Talk:Homophile movement

POV
Took down the POV-Check sign after adding to the article and fixing some things.Dave 18:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * The history section still needs some work - it reads like a promotional pamphlet.124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

SIR
The Society for Individual Rights (SIR) in San Francisco did not close in 1972 as indicated. I attended the 10th anniversary celebration in early 1974 prior to transferring with my employment from San Francisco to Los Angeles in the spring of 1974, so the date is "seared into my memory" (to quote the esteemed Mr. Kerry). I also had contact by mail with the SIR office at some point in 1976 after relocating to the east coast, so I do know that the organization existed at that time. Lee Spencer( P.O. Box 65117, Fayetteville, NC 28306) email: bill-of-rights@bill-of-rights.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.11.253 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for picking that up. I got those dates from various websites; I should have been more cautious. ntennis 15:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure that 1976 is right, but it is the latest date that I could find. I was not able to find an authoritative unambiguous reference. Google is not good at that. There is a chance that 1976 is just the last document in their collection. Wuzzy 15:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Arcadie cover 1975.jpg
Image:Arcadie cover 1975.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ONE magazine cover.jpg
Image:ONE magazine cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sensitivity
Looking at the intro statement: "the term was in common use in the 1950s and 1960s by homosexual organisations and publications; the groups of this period are now known collectively as the homophile movement." I see a problem with this. If these groups wished to be called homophile rather than homosexual, and they purposefully used that word to distinguish themself, then why is it that Wikipedia is labeling these groups 'homosexual organizations'? Shouldn't the 'homosexual' be dropped, since they dropped it themself? Tyciol (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternatives
What would you call a person who enjoys the company of homosexuals (not sexually, but socially) in general, if not a homophile? A person who likes English culture is an Anglophile, a person who likes cats is an ailurophile, so a person who likes GLBT culture but doesn't have homosexual sexuality could logically be termed a homophile. (The slang term "fag hag" is too gender-specific.) 71.34.3.105 (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is entirely logical that a person who enjoys the company of homosexuals is a homophile.  A group of supporters and friends of homosexuals - who are not themselves homosexuals - can (should) be called homophile.  But an Anglophile is someone who likes England, but isn't English.  A group made up predominantly of homosexuals cannot be called homophile, applying the same logic.  It can only be called homosexual.124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you might have missed the message of this article - that the word "homophile" is a synonym for "homosexual". While "homo" might be a common (and sometimes offensive) shorthand for "homosexual", it's not the whole word, and so logically shouldn't become the base of the word you're trying to create.  Therefore following the logic of this article, I think the word for "a person who enjoys the company of LGBT individuals" would be "homophilephile".  But that's just silly. Wilhelmp (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ich concur! 203.129.49.157 (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a long tradition that normative simplification of linguistics rarely stands up to evidence. Who ever said linguistics was uniformly logical? Check out the 137 words listed at List all words starting with homo and see if you can find another one known by more than 10% of ten-year olds. ('Homonym' comes closest, and in this word 'homo' barely seems to function as a root, unless you stop to think about it.) With no real competition, 'homo' soon becomes a convenient shorthand for 'homosexual'—more than convenient, since many children are quick to throw around the curtailed insult who would otherwise hesitate to utter 'sexual'. (Convenience being the deep logic of linguistics since the origin of language. Latin is merely the shallow logic. Never presume otherwise.) One definition of homophilia is as a practical antonym of homophobia (favouring the gay lifestyle and culture as a valid human modality, instead of opposing its expression and/or existence). By this standard, the lead sentence is flat out wrong as 'homosexual' is by no means a viable replacement for 'homophilia' (it's wrong grammatically to begin with, and semantically unsuitable over a wide range of established, ongoing use cases). How this article ever stayed into prescriptive linguistics baffles me. &mdash; MaxEnt 19:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixing this mess
Hello all.

This article is in a bit of a state. It has some unusual problems:
 * per MOS:LEADREL, the introduction should be a balanced summary of the body, which is not the case here - but it's even worse: nothing in the introduction is actually sourced in the body of the article, if you look carefully
 * also, the term "dated" has a negative prescriptive connotation, whereas the body of the article does not even suggest that the word "homophile" should not be used; in fact there is an - unsourced - statement to the contrary: "... is (present tense) favoured by some"
 * this article is really about two distinct topics: (1) the term "homophile" and (2) the homophile movement. They are related, but most readers are probably looking for information on one or the other

I think the solution here is as follows:
 * 1) merge the "Etymology" section to "Terminology of homosexuality", dropping most of it
 * 2) * much of the first paragraph should also be retained in this article, and the source
 * 3) move "Homophile" to "Homophile movement" and write a new lead about the set of organisations instead of the word
 * 4) go through the links to "Homophile", retargeting them to "Homophile movement" if that's what is meant
 * 5) only then, redirect "Homophile" to "Terminology of homosexuality#Homophile"

I don't expect this to be replied to in the short or medium term and it seems like a clear and needed improvement, so I think I'll just go ahead; I did feel the need to give some explanation for my upcoming edits.

Some other issues are:
 * much of it is unsourced
 * some claims in particular that are unsourced but appear true and very relevant: that these organisations were generally less assertive than those that came after, or even those that came before (some specific examples are sourced); that the term "homophile" in English died out because newer organisations replaced it with their own terminology; that the word is regarded as archaic and strongly associated with the homophile movement
 * there is also some misuse of sources, at least in the "Etymology" section: citation #2 is WP:original research and citation #3 is to Wikipedia
 * the section on the history of the homophile movement seems a bit long; some of this could be unnecessarily detailed or not warranted
 * there are apparently people who give to "homophile" a meaning similar to "ally"; this seems to have been neologised in the present century by people unfamiliar with the original meaning and familiar with the word "homophobia". Meanwhile, to people who know the general meaning of the prefix homo-, "(of) the same", derived from Ancient Greek ὉΜΟΣ (homos), "same", and the specific meaning in "homosexual" as "for people of the same gender", "homophobia" might be confusing and this meaning for "homophilia" more so. Wikipedia may have helped to spread this meaning: it was in the article from 2007 to 2016. Anyway, it could be mentioned in the section of "Terminology of homosexuality", but there would need to be reliable sources that discuss this usage or respected dictionaries that include it, and I'm not sure how common it is and whether such sources can be found

Kind regards from  PJvanMill ) talk ( 03:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ (not the other issues identified, though)  PJvanMill ) talk ( 00:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead Section
The lead section could use a bit of work, it is supposed to give a brief synopsis of the body of the article. When defining homophile movements it is important to point out that these groups supported and represented sexual minorities through their activism. While there is a mention of the homophile movement as a global one, the lead section only provides a bit of context of the movement within the United States. There should be some mention of the homophile movement's beginnings in Europe and its influence in other homophile movements globally. Towards the end of the lead, there should be some information dedicated to the decline of the homophile movement. Also a brief sentence discussing some of the common methods of activism in these organizations would be helpful -Ncarril4 (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, Ncarril4. I wrote the current lede quite hastily and I agree that it is imperfect. However, some of the gaps that you point out are there because I tried to stick to what's verifiable. I'd encourage you to have a go at improving the lede, but I'd urge you to also avoid making any statement there that is not supported by sources in the body. Kind regards from  PJvanMill ) talk ( 11:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add: of course any help improving the sourcing of the body would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards from  PJvanMill ) talk ( 11:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Literature Across Cultures I Analysis
— Assignment last updated by Delmyherz (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)