchlist from when I tried to help resolve a dispute last year. Those are good ideas though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Origin of word

@Alexander Domanda: Despite multiple sources being provided for the existing text, you still insist on changing the origin without providing any sources. Please desist and discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

See my comments. Go the dictionary and verify yourself (and your colleagues) what I have written. The article as it stands offers NO definition of homo in homophobia. Fear of???? the word means fear of the same from Greek homos and Greek heteros i.e. heterophobia means fear of the opposite.

Meaning of homophobia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The definition in the article gives the meaning for 'phobia,' but not of 'homo,' which comes from the Greek word 'homos' (mas.) or homei (fem.) singular which means 'the same.' Homos does not mean sexual as indicated in the article. Homophobia means fear of the same, i.e. of a homosexual, a person of one's own sex, specifically of a person who is perceived to be homosexual by a heterosexual. Hetero means the other in binary sexes. So a heterophobia is fear of the other sex. 'Homo' is not from the Latin word for human being (vir is male and mulier is woman).

It would be nice to see the definition completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Domanda (talk • contribs)

Homo in the word homophobia comes from homosexual according to the article's sources. Do you have better sources that support your etymological theory?- MrX 19:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Alexander Domanda: But that's not what you're adding. "homophobia is a blend of (1) the word homo which means 'the same in Greek, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia" contradicts the sources provided: "1960s: from homosexual + -phobia." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The problem is that you're removing the sourced derivation. The "homo" part of the word is derived from a shortening of the word "homosexual". Now whilst the "homo" part of "homosexual" does indeed derive from "homos" and means "same", we need to point out that it comes from that base ("fear of homosexuality") rather than the plain "homos" (which would be "fear of the same"). The same applies to heterophobia. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Do I have sources? yes, English, Greek and Latin dictionaries and a BA and MA in Greek and Latin and an M. Litt. in Classics from Cambridge University. You can go to the dictionary to look up homo-sexual and you will see I am correct.

Then why not explain in the entire matter by writing that homophobia derived from homosexual is short for homosexualphobia. Without the full definition readers who don't know what homos means will not know and m ay confuse it with the Latin homo which is very common. Signed Alexander Domanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Domanda (talk • contribs)

The subject is homophobia, not homosexual. I'm not aware of a dictionary that defines homophobia as fear of the same. We don't permit synthesis or original research in articles. - MrX 19:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:V: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Again, please provide a precise cite for the origin of the word homophobia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Homophobia vs. Transphobia?

The article says that homophobia is the fear & hatred of homosexuals, but also trans folk. I see the sources mentioning that hate for bisexuals or trans folk is sometimes lumped in. This does not mean that definition is right (and I daresay it's wrong). Hatred of transgender people is called transphobia and hatred of bisexuals is called biphobia. There's multiple sources that state the definition is either just towards homosexuals, or, occasionally, toward homosexuals and bisexuals, but I can't find anything right off the bat about homophobia being hatred toward transfolk except through the sources from this wikipedia article. I don't think colloquial usage reflects the wiki definition either. There's: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html archive.adl.org/hate-patrol/homophobia.html http://www.pride.oneiowa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1-Sept_Materials.pdf and of course a bunch of dictionaries giving the definition as hatred toward homosexuals and/or homosexuality but I figure literal dictionaries aren't much wanted here based on the top box on the talk page?? (also there's some GLSEN thing from 2002 that gets cited in most of the results that come up on google but I can't find the thing they're citing so I guess that doesn't matter)

So anyway, can I propose the B and the T be removed? Or at least just the T? There's specific Transphobia and Biphobia articles that talk about the hatred toward those groups. Biphobia is at least similar to homophobia but if people are assuming someone is homosexual and acting badly toward them because of this belief (when they're transgender), then that's A hatred of perceived homosexuality/homosexuality. Iridi (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Iridi, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state...with WP:Due weight, and the sources I added here and the one I added here are clear that biphobia and transphobia are aspects of homophobia. Many WP:Reliable sources easily found on Google Books are also clear on this matter. We are also clear in the Transphobia article that transphobia is an aspect of homophobia; this was the case even before I added WP:Reliable sources to that article on that matter. These sources are clear why transphobia is an aspect of homophobia. And biphobia is obviously an aspect of homophobia because bisexuality involves homosexuality and many people object to any same-sex romantic and/or sexual activity. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Spin of hetrophobia

Could we do this?
Others wikis do. >> Rational Wiki --88.104.141.16 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hetrophobia edit request

Could we please add the

tag to the hetrophobia section?--88.104.141.16 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done - I would be opposed to this and I know others would as well, based on past discussion which you can find in the talk archives. Feel free to make a case here for a separate article and try to gain consensus. - MrX 18:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look through the archives first, and I'll see if I have any new points to bring up.--88.104.141.16 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What about this ?http://www.returnofkings.com/7183/the-rise-of-straight-shaming-2 --88.104.132.238 (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source... quite the opposite. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015

"may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs" Please change "sometimes" to "often" given that more often than not discomfort towards homosexuality is caused by religious beliefs. Vy scuti (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done this may well be true, but it would need to be sourced. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This term is preferred to "heterophobia" because it does not imply extreme or irrational fear

Preferred by whom? :) Talk about NPOV. And why is it okay that "homophobia" does imply extreme and irrational fear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.110.42 (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done No clear request made. Also, please read the FAQ at the top of this page. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Homophobia

Homophobia: Phobia of mankind. Homo:Homus

There are two instances: A) Phobia between man and man (racisms for example) B) Phobia which an animal might have when encountering man.

For homosexuality: fear of parasites (see intestinal parasites, IE: parasitology), very ancient phobia.

Kindly review the term: Homo: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.248.111.106 (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the title

Phobia means fear, however the scope seems a bit narrow and rather misleading for article titles such as this one. I believe the reason is due to widespread western media usage. However shouldn't wikipedia be more NPOV? If "Discrimination and/or hatred of Homosexuals" is not good enough, shouldn't "Anti-Gay" be more to the point and more appropriate (compare this to "Antisemitism" vs "Jewphobia")? Smk65536 (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe your issues are covered in the "Frequently Asked Questions" at the top of this page. Marteau (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreeing with Smk65536, and given the troll responses below to the (true) statement that homophobia is a political slur, wikipedia's being 'NPOV' and 'good faith' is an absolute joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.143.15 (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC) The FAQ appears to be duckspeak. The article should be clear that homophobia is a political slur invented to belittle a particular form of bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.72.22 (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What's your feeling about Hydrophobes and lipophobia, then? Chemical slurs intended to belittle a particular form of molecule?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

We use the term most commonly used in reliable sources. If you don't like it, then write a paper and persuade the experts to choose a new term. TFD (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what is relevant is how reliable sources define the term. Trying to justify an approach from a publication or publications using the word is not correct for several reasons. In that context, they are not a source on the term or its usage, they are a user of the term. Second, even if they were a source in that context, they would be a primary source, and it would be the case of Wikipedia editors deriving something from primary sources. And regarding usage, probably the highest level weigh-in and source is Associated Press, and they have said the term should not be used in the way that editors of this article have used as a basis for the current state and content of this article. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And why is the AP a reliable source on the meaning of English words? Why isn't, e.g., the Oxford English Dictionary a "higher level weigh-in," it being written by linguists and other experts in the English language? The AP stylebook is a stylebook, not a reliable source on the acceptability of words. Their reasoning, which can be found here, is factually wrong: "Homophobia especially -- it's just off the mark. It's ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don't have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: anti-gay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case." The suffix "-phobia" in English does not in fact "ascribe a mental disability," as can be seen from any dictionary of the English language. Here's the OED: "-phobia Comb. form: Forming nouns with the sense ‘fear of ——’, ‘aversion to ——’." It's attested to in English in this sense since 1803. The psychiatric sense of the uncombined form phobia isn't attested to until 1897, almost a century later. Not only that, but the OED defines the term in question thusly: "homophobia, n. Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality." That is, it means the same thing as "anti-gayness" or whatever the OP wants to rename this article. What we have here is yet another example of the etymological fallacy and there's no reason we should pay attention to it at all. We should trust dictionaries to tell us the meanings of words, not stylebooks and the uninformed ramblings of " AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that 90% of your post is unintentionally agreeing with me. What the difference is what is at the core of it.....the neologism of expanding the meaning to include all opposition to homosexuality, (including those not involving fear or hatred) and folks trying utilize the article to work towards that neologistic expansion. By the way, I would not advocate renaming the article. I think that it should be a smaller article focusing on the term, and the topics within the non-neologistic meanings of the term. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Maybe you could give an example or two. Also, it's not clear to me from your comment how you're using the word "neologism," let alone what you mean by "neologistic."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"Neologism" is a new word/phrase, or a new meaning for such. Wikipeda says that it is not to be used as a place to try to establish or promote these. And "neologistic" is just the adjective form of it. There is a section on this at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms and it refers to an additional section. The well accepted use of "homophobia" is that in most dictionaries.....namely fear or phobia related. The newer controversial use (in some circles) is to try to brand all opposition to homosexuality (or as many of them would say opposition to the practices of homosexuality) as "homophobia" . And thus to brand people who sincerely believe that that it is a willful behavior and wrong, e.g. based on religious teachings, their cultural norms) are branded as "homophobics" and any discussion of such as "homophobia". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought that's what you meant. That's a particularly silly bit of policy, which incorporates a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "neologism." In fact, that guideline, using your terminology, is using a neologistic form of the word "neologism" as meaning something like "single word internet meme." Some huge percentage of our articles are about neologisms. E.g. electron, google, x-ray, quasar, meme, homosexual, superego, oxygen, DNA, homophobia (even the meaning found in dictionaries is a neologism), and on, and on, and on. Anyway, I'm not sure what we're talking about any more. Maybe I should go work on getting that policy section rewritten so it says what it means to say instead.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line is that the scope of this article should be reduced to the established, widely accepted meanings of the term. And the rest should be moved into a new article. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the article should be completely based upon the usage of the term by experts, not the way the media is using it now for propaganda purposes. The usage of the term by the media reminds me of "piracy" vs "copyright infringement". At least there was some more common sense regarding those articles. Smk65536 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems to differ with the dictionary's definition of the world. It seems as though the definition of homophobia has changed over the years. Anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality is considered homophobic anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.185.216 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The media is using it now as a synonym for anti-gay activism. If the dictionary definition changes, then this article should be merged with existing articles on anti-gay activism instead, so the two separate meanings can co-exist. Smk65536 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The media's use of the term is worthy of discussion here. If you want an article on just the clinical meaning, go create Homophobia (psychiatry) but expect it to be challenged. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This article should be about the clinical meaning. The media's use of the term should be irrelevant here, it belongs to the anti-LGBT article. There shouldn't be a separate article just because the media likes to use one term over another. Why is there no piracy article just because the media uses it more over copyright infringement? See how many people are challenging this article. There should be something done about it.Smk65536 (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The media reflects common usage, though. If most people called it "anti-LGBT feeling" then the media would follow suit. But they don't, so WP:COMMONNAME applies. Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The mass media pushed this term onto everybody. But whatever the case, usage depends on context. Anti-LGBT is the more neutral and formal term, WP:NPOV applies. To draw a parallel, just because many people call copyright infringement piracy, doesn't mean the article should be named as such. Smk65536 (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not "people", it's reliable sources. When these sources commonly use "anti-LGBT" the article can be renamed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're agreeing with me there. I'm calling for this article to only be about what reliable sources talk about, i.e. the clinical definition, instead of what the mass media talks about. Smk65536 (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Our definition of reliable sources includes "news organisations", i.e. what you label "the mass media". HiLo48 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That brings us back to piracy vs copyright infringement. The term piracy is used much more in "news organisations" than "copyright infringement". If both terms mean the same thing, with one being more neutral, then there is a clear winner. And please refrain from "us" vs "you" attacks, and let's speak instead about the issue at hand. Smk65536 (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I made no "us" vs "you" attack. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That straw man is non-starter. The subject of the article is irrational fear and loathing of homosexuals. Homophobia has a well-established meaning in all range of sources and has been discussed at length on this talk page. Please refer to previous discussions in the archives and let's not repeat ourselves. If you have some specific edits to propose that are backed by strong sources, those would be worth considering, but we won't be changing the subject of the article or its title. - MrX 21:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly what the article should be, irrational fear and loathing of homosexuals, in a clinical sense, not simply being anti-LGBT. Most of the article only has to do with the latter, religion being an example. These people are sticking to their beliefs, it is not a question of irrationality. The title should correspond to the meaning of the article. Otherwise either the article should be changed, or the title should be. Smk65536 (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As others have already told you above, and as has been extensively discussed on this talk page before more than once, the subject of the article concerns more than simply "irrational fear and loathing of homosexuals." And it's well known that many people who discriminate against people who are homosexual also discriminate against people who are bisexual because of bisexual people's same-sex attraction, and that biphobia is therefore an aspect of homophobia. It's also well known that many people think that being transgender equals being gay, lesbian or bisexual, and that transgender people are partly discriminated against because of that; this makes transphobia an aspect of homophobia. We should be going by the WP:Reliable sources with WP:Due weight in this case, not the personal opinion of Wikipedia editors. And you should WP:Drop the stick; looking above in this section, you've been pushing your views on this matter since March (though I wouldn't be surprised if you've been at this article as a different account -- as an IP or a registered editor -- given how many times this talk page has dealt with WP:Sockpuppeting, WP:Meatpuppeting and WP:Single-purpose accounts, on this topic); WP:Consensus is obviously against you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself there. "irrational fear and loathing of homosexuals." is what I quoted from MrX. And please stop the accusations and personal attacks. This is my only wikpiedia account. Just because there are opponents to your view, does not mean they are all sock puppets and meat puppets. I was not even aware of that, and that just means that there is no WP:Consensus on this issue. I've discussed this issue for a few days in March, and since yesterday in October. If I were to push my views, I would not be so reasonable. You are not addressing my issues here. I am not talking about discrimination. That topic belongs to the anti-LGBT article. This article should be a clinical one, based on reliable, scientific sources. Smk65536 (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not contradicted myself in the least when replying to you; nor did I state that you have been WP:Sockpuppeting, WP:Meatpuppeting and that you are a WP:Single-purpose account (that stated, briefly checking your edit history, all the way to your first edit as Smk65536, before replying to you above told me all that I needed to know about how new you are and what type of editor you are). Your views of WP:Personal attack and WP:Consensus are also different than mine. And a clinical homophobia article? That proposal is ridiculous. Surely, editors at WP:Med (a WikiProject that I'm a part of) can tell you why a clinical homophobia article is ridiculous. I see you being WP:Pointy in this discussion. And with that, I am done replying to you. Continue on with your failure to go along with WP:Drop the stick, or whatever; it will get you nowhere. Flyer22 (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misunderstood you then and you were not claiming I was using a sockpuppet account. I'm not a medical expert, but I find the contents of this article ridiculous given the title, and it being ridiculous that it is separate from the anti-LGBT article under a different banner. If a clinical homophobia article is equally ridiculous, then this article should not exist in the first place. With that said I'm ok with backing off until there is something new brought to this discussion. Smk65536 (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Who's "we" and which are the "reliable sources" you are talking about. The term "homophobia" is a neologism and as such it is arbitrary, does not convey the correct meaning and eventually dabbles in irrelevancy. It's is so plain and simple, provided people are clever enough to understand it and open-minded enough to accept it. IMHO, "Homophobia" needs to be changed to something more accurate or else it's hurting the LGBT cause. Just my 2 cents of widsom here, take it or leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.60.207 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927011751/http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=614 to http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=614#queerspirit
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091029181019/http://www.ilga.org/statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2009.pdf to http://www.ilga.org/statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080118101240/http://www.itvs.org/outreach/hiphop/resources/brief_gender.pdf to http://www.itvs.org/outreach/hiphop/resources/brief_gender.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070211224159/http://www.emediawire.com:80/releases/2005/5/emw239185.htm to http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/5/emw239185.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016

Original text below:

It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.

However, the citations do not mention the view from a specific religion, there exists only an article criticising a religious view point. Also, antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred, irrational fear (or fear at all for that matter), do not enter the mind of, say a general Christian or Jew. I would suggest therefore that this statement be changed as follows:

Homophobia is often rooted in religious beliefs, yet does not necessarily encompass negative emotions as stated above, rather the obeyance to the particular Deity and Law of that religion.

(A citation for this, for example would be: https://answersingenesis.org/family/homosexuality/the-riddle-the-united-nations-and-homosexuality)

Thanks

Test111000 (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't believe your proposed wording is necessary, as the current wording says the same thing. The current wording does not imply someone who is homophobic solely due to contempt of the practice necessarily has the other negative emotions of antipathy, prejudice, aversion, hatred, fear, or a religious objection, and so the same can be thought of those who are homophobic due to religious beliefs.

Feel free to discuss your proposed change further but without consensus behind it I don't think this is appropriate for a edit request Cannolis (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a very necessary edit. Contempt is a mixture of anger and disgust, which are negative emotions alongside the others you have mentioned. Religious objection is left standing on its own, and so will be consumed by the list of negative emotions given. Religious objection is not a negative emotion, nor is it spawned by negative emotions, this needs to be made clear. Of course, there are religions that hold negative emotions towards LGBT, etc. but this can be detailed later in the article. The point is, there needs to be a clear distinction between negative emotions towards LGBT, etc. and religious beliefs surrounding LGBT, etc.

What is more, the sources that define homophobia, are from a range of dictionaries, which are suited to those negative emotions, however, the only source that links to the 'religious belief' is indeed a very weak one. Indeed the author was previously a Dominican friar, the article itself is an opinion column, of what one person believes. This should be removed and replace by credible sources, that are critical and academic, not mere thoughts from one person. Articles like the one I have provided are from organised academics, who are published and in research. These are suitable.

How can I achieve consensus? Surely this comes through these edits, which are justified.

Test111000 (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Test111000 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, Answers In Genesis not a reliable source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have the article you linked me to. I still do not see why Answers in Genesis is an unreliable source? It contains all the elements required for a reliable source. It cites various other sources, is written in collaboration, the authors are credible scholars with credentials, it is a peer reviewed work, it is covered by an organisation of scholars (which in turn is a member of a further organisation of accountability). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test111000 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016

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).[1][2][3] It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.[4] Unfortunately the term homophobia is often applied by the LGBT community in attempt to nullify claims made against them with little differentiation as to whether the claims are malicious or just differences of opinion. JamesMichaelBrennan (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your requested addition is unsourced. --Majora (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source. A bakery, who hold views that gay marriage is wrong based on their religion, refused to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan. They have been taken to court for discrimination and have been labelled homophobic, amongst other things. In relation to the requested change above, the LGBT have used the term 'homophobia' to nullify the claims made against them, in this case the refusal of the pro-gay marriage cake; the claims were not differentiated as either malicious or differences of opinion; this article seeks to do this differentiation, and the author has outlined how initially he saw it as malicious, but has no resorted to say that it is more about differences of opinion, with the overall aim of the article being to allow these differences of opinion on the grounds of freedom in business, speech, and so on.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion

Test111000 (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see how this one newspaper opinion article supports the sweeping generalization proposed by the OP, so I would be opposed to this change.- MrX 13:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This opinion article was written by a supporter of the LGBT, and so a member of their community. The OP has stated that the term homophobic has been used to nullify claims (which is what has happened, according to this article, and according the BBC news coverage of the court case). However, the LGBT community has argued that the claims made against them (not getting the cake) were done maliciously, but the cake company have argued that it is simply that they have a difference of opinion, they hold a religious belief against gay marriage.

What exactly is this sweeping statement you speak of? Why is an opinion article not appropriate, since my other suggested edit below have been dismissed based on an opinion article about religious views on LGBT, etc. There doesn't seem to be much consistency here with your editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test111000 (talk • contribs)

Not done: The CommentIsFree section of the guardian is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that is fair enough. I will do some more research into the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test111000 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting source

Hi, User:The Quixotic Potato found this [1] reference today, thought it might be useful to include some of the findings in this article. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A thought re causality

Discussions on this page are about the article, not the topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regarding social homophobia, particularly in "manly" sports, is it possible that instead of those drawn to the sport being more homophobic for social reasons, that homophobes are actually drawn toward the sport by their own suppressed, internalized desires to a situation in which they can (a) demonstrate their heteronormative manliness, while (b) doing it with lots of other men, in an environment that lets them interact physically with those men, and see them naked in the changing room? (Anecdote: I was once at a very LGBT-friendly event where the upstairs bar was booked by a rugby event. Later in the evening, the upstairs bar was opened to all comers. They were absolutely terrified of us, and simply could not stop staring. I've never seen the like.) -- Markshale (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)|} Misnomer The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. "homophobia" is a misnomer for two reasons. The first part of the word means (from the Latin) 'mankind' and the second part means (again from the Latin) 'fear of'. So the compound means 'fear of mankind' It is therefore completely inappropriate to describe the intended problem 'hatred of homosexuals' Why then is it still used, when it is so obviously wrong? PointOfPresence (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC) See the FAQ at the top of the page.- MrX 23:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC) but the FAQ is incorrect. I quote: Although the root words imply "fear of homosexuals," - This is not true. The root words imply fear of mankind - that's my point. 'fear of homosexuals' would be homosexualphobia, or perhaps homosexophobia. You can't just take half a compound word (homo) and assume it means the same as the complete word (homosexual). It doesn't! PointOfPresence (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC) No, you're incorrect and this is NOTAFORUM. Please use this talk page for discussing article improvements based on reliable sources.- MrX 15:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Dictionary The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Shouldn't this article address the fact that "homophobia" isn't an actual word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.209.103.239 (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia Knittea (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC) The term "homophobia" is solely used to refer to negativity expressed towards same-sex individuals; the term "biphobia" is used to address negativity towards bisexual individuals. Therefore, I think this should be removed from the definition of homophobia: "or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)." Gmwalker (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Source for the "solely used" bit, please? Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Gmwalker, sources in the lead and lower in the article show that, in addition to covering people who are strictly romantically/sexually attracted to the same sex, the term homophobia covers bisexual and transgender people as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Yes it is used an umbrella term however, the more accurate terms are biphobia and transphobia. talk Gmwalker (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Words are arbitrary. Agree or not, homophobia doesn't mean what it means literally. Google recently literally defined the word literal as not literal, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.54.78.138 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Dictionary definition The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The article must begin with a dictionary definition to set the discussion on the right foot. There is a massive movement to change the definitions of words, and while sources may support that words are being used differently, until the definition has been changed by the majority of dictionary authorities, we should not allow these movements to summarily change our language for their own purposes. All discussions here should follow the accepted dictionary standards with perhaps acknowledgements of cases where it is being used differently. This article should begin with "Homophobia is defined as: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people. That said, the term is currently being used to encompass a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people .." This start presents the correct basis and gives the right context for the other ways the term is being used (incorrectly). https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=homophobia -landen99 "I am, therefore I think." Ayn Rand 13:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landen99 (talk • contribs) Perhaps you're thinking of Wiktionary. Wikipedia articles are about topics, not definitions, and make no judgment about subjective questions of word usage. This article is about the topic of homophobia, as reported by the most reliable sources we can find. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Evil Twin, you are making a statement that is illogical. The definition does in fact matter more than you are pretending. You could say that the changing of the definition is simply a part of language evolution. Gay has changed its meaning at least twice in my own lifetime from happy to homosexual to stupid or generally negative, for example. Homophobia as it is used is not in the denotative sense, but so many words do not mean what they are literally meant to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.54.78.138 (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC) "words do not mean what they are literally meant to mean" What tripe. Bowl means...? Car means... errr car? A Phobia is an irrational and persistent fear of something. People do not irrationally fear homosexuals but many find their practise of male on male anal sex absolutely disgusting and always will. They have the right to criticise this as their freedom of speech and expression is what our democracy is founded on. 'Hate the sin not the sinner'. Just because you want to change the meanings of words, doesn't mean that is has changed. Gay still means happy to many. I am sure you will change this with your hate speech against anyone who dares disagree with your right fighting one sided venom but try and understand that others have rights too, otherwise you will never achieve true equality, you will just keep on being treated as ...special....ssshhh, don't upset them, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.144.231 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 8 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318135700/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/homophobia.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/homophobia.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204061410/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/homophobia to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/homophobia Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121203759/http://www.psychiatricnews.org:80/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html to http://www.psychiatricnews.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html Added {{dead link}} tag to https://springerlink3.metapress.com/content/e621m03x780l3047/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=z5ku4zncybv1dauf1k2fusad&sh=www.springerlink.com Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101015143526/http://www.equalityhumanrights.com:80/key-projects/triennial-review/online-summary/education/ to http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/key-projects/triennial-review/online-summary/education/ Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013113006/http://www.afterelton.com:80/archive/elton/music/2006/6/hiphop.html to http://www.afterelton.com/archive/elton/music/2006/6/hiphop.html Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414060120/http://www.catholic.com:80/library/Homosexuality.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226010616/http://www.gaysports.com:80/page.cfm?sectionid=1 to http://www.gaysports.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=1&typeofsite=storydetail&ID=1067&storyset=yes Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229101852/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu:80/rainbow/html/Current_Directions_preprint.pdf to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Current_Directions_preprint.pdf When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024). If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 10 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.psychiatricnews.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template=%2FCM%2FHTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=614 Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/key-projects/triennial-review/online-summary/education/ Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afterelton.com/archive/elton/music/2006/6/hiphop.html Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gaysports.com/page.cfm?sectionid=1 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030408135400/http://www.granddictionnaire.com/btml/fra/R_MotClef/index800_1.asp to http://www.granddictionnaire.com/btml/fra/r_motclef/index800_1.asp Corrected formatting/usage for http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Current_Directions_preprint.pdf When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024). If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Requested move 9 May 2017 The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW close and nonsensical reasoning given for move. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Homophobia → Negative attitudes towards homosexuality – Present title is offensive. 2602:306:3653:8440:1489:75F4:7B01:3AE6 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC) That is not a reason that is going to persuade anyone. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so something being offensive is not a reason to do anything in WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Oppose and close. Not a valid rationale. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 16:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Snow close. No explanation provided for request. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC) Oppose move and WP:SNOW close. Though there's definitely room for an article on Attitudes toward homosexuality, moving this page is not the way to do it. And though the subject of this article may be offensive to some people, I fail to see how the title is offensive.  ONR  (talk)  17:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 5 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091029185853/http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileID=1111&ZoneID=7&FileCategory=50 to http://www.ilga.org/news_results.asp?LanguageID=1&FileID=1111&ZoneID=7&FileCategory=50 Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811114947/http://ilga.org/historic/Statehomophobia/ILGA_map_2009_A4.pdf to http://www.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_map_2009_A4.pdf Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111219180335/http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2011.pdf to http://old.ilga.org/Statehomophobia/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2011.pdf Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506142037/http://www.kaiwright.com/gayzimbabwe_more.php?id=101_0_25_0_M to http://www.kaiwright.com/gayzimbabwe_more.php?id=101_0_25_0_M Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051217063659/http://ilga.org/news_results_b.asp?FileID=329 to http://ilga.org/news_results_b.asp?FileID=329 When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024). If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Gaycism I have written about the term "gaycism" in the article, which by many is seen as to replace homphobia. Homophobia is just not a fair or correct description of hatred. People don't fear homosexuals, they hate us. Be my guest to write more to the topic. And we might consider moving the article to gaycism!--Rævhuld (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC) @Black Kite ... please stop your vandalism. If a user is oping a discussion, you do not have the right to close it 1 minute after it was opened. Especially not with the lame argument "Or maybe not". And deleting text in the article with the argument "just because of one link" is lame too. I put more links on the subject, does that make you happy? Google the term "gaycism" and you see, it has been discussed in plenty newspapers and used in by many journalists - from the Observer, The Guardian and the Huffington Post.--Rævhuld (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC) No vandalism here - merely removing a controversial section which has no consensus to be included. Clearly you can't read WP:NOTVAND as well as not being able to read WP:BRD. Oh, I did Google it before removing it - it's a rather silly neologism with no encyclopedic value. The Slate source is a blog, both the HuffPost sources are ... blogs, Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source, and the Observer article is a TV review about the use of the silly term in a TV show. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC) The content in question (seen here) appears poorly sourced. The Slate reference is a blog/opinion piece and Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. The HuffPo reference is to a search of all uses of Gaycism from HuffPo, but each of the three links in the search results are blogs. In other words, WP:SPS. The only source that passes the sniff test is The Observer. What we seem to have here is a neologism that has not gained enough traction to be covered by reliable sources. It's at least too soon to cover it here. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Yes, a non-notable neologism. And Rævhuld - walk before you you can run. That is, accusing a longstanding and experienced editor of vandalism and showing little understanding how consensus works pretty well ensures you'll fall flat on your face. --NeilN talk to me 22:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Wow, how arrogant. Haven't anyone told you that being an old user doesn't give you the right to be disrespectful? Since he is an old user, I assumed that he did vandalism. Closing a discussion at the talk page after just minute it was opened is clearly against Wikipedia rules. I even took the time to find it: "Closing a discussion means summarizing the results, and identifying any consensus that has been achieved. A general rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing, although there are some exceptions to this." So that is a clear violation of Wikipedia rule there. But hey, he is old, so ... he shouldn't know better? But great to see how you treat new users.--Rævhuld (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC) @Rævhuld: "Since he is an old user, I assumed that he did vandalism." Please change your assumptions. "Closing a discussion at the talk page after just minute it was opened is clearly against Wikipedia rules." No, it's not. Closing pointless threads is done frequently to avoid generating more heat than light (as this thread has now done) or to avoid the piling on of well-intentioned but inexperienced or over-enthusiastic editors. --NeilN talk to me 23:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC) better sources are needed to introduce this to WP. WP is not cutting edge - our mission is to transmit "accepted knowledge" per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, not to report every trend or neologism. This might eventually be widely used enough to be discussed in WP, but not yet. Jytdog (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Probably not, "Gaycism" isn't yet a common word in the English language that describes fear, hatred and aversion to Gay people. Some say Racism should be called "colorism" based on ones' skin color and antisemitism should be just "anti-judeoism" to mean sentiment against Jewish people. Anyways, I'm very aware language changes over time, so the word gaycism will take shape and form when it's adapted by more people. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Over-citing in lede An editor added a citation needed tag to a legitimately uncited section of the lede today. This is understandable as the lede contains a more than average number of references which are duplicated in the body of the article. This is not strictly necessary and as is the case today, editors unfamiliar with lede guidelines come along and tag the bits that look uncited. I've adddd a ref from the body for now and cleaned up using refFill. Maybe we could discuss whether or not to remove some of the lede citations that are duplicated further down. Thoughts? Edaham (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Edaham, per WP:CITELEAD, whether or not to have citations in the lead is a case-by-case matter. Since this article covers a controversial topic, and since the definition of homophobia has been challenged by conservative POV-pushers or similar, and since the content that is in the lead has been challenged before (not just recently) for not having a citation beside it, I think it's best that the lead of this article include citations (mainly just for the most contentious aspects). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC) As for any duplication of a reference, editors should see WP:REFNAME. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC) That understanding and application of citelead makes a lot of sense in this specific case. I think that consensus is probably on your side here. The guideline for not driveby tagging also applies though, I hope people will scan the article first in future because this article is already very well referenced. Edaham (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910170349/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/JGLMApre.pdf to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/JGLMApre.pdf Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071108223210/http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/sexual_prejudice.html to http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/sexual_prejudice.html When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024). If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC) "Many religions" weasel words Under the "Religious attitudes" section it says that "Many world religions contain anti-homosexual teachings, while other religions have varying degrees of ambivalence". While not necessarily incorrect, it is weasel words. Historically homophobic attitudes seem to be entirely restricted to Abrahamic religions, and on the more detailed homophobia in religion page, little or no historical homophobia is attested in any other world religion. True, in some cases modern teachers endorse homophobic attitudes, which deserves a mention, but it is a rather different kind of thing. In many cases, modern homophobia in Asia has been picked up from Christianity or Islam. I would reword something like: "Teachings against homosexuality featured historically in the Abrahamic religions, but were mostly absent from other world religions. Contemporary teachers have endorsed a wide variety of views." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.172.25.108 (talk • contribs) I think that's a good suggestion, but what do you propose to use as the source? The existing sentence isn't sourced either, but it seems wrong to make it more specific but still unverifiable. For now I'll tag it. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC) The Homosexuality and religion article may be a useful resource for finding sources. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC) External links modified Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904125724/http://allies.tamu.edu/Did%20You%20Know/riddle.htm to http://allies.tamu.edu/Did+You+Know/riddle.htm When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024). If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Misplaced Items The last sentence at the top of the page in the 'Homophobia' section of this article should be placed in the 'Opposition to the term homophobia 'part in the 'Criticism of meaning and purpose' section. It should also give the sources for which it says the term homophobia has been criticized by and give more information as to why it is criticized, how it came to be criticized, or any details other than just saying that is has been criticized.--SheaMcbubble (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC) You're referring, I think, to the lead or first section. (There isn't a "'Homophobia' section".) The purpose of a lead section is primarily to summarize the content of the sections that follow, so the sentence in question does belong where it is because the topic appears to be covered at some length later on. I'm not so sure it's covered well—some of it looks like undue weight to me—but that's another matter. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)