Talk:Homophobia/Archive 12

This article is a confusing POV & synthesis mess by blending in off-topic items
What a mess! Nearly every part of the article seeks to define (by inclusion here) any opposition to homosexuality (or the societal normalization of homosexuality) on any grounds as a/the "phobia". This article needs paring (to put it mildly) to limit it's coverage to actual phobia.

It could have a section to cover efforts/tactics to try to label any opposition to homosexuality or the societal normalization of homosexuality as a phobia, but the article should cover rather than participate in that effort. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Explain. What are the examples in the article? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * About 80% of the content of the article.   These are the parts that are about mere opposition or disdain for homosexuality, or opposition to the societal normalization of homosexuality, or to efforts opposed to those I just listed, all where there is no particular "phobia" aspect. Here are the three largest scale examples:
 * The entire "Institutionalized homophobia" section, including all of its subsections
 * The entire "Distribution of attitudes in the UK and US" section
 * The entire "Efforts to combat homophobia" section
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, we've had this before. "Opposition" to homosexuality is a cloak for homophobia (one cannot be "opposed" to it, just as one cannot be "opposed" to someone being black or white). Secondly, "-phobia" also means aversion, so most of what's mentioned here is warranted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first answer (including and parallel to race) is founded on a presumed answer to the "is it a choice/behavior vs. an embedded attribute?" debate. Second, it skipped all of the other types of opposition (e.g. opposition to the societal normalization of it) Finally, and most fundamentally, an aversion does not equate to a phobia.  E.G. an aversion to eating liver does not mean a phobia of liver, an aversion to conservatism does not mean a "phobia" of conservatism. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as relevant experts in the subject are concerned, that question has been answered. Not all words follow their literal etymological roots, see the collapsed discussion a couple topics up as this has already been discussed.  N o f o rmation  Talk  18:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The OED says under "-phobia, comb. form" : "Forming nouns with the sense ‘fear of ——’, ‘aversion to ——’." Whatever other problems there may be with this article, the extension of the sense to 'aversion' is not one of them. William Avery (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Noformation, I see absolutely nothing like you describe. I see someone making a very weak and flawed argument argument to get the person who made the very valid point to "go away".   And we're not talking about following literal etymological roots, we're talking about following the first paragraph in the lead, and which include the common and accepted meaning of the word "phobia". North8000 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * William Arvey, if you care to give the full definition that you pulled those words out of context from...  Certainly you can't be saying that they said that all aversions are phobias.  In the meantime, here's the one for phobia from dictionary.com:
 * "a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it. "
 * North8000 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * North8000, it really does seem like you're taking issue with the use of the "phobia" in homophobia. That would seem to relate strongly to etymology.  This really has been very well covered territory on the talk page of this article.  A quick search through the archives will provide you with plenty of reading material in the form of past discussions.  The definition on this page is what is supported by reliable sources.  What exactly are you suggesting that we change?  Henrymrx (t&middot;c) 18:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * North8000, as has been stated before words do not always follow their exact etymology. Antisemitsm means discrimination againist Jews not all semites (which would include Arabs and Iranians). Racism when it was coined was similarly challenged as should have meaning the study of race. The new use of the -ism wasn't firmly established until much later. If you had cared to read the history of this page you would know this. One could also argue that homophobia really DOES come from fear. A fear that homosexuality will become mainstream. A fear that oneself could be gay or be influenced by gay people. I highly suggest you read the history of this talk page before commenting again as this topic is one of the most covered on this page. Etymology is not always the way a word is used in the english language. PERIOD.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a quick scan of talk pages and see that this has been an ongoing problem that has never been resolved, just that multitude of people who bring it up get ganged up on and chased away, one by one. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look below I gave a link to the dictionary.com defintion of the word homophobia check it out.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * North8000, I don't appreciate the allegation of bad faith. The entry I quoted was the one relevant in this case: its meaning as a combining form in compound words. It is is you who are mistaken in confusing this with the meaning of the free-standing word 'phobia'. William Avery (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I said it badly.  But could you provide the full definition that you found?  North8000 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. What I gave was the full definition under headword "-phobia, comb. form", indicating what it means when found in this suffixed position . Not the same as "phobia". William Avery (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should try finding current defs for the full word "homophobia"
 * Websters: ": irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" (structurally, "irrational" applies to all)
 * Dictionary.com: "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality." (structurally, "unreasoning" applies to all)
 * Oxford Dictionaries "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people"
 * Macmillian "Hate or fear of homosexuals"
 * North8000 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The medical dictionary also adds discrimination it is the third dictionary listed on dictionary.com. However apathy can also imply prejudicial beliefs and actions.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok so lets just say I had this thing we call homophobia. I had a deep fear or aversion to homosexuality whether for regular or religious reasons. I fire a homosexual from their job because that as their employer I want to "avert" homosexual people. Thats discrimination. The phobia that homophobia may become mainstream or the aversion to homosexuals is homophobia and does translate into prejudice. Prejudice becomes discrimination when it leaves your head and enters into the world by negatively affecting a protected sociological group. Therefore homophobia is a system just like anyother form of discrimination. There are other words that are prejudicial phobias as well. Psychophobia, Judeaphobia, Biphobia, Ephebiphobia, Gerontophobia, Heterophobia, Lesbophobia, Pedophobia, Transphobia, Xenophobia, Albanophobia, Arabophobia, Armenophobia, Catalanophobia, Sinophobia, Anglophobia, Francophobia, Gallophobia, Germanophobia, Teutophobia, Hispanophobia, Indophobia, Hibernophobia, Japanophobia, Nipponophobia, Polonophobia, Lusophobia, Russophobia, Scotophobia, Serbophobia, Turkophobia, Ukrainophobia, Christophobia, Islamophobia etc. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rainbow, that is faulty logic. You are basically saying that "A can lead to B, therefore everything that is B is A" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm also suggesting homophobia, lesbophobia, biphobia and transphobia on wikipedia by the fact that this argument dosn't occur on the other prejudicial phobia pages. And it is not a faulty argument. Aversion or fear would cause prejudice. However most defintions already include prejudice so I guess I don't need to argue my point anymore.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What specific changes do you think the article needs? Arguing over etymology will go nowhere. What matters is the sources, do you see any source misrepresentation? N o f o rmation Talk  19:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the listed sections should be moved to other articles. They would be useful material in the right place. On the last question, yes.  By placement here, that is a statement that all of those things are homophobia, which is unsourced wp:synthesis structurally, and, as a sidebar, contrary to the definitions of the term.  I know this sounds big, but I do sincerely think that that would be the way to fix it. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So what would be "the right place(s)"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On my first try I'm not going to very good job at this because I'm not knowledgeable or fluent on the related articles, so please forgive men, but here are my initial thoughts:


 * In the top level homosexuality article, a condensed summery in the "Law, politics, society and sociology" section in areas not already covered there.
 * Some of it for the Discrimination article
 * Find the sub-articles of the top level homosexuality article that cover legal and religious prohibition of it, including views opposed to that prohibition.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I find strong disagreement with all of your premises. In this country, some level of homophobia, largely based off religious beliefs, is exhibited by somewhere around 50% of the population. Much of their beliefs are contrary to medical and scientific understanding of homosexuality. This causes two scenarios: (1) a bunch of this article is going to discuss such, and (2) they, who aren't qualified to talk about such are going to be pointed out as wrong. I don't ask a plumber about rocket science and then pretend his view holds equal weight. I don't ask a preacher about biological and medical things and give it equal weight to the experts in the field.
 * Because this article is about homophobia, it does require bring up their beliefs - ones they are not qualified to discuss in any fashion other than "my god says this" (yet do so anyway), and it does require pointing out that all other aspects of their beliefs (such as when they pretend they are experts on genetics and biology) are not things they are qualified to speak about - doing so requires using reliable sources on the matter - such as... you know... the experts cited in the article. This is the same thing done on articles such as "Flat Earth" and numerous other topics.
 * To date, I have yet to see any recent study that supports those beliefs (the ones they are not qualified to speak on) - and thus, it creates what you perceive as a POV - when instead, it's simply an accurate portrayal of reality: "these people/groups, even though not qualified to speak on this part of the topic in any way, believe this" and of course homophobia is "the irrational fear of (or), aversion to (or), or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." The definition fits. Period. Especially because that "aversion to" or quite "irrational fear of" homosexuality is based on beliefs by those not qualified to discuss such. Thus, no bias in the article... unless we deem citing plumbers on matters of rocket science as experts with qualified opinions is permitted as well. If someone has an aversion to homosexuals, they are homophobic. If they have an irrational fear of such, they are homophobic. WE didn't write the universally agreed upon definition - and we can't change it. We are bound to do no more than apply it properly - which, we are. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  21:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one additional note, North8000, I read this comment "I think that the listed sections should be moved to other articles. They would be useful material in the right place.[...]" as "Let's move all the stuff about discrimination, hate and aversion to other articles" - but (a) those are the topics of homophobia, as noted by the article's name, and (b) doing so leaves no article for homophobia. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  22:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is wondering about my own POV, it's that homosexuals should be able to live nice lives just like everybody else. Including discrimination-free, and 95% societal normalization of homosexuality.   Note: in the USA, "anti-discrimination" always actually means reverse-discrimination, which I'm not in favor of.   I'm  a libertarian.  If I were in the mideast, I'd be a homosexual activist to get it to that middle ground.  In the US, homosexuality is PC, and the main persecuted people are those who feel that it is wrong.  The persecution includes defining their beliefs as "phobic", that angers me as well as some other tactics/persecution that homosexual activists in the US have promulgated.     And what they are finding out in the labs that keep getting firebombed is that the answer to the "choice vs. embedded" is looking like something that neither "side" wants to hear; it's not a choice, but it is a preventable condition caused by certain issues during pregnancy.  Research has included the ability to cause homosexuality in the lab (in animals) by imposing those conditions during pregnancy.


 * So, after clearing that up, my thought is to help get this article to neutral ground on the topic of not defining the thoughts of people who merely think differently that I do as "phobic". In the USA, folks that think differently than I do and think that homosexuality (or the societal normalization of it) is wrong  are the persecuted bunch that needs anti-discrimination help, just as homosexuals in the US did 20 years ago. Discrimination against them right now seems fine just as discrimination against homosexuals 20 years ago or blacks 60 years ago seemed fine.  IMHO The article should be an informative article on the term  and the various uses of the term, and pros and cons regarding those uses. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You just argued for changing nothing. What we, me, you, whoever would like isn't relevant. It is "what is" that matters, and even if we disagree on many points you just wrote, we do agree that the term is universally applied in the fashion you and I indicate in our posts above. We don't change the world or soapbox by changing an article to what we'd like things to be. That aside, there isn't reverse discrimination here. People aren't being beaten to death, harrased, or bullied for not being homosexual. Nor is anything else the number one cause of suicide in teenagers. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  23:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that characterization of the conversation, but let's take this a little slower. North8000 (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok then, let's try this. You said "So, after clearing that up, my thought is to help get this article to neutral ground on the topic of not defining the thoughts of people who merely think differently that I do as "phobic". In the USA, folks that think differently than I do and think that homosexuality (or the societal normalization of it) is wrong are the persecuted bunch that needs anti-discrimination help, just as homosexuals in the US did 20 years ago." - but I am not sure why. Homophobia has a definition. My opinion on it, and yours, is irrelevant.  Homophobia covers topics you wish they didnt. Irrelevant.
 * And that leaves us back at right where the article is. We aren't going to change it because you dont like the definition or proper application of the word. It's nothing personal. Not in the least bit. Our POVs simply dont matter. Sorry, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  01:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are actually arguing my point. Placing that other material here as being "homophobia" is both unsourced OR/Synthesis by the editors, and also in direct conflict with the definitions.  The 4 definitions I found included those from the Webster and Oxford ::::dictionaries.  North8000 (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The pure fact that someone is againist lesbian or gay people automatically makes them homophobic whether they like it or not period. Aversion means opposition or repugnance. This means that one would have a homophobic prejudice. Everyone has prejudice and in general it is not seen as a bad thing. However when you use that prejudice to affect the world around you by say calling someone a faggot, firing someone from their job or voting for a homophobic ballot measure then you are no longer practicing homophobic prejudice but homophobic discrimination. Either way however you are still homophobic and actually most LGBT people are in fact to some degree homophobic in the prejudice sense. Just like because of the way society has treated most women and people of color have some sexist or racist prejudice in them.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that.
 * Insert "black" into each statement and if it sounds racist then it's homophobic.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To Rainbowofpeace and Jenova20. While I would also dispute many particulars of your arguments, the core point is that you are saying that since you decided that all opposition to homosexuality, or to the societal normalization of homosexuality is "homopobia", therefor the article will list all of those items as being homophobia.   That is not how Wikipedia works.   Would need reliable sources that say that, and even then it would need to be in as a assertion from one side (and the side that conflict with the dictionaries) of the dispute on this, not in as "fact" as the current article does.  North8000 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually you are wrong. Dictionary.com uses for its defintion "Homophobia n. unreasoning fear or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality. Antipathy means hatred. The world english dictionary uses "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality". The merriam-webster dictionary uses "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimiation againist homosexuality or homosexuals." The Free dictionary uses "1. fear or contempt towards lesbians or gay men. 2. Behaviour based on this feeling" Everyone of your dictionary defintions and my dictionary definition mentions fear along with some form of opposition or hatred. By the way if you look up phobia on dicionary.com and look at the synonymns it says aversion and hatred. Find another argument otherwise this conversation is basically over.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * From the major dictionaries, you are separating those words from their important adjective with is "irrational".  But even all of that is a sidebar to the main point which your response does not address. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Give me an example of opposition to homosexuality that is rational. Voting on an anti-gay measure certainly isn't. Yelling anti-gay epitaphs isn't. Firing someone from their previous job isn't. Attacking someone isn't. Irrational means without reason so the only thing that would be reasonable would be say if gays were taking over the world and forcing you into having sex with them then you arn't homophobic. You are rationally protecting yourself. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is secondary to the main issue but I will answer it. All of the people that consider homosexual behavior (as distinct from innate sexual preferences)  to be a choice (whether it be a pure choice, or a choice to act on innate preferences) to be wrong, and something that society should not sanction / normalize. No "phobia", they just think that it is wrong. This may be due to religious beliefs, or the traditional societal mores that others seek to change, or other reasons. And so they might believe that it is inherently based on the the teachings of their religion, or harmful to society. And, as an aside, those with those beliefs based on religion usually following the "hate the sin, love the sinner" concept. But again '''the main (and unaddressed/ignored above) Wikipedian issue is that presence of the described 80% of the material under "homophobia" is an unsourced assertion that it is "homophbia". And even if such were a majority view (rather than a minority view) amongst objective/quality sources and sourced, it still would represent following one side/POV on a contested (to put in mildly) issue. Which means that this article is deeply in violation of both wp:nor/synth and wp:npov.'''   That said, I realized that in getting in deeper here on this I have violated my self-made sanity-protecting rule of not getting involved in trying to help fix more than one contentious messed up article at a time and I am going to freeze my involvement here and not carry this further except possibly at a much later date. The best to you all despite our disagreement here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me respond to this one. You said nothing relevant. Let's say Joe goes and has sex with Bill. You wouldn't know and shouldn't care. That you DO care is irrational. Thus a phobia. That people care about what others they will probably never meet do in bed is... irrational. That, on top of such, they'll never SEE those people having sex yet still object to it is... irrational (and thus a phobia). That they try to impose their point of view on others over something that has no affect on them whatsoever is... irrational (and thus a phobia).
 * Final note on this for now. (a) The medical community agrees with the usage of the word. (b) The religious community may not. Which of the two includes trained specialists in the medical and psychological field to make such a determination? I believe it is (a) and not (b). Their numbers may not be fringe, but their beliefs are, because they are not qualified to speak on such matters. Truth is, there's the deciding factor. We don't support a fringe belief to ignore a definition agreed upon by experts in the field just to make those in the fringe happy. And that should truly be the end of the discussion - because doing the opposite will never happen here. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  23:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again North8000, apologies, but I think I missed a major point you tried making. If every person in this country was polled and all non-expert sources said "homophobia is pink unicorns and bunnies" and those in the medical profession (such as psychology) defined it as... well, what's written above (and let's presume that's 10,000 experts), then Wikipedia, for the purpose of defining homophobia sees a majority. But not the majority you seem to see. They see 10,000 expert reliable sources who define homophobia as above against... ZERO others.
 * Now, in moving on to discuss the topic itself, that requires talking about groups and people who promote homophobia - and that's where they come in - but not in defining what it is. Other definitions of homophobia are fringe beliefs, not because of the number of people who believe such, but because expert reliable sources do not believe such. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  09:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no longer debating here, but would like to answer any question which you have. To boil it down a bit more, there are folks who say that all opposition to homosexuality or the societal normalization of it can legitimately be defined as "homophobia", and those who say such is not legit. My own opinion is that the latter are in the majority amongst both experts and the public. And that such usage is a tactic of activists to try to promulgate the idea that any view contrary to their own is a "phobia". But, in Wikipedia terms, it matters not what you or I think.  With respect to wp:npov (and categorization within it) what matters is that there is a significant amount of people and sources (and as covered in sources) on each side of the view.  Roughly speaking wp:npov says that both sides of the issue must be represented, roughly following the preponderance in sources.  And again the question/issue/disagreement is whether or not all of those things are considered "homophobia".  About 80% of this article consists of listing all of those things, and listing them as being homophobia which very clearly puts it deeply in violation of wp:npov.  Secondly, each placement of one of those opposition things under "homophobia" is an assertion/statement that each of those items is "homophobia".   In Wikipedia, such requires sourcing for that statement-by-juxtaposition, and about 80&% of this article consists of UNSOURCED such statements-by-juxtaposition.  That is why I said that the article is deeply in violation of wp:ver/wp:nor (they largely overlap).  I also said it is in widespread violation of wp:synth which is just an area within those, a term referring referring to a WP editors making that statement-of-connection without sourcing for that connection. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not debating either. You're simply wrong. Or, prove otherwise, and I will fight to fix the article right alongside you. Find me ten reliable sources that agree with you. Or even five. You cannot. Because (a) religious sources or (b) religiously based sources do not constitute reliable sources on matters of psychology and medicine (and nothing will change that). You want to change the whole tone of the article? Fine. BUT the burden of proof is on you - and you've made some rather interesting claims... while backing up absolutely NONE of them with reliable sources.
 * So, again, find sources, and I'll fight with you to change the article. Until then, there isn't a real debate - our opinions don't matter. I have sources... you've posted none... and until you do, there's nothing to claim is a debate. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  23:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The remedy for unsourced insertions is to tag and/or remove them, not to require that they be refuted. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Except (a) they are all sourced or (b) someone has removed the sources (again) to make an attempt to remove content they don't like from the article for being "unsourced". Which brings us to the following question: What is currently unsourced? Let us know, and we'll stick the sources back in where they belong, and find the perpetrator and warn appropriately.
 * But, that's different than your original point. You have claimed there are other definitions and counter arguments to this topic that aren't represented - it was to those comments that I said (paraphrased) "find appropriate sources for such... MEDICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL/ETC sources, and I'll help change the article right alongside you. Hope that helps put things on the correct track.
 * But honestly, like others before you, it seems you simply don't like the definition of homophobia - and if that's the case, my answer, with no animosity, with no recrimination, with no ill intent; is simply "I don't care. You aren't a reliable source. Your opinion, just like mine, doesn't matter. The article will likely not be changed because you don't like the definition." Only what reliable medical and psychological sources claim is a reliable source for the definition. And of course, if that's not the problem, simply ignore this section of my response. It just seems lately, we've been getting a lot of that here on the talk page. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN  20:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no longer debating, but since your post indicates completely missing my point (actually a reversal of it). To start wit, I see nothing problematic with the definitions given in the article. (As a sidebar, about 80% of the article violates those very definitions)  They are actual a part of the 20% of this article that isn't severely violating policies and guidelines. For an example of the other 80%, I'll take the first sentence of one of the sections: "Disapproval of homosexuality and of gay people is not evenly....."  First, as a sidebar, the improper and erroneous lumping of those two together ( is POV tactic straight out of one of the activists training session.  For example, this runs exactly opposite to the near-universal teaching of religious opposition to homosexuality, briefly summarized by "Hate the sin, love the sinner).  But, on to this being an example of the main point, placing "disapproval of homoosexuality" under "Homophobia" is an unsourced statement that such opposition per se is homophobia. Not only unsourced, but on the clearly disputed point on whether or not such is per se homophobia, this is both stating the viewpoint of one side as being fact, and not giving the widespread opposing viewpoint regarding that, meaning that it doubly violates wp:npov.  This is one example of a problem which is repeated for about 80% of the material in the article. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of meaning and purpose
I'm thinking that this section seems a little out of place as the first section after the lede. Would it be better to move it farther down. Also, would it be better to rewrite the section in prose rather than as a list? N o f o rmation Talk  02:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be better in paragraph form. As for the location, I don't have an opinion. C T J F 8 3  03:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Pro homosexual agenda pushing
This whole article reeks of gays pushing their agenda for acceptance and entitlement. Also, it rally is more of a theory. People might dislike other minority groups, but there is no "phobia" label attached. For instance, many people hat muslims because of 9/11, but it is not considered a phobia. many hate gays due to their deviant lifestyles, sexual practices and anti-social beavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlockwatcher (talk • contribs) 02:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually see Islamophobia. And as much as I agree with you and actually use the word sexualist and bigot homophobia is still the most common term. However a phobia is also an aversion or hatred however there is no homosexual agenda anymore than there is a Jewish Agenda, African American agenda or Women's Agenda.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

POV check tag
I have added it to the article so a neutral editor can address the glaring bias 71.204.179.212 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What glaring bias? You must be specific. Otherwise, it's just your bias on display in a sweeping generalisation. Never helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. You need to be specific. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a specific! "Among more discussed forms are institutionalized 'homophobia' (e.g. religious and state-sponsored[5])". The footnote refers to the International Lesbian and Gay Association. There's no way that's a neutral or scientific source. PaulSank (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But it is a reliable source. ILGA is an UN accredited organization. I see no need for an NPOV tag. --Scientiom (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliability is not what's in dispute at the moment. We're trying to make this article neutral. As far as I can tell from its website, the ILGA is at least in part an activist organization. Activist organizations do like to make definitions, but their definitions are designed to support what they're doing. Activists often use definitions to re-frame the debate. I wouldn't use Focus On The Family, either, even though I agree with them on many points, because, again, they're not a neutral source. Activists, regardless of which side they're on, should never be used as sources for definitions that are supposed to be neutral. PaulSank (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the WP context of the word "neutral," neutral on WP does not mean that subjects are presented uncritically, or that wikipedia treats all sides of a subject equally. Neutral means that the reliable sources of any given subject are given the appropriate weight in an article based on their prominence as sources.  We as editors have to be neutral, which means that our opinions are not put into the article.  Sources only need to be reliable and mainstream.  Because this source is a UN accredited organization, it meets our standards for reliability and thus is acceptable.  If you disagree, you're welcome to get a second opinion on the reliable sources notice board.  N o f o rmation  Talk  05:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Unless someone else wants to take up the issue of neutrality re this article, I say it's time to remove the tag. PaulSank (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is the defnition of neutral, why is it that a link to homophobia on Conservapedia was immediately removed? This site represents the views of a significant portion of the population and, whether people like it or not, the views expressed on that page are mainstream as well. 142.151.202.168 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because Conservapedia is the antithesis of what WP regards as a reliable source. AV3000 (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Treatable phobia?
I notice that this is labeled as a "phobia" as though it were treatable. The treatment might be of interest. Perhaps victims (phobics) are shown pictures of men copulating and if they react negatively, they are given a mild shock? Anyway, the treatment for this condition would be of interest. Student7 (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many sexual therapists around, more information here would be great for those who suffer homophobia and would like to no longer be gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.o 203.198 (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I in fact challenge that the usage of the word Homophobia is simply wrong. As has been mentioned before, a phobia is an irrational fear, a treatable mental illness, not a simple dislike or hatred (which is not). It is another example of the language being further corrupted by common use of incorrect terms. A telescope for instance is called a telescope for a good reason, it makes sense. If everyone started calling a window a telescope, maybe it "kind of makes sense" but would still be vastly incorrect, but if enough people do it, it makes it legitimate? I don't think so. 109.149.173.232 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does. Welcome to English, the most rapidly evolving, clumsiest and illogical language in common use. And that last term is the key here. Homophobia means what common usage says it means, not what historical language analysis says it should mean. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually there is a battle to try to brand any disdain for, opposition to, or opposition to the societal normalization of homosexuality as a "phobia". The opposing side says that such is incorrect.  This heavily POV'd article weighs in on just one side of it by pretending that the assertions of one side are fact and writing on that basis. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would argue that regarding homosexuality as not part of normality these days IS homophobia by its common definition. And people who want to suppress homosexuality in society must be scared of something. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (As a sidebar, I didn't have "suppress" on that list.)   But it's quite a reach to say that disdain for or opposition to something automatically means fear of it. North8000 (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's not what I said either. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well either way, that is what the POV promoted by this article is saying. North8000 (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not! Homophobia does NOT mean fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. That view is an incorrect, POV approach taken by people wanting to deny that the word applies to them. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are stating one side of the controversy, just as the article does. Essentially saying that it is valid to apply a "phobia" term to any disdain for or opposition to homosexuality.  North8000 (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just telling you that mechanical definitions of words don't work in our language where common usage is what counts. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's one of these arguments on this page every time i see it...
 * Read the article North8000, phobias do not always mean "an irrational fear", that is the way English works, sometimes words don't mean what you expect.
 * Denying Homosexual people equal rights, equal treatment, or just stating that it is an illness that is treatable are all homophobia. It has nothing to do with being scared of gay people.
 * If you can swap the word gay for black in your argument and it seems offensive, then it's homophobic. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Phobia" certainly does mean phobia. That is why folks on one side of this controversy are working so hard to promote use of a "phobia" word to apply to all disdain for or opposition to homosexuality.  And again, this article weighs in heavily on only one side of that controversy. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In saying that you're arguing against what the article says, what common usage says, and what most dictionaries I've looked at say. Dictionary.com says "unreasoning fear of OR antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality". (My capitalisation) You have a big job ahead of you. HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * North you're not going to achieve anything here, your argument won't change common meaning and usage of the words "Phobia" or "Homophobia", please read both articles to see why.
 * If you disagree with the meaning of the words then i don't know how you fight that but Wikipedia isn't the place. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someday this POV mess will get fixed, but not today
Well, the "big job" here is that there is a group of editors who LIKES that this article is badly POV'd, that it carries the torch for one side of the controversy, and that it states the view of one side of the controversy as fact, and in the voice of Wikipedia. And somehow, by some reverse logic, the fact that there have been an immense amount of complaints about this is given as a reason for the invalidity of the complaints. (with "same 'ole story" type comments). I'm not ready to spend the time to try to tackle that. So, signing off..... Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're unhappy then take it to an admin or try and get a third opinion.
 * Trying to change the meaning of words on Wikipedia will not work though and so the only suggestion i can give you is to read the article and the one on Phobias and accept that you don't agree...or take it to admin and third opinion.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 13:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your "trying to change meaning" characterization of the situaiotn, but I respect your viewpoint and wish you and everyone else here well. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem  J e n o v a  20 13:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagging, hatting, and the like
I have removed the POV tag added by IP 67.6.120.234 because no new discussion accompanied it. The user did uncollapse three collapsed threads on this page, but none of them contained his or her own comments (as far as one can tell, when unregistered users are involved). I have re-collapsed one of the three threads because it contained grossly offensive generalized attacks on a group of people. The other two I left uncollapsed; while they fall into the perpetual (and perpetually false) argument category, they do seem to meet a reasonable minimum threshold for relevance and civility. Rivertorch (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Transphobia?
Here's one for you. Shouldn't Transexuals be removed from the lede since that's transphobia and not homophobia? and hence belongs in the right article? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 23:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In a perfect academic sense, perhaps. However the reality is that all LGBTQs are lumped together with homophobic attitudes. Transphobia is a form of homophobia in that is arises from the similar fears of anyone that is not gender and sexuality conforming. There is crossover, certainly. And those who express thoughts likely don't differentiate who exactly they are referring to or what aspect of variance they are reacting to.Insomesia (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point, just wanted another opinion. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

POV Bias
This article is INCREDIBLY BIASED! Wikipedia administration seems to knock down this comment, as seen in the two other concerns above. I would like a review of this article, because it is INCREDIBLY biased and pro so called "gay". Could someone please look over this article with a more neutral perspective and neutral sources? 108.16.201.42 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where to start...Bias to start off is your own opinion. If you have anything specific you want to point out or ask about then go right ahead. If you wish to challenge the meaning of the word then find some reliable sources and post them up here.
 * Also if you're just in a shouty shouty mood then you probably won't get anyone responding to you or taking you seriously. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually i'm probably a good person for you to ask since i got involved in the discussions above where it appeared that the user tried to challenge the meaning of the word "homophobia". and "pro "gay"" suggests that you might want to instead visit conservapedia where the Bible is the reference to most questions and the world revolves around America. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rots o' ruck. Wikipedia is an officially pro-gay document.  A better example of pro-gay bias is the Marriage article.  Suppose you're an alien from the planet Zog that has just landed on Earth and you decide to use Wikipedia to try to learn about the human species.  You would have no idea, from the WP article, that married people are usually or normally a wife and husband.  It wasn't good enough for the pride activists to use the definitions found in Webster's, OED, or American Heritage in the lede (which mentions same-sex marriage in the second sentence or secondary definition, they had to obliterate all notion of hetero-sexual marriage, and they are doing that to further an agenda.  It is not their interest to have Wikipedia articles reflect reality, but they want to change reality by use of the Wikipedia project.  It's against policy, but hey, if those entrusted to enforce policy are themselves biased, what can you do? 71.169.177.19 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have any constructive suggestions for better sources or specific changes those would likely go further than general accusations of bias. If you have an issue with another article you need to address it at that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomesia (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. It seems you have an issue with most articles that mention gay people in some sense rather than just this one. If that's your current crusade to fight back and campaign using Wikipedia to do so then there is little i can do but tell you to raise a specific issue at the WP:Village pump or bother someone else. On the other hand if you have something constructive to bring up then i'll do what i can to help. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 18:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok than let's start with my deleted edit! The quote is entirely unnecessary and it sets a negative tone for the whole article. Fear of queers is also not irrational. Comparing homophobia to nazism is irrational. And I also not appreciate religious being called homophobes! --108.16.201.42 (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well first off i have to point out that negative tone and neutrality are different things. If we take the holocaust (i think that's how you spell it) as an example it's very difficult to set something like that in anything but a negative tone, but we can make the article neutral and reliably sourced, the same thing would happen to positive toned articles.
 * Your first edit removed the word "irrational" from a dictionary description...a so so edit and was obviously reverted since it was important to the lede paragraph to show examples to the reader of what the article involves and what homophobia is.
 * The second edit was just a removal of a paragraph and again was rightly reverted. Large removal of content with no discussion on the talk page is generally considered: Unhelpful, Unexplained, Unwarranted, Vandalism, Censoring
 * If you want to reword the paragraph with me we can post it up here and get started on something we all agree with? What do you say? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 10:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First. can we all agree the quote has absolutely no place and is in violation of Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines. Second, on irrational: Dr. Sander J. Breiner of NARTH has stated "There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature...There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined," in the the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Third, I object to the notion that religious organizations are homophobic, they are just defending their beliefs, just as Charles Worley.--108.16.201.42 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First off let me state that i will do everything within my means to stop anything from NARTH being used here in any way as reliable. They are the bottom end of reliability and their own methods are discredited and biased. You might aswell try and use sources from the KKK in a racism article to reword the lede paragraph.  J e n o v a  20 22:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How is NARTH unreliable? It is far more reliable than most of the sources in this article. Second, do you agree with me that the quote is biased and serves no place? --108.16.201.42 (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * NARTH is Not Anti-gay, nor is NARTH a Hate-Based Organization. 108.16.201.42 (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * NARTH is one of the most hateful anti-LGBT groups around. They can be trusted with no research whatsoever and the only reliable statements for an encyclopedia is NARTH talking about itself, and even then I would want a more reliable source. For anyone interested please see - NARTH Becomes Main Source for Anti-Gay ‘Junk Science’. Insomesia (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather than arguing, can we work to improve the article's introduction according to the concerns I pointed out? It seems you are unwilling to talk and rather just bash me with heterophobia. 108.16.201.42 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I only recall some generalized concerns and then the whole NARTH subject came up. I suggest you start a new thread with a specific change that reasonably could be welcomed in whole or part by the other people here. Maybe things just started poorly but you can "restart" with a new section and a fresh idea. You could also stay on this thread and maybe outdent and start a new thread that wayInsomesia (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, do not appreciate being called "-phobic" when my opposition to homosexual practices is very much courageous and counter-cultural. If there are people who are offended by this term (including myself, and a few others on this Talk page), then the word "derisive" or "pejorative" must therefore appear in the first paragraph in order to maintain a neutral POV. 204.65.0.24 (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You made a point that goes to the core of the POV problem with this article. In the real world there is a battle going on between folks who want to label any opposition to homosexuality as having a "phobia" and those opposed to that tactic.    This article presumes and presents the views of one side of that controversy as fact, and then builds the entire article to imply that that controversial assertions is fact. North8000 (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated previously we need reliable sources to support views that seem to be counter to what we already have. Presenting the sources we need to support these opinions should be presented so others who doubt the veracity of those views can also see what reliable sources state. Then we can adjust the first paragraph.Insomesia (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Religious people can be called homophobic, racist or antisemitic for the exact same reason as the religious people will call gays a violation against God or Jews as false believers. The fact of the matter is that according to Christianity LGBT people are committing an abomination againist God. That means they have a right to say that LGB sexual activity and T dressing is bad. For this same reason though however LGBT can call these religions homophobic, biphobic and transphobic. You can't have it one way. Religious people who protest againist LGBT will always be homophobic and according to their religion LGBT status will be a sin. And yes many of the words the Christians and other religious fundamentalists you to describe the LGBT community are pejorative too. Get over it. You are homophobic and LGBT people are an abomination to your faith.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, let's not bother with applying labels, no matter how accurate we may think they are, to others here. Let's just agree that we need reliable sources to make substantial changes and until those sources are presented the article is unlikely to change. The generalized accusations about the article or those editing it are as unhelpful as pointing out whether or not those accusations are themselves homophobic. Focus on specifically improving the article with better sources.Insomesia (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you say, although I am finding the recurrent eruption of this topic with zero new evidence presented more than a little tiresome. Rainbowofpeace: what you've written, aside from being beyond the proper scope of the article's talk page, is an appalling oversimplification. Rivertorch (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I should point out that there is nothing against homosexuality in the scriptures directly. It is alluded to, with that one bit that calls face-to-face sex between two men "an abomination". Lesbianism, bisexuality and transgenderism are not even mentioned. Not marrying is a greater sin. All else is commentary.--Auric (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A Mislead Article and a Good Point.
This man here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1cBFjG7MGg&feature=share makes a good point. Could we please incorporate some of what he says into this incredibly one-sided article? AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I stopped watching once I heard "militant homosexual". Find a reliable source for your point (which you haven't even clearly stated). --Scientiom (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone espousing how "militant homosexuals" are florishing is unlikely to be taken seriously let alone used as a WP:reliable source for anything. Insomesia (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a primary source that the other viewpoint regarding the word which folks here claim does not exist actually does exist. Secondary sourcing for it also obviously exists, at which time that the POV house of cads that this article is founded on will be seen for what it is North8000 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There needs to be *reliable* secondary sources for anything. And can you clearly state your point please (not everyone is going to watch that video)? --Scientiom (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been stated before but bears repeating, we need reliable sources before we make the changes you seek. Without those we are wasting everyone's time. Insomesia (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree that homophobia is the wrong term and prefer the word sexualism which would prevent anyone from saying that it was anything other than prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes. But the fact of the matter is that homophobia is the accepted term in the English language and even if we did use another term like heterosexism or sexualism than you would still be arguing that it is not prejudice or discrimination. We have had this argument on the talk page since its inception. What can we possibly do to make it so that is used in sociological and psychological circles is the one used not what Joe Schmo wants it to be.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding, "We have had this argument on the talk page since its inception", maybe that means it's time s to start listening instead of ignoring such an immense amount of feedback from some a wide range of people.   The attempt to promulgate a definition that brands any and all opposition to homosexuality (or to the societal normalization of it) as a "phobia" is one side of the controversy regarding the term.    There are plenty of real more accepted ways of describing opposition to something.   If someone was opposed to George Bush, they say "critics". "opposition", "opponents"  "anti-bush" etc.  Only one side might call the opposition "Bushaphbic" and "Bush-a-phobia"  and such opposition is certainly not a "phobia", although there are, of course, people, would would like to brand any opposition to Bush with pejorative "phobia" terms.  The article should report on the controversy, not choose on side of it. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * North, working with us in a productive way is more productive than just shouting about a whitewashing of articles. You still to this point have not provided anything.
 * Your messages do not appear in the tone of acting in good faith anymore and i sincerely believe this is just wasting time.
 * I'm going to spell out clearly that i will not aid you with this crusade you are on unless you provide evidence to back up your argument. Reliable evidence. That or you point out some of these problem paragraphs you mentioned. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine and easy. It will just require establishing (with rs's) that the alternative viewpoint exists; after which time an article which presumes that it does not exist will be clarified as being a POV house of cards.  You'd think that the fact that you've been hearing the alternative viewpoint throughout the entire existence of the article might be a clue that it exists and that you might want to get ahead of the curve / adapt to the obvious.  But it's fine either way; such will be easy to source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That you and a host of IPs and new-account editors keep raising the topic is indicative only of the fact that you keep raising the topic, not that an alternative viewpoint exists. But the question isn't whether it exists—I'm sure it does, and I've already said so; the question is whether it can be shown to be a significant, i.e., noteworthy, viewpoint. If it is, reliable secondary sources will exist to provide evidence of it. You have been asked to provide such sources. Repeatedly. By several editors. You have declined to do so. Repeatedly. You've provided not one shred of evidence to back up what you say, and yet you keep harping on it. This is becoming disruptive, and it really needs to stop now. Please. Rivertorch (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quit the bogus "disruptive" accusation crap. I was arguing obvious core policy issues/violations which a group here chooses to ignore / shout down, and so I said I'll get the obvious written & sourced. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are the one arguing that the sky is purple North, it's on you to prove it. Without proof you have nothing. And after so long arguing here you've acomplished nothing.
 * If your goal was to waste time then congratulations. If on the other hand you wanted to show you have a genuine argument and you're an acomplished editor versed in the main policies of Wikipedia then you failed abysmally. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 21:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to that nastiness. The next step is me to find sources for the obvious. North8000 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK I'm calling Tweet Tweet since North8000 has kindly offered to do exactly what has been asked, and that is to provide sources and possibly write up some content. Let's allow the same courtesy we would hope for ourselves and give them space to do so. Insomesia (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The first source is the video. Second source: NARTH. Third: Many editors expressing concern on the term "homophobia". Could we please have a poll put up on changing the name of this article to something like "anti-gay bias" or something like that? A phobia, last time I checked was a FEAR of something. I can not name one person, including myself that is "fearful" of gays. Sure, I may be fearful of its terrible and diabolical agenda, but not of gays! AndrewrpTally-ho! 17:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * RealCatholicTV and NARTH are indisputably uneliable sources here on WP. The very bottom of the barrel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Than what constitutes a reliable source? Some pro-gay liberal fodder? AndrewrpTally-ho! 18:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well anything calling gay people "deviants" "un-christian" or calling for them to be stoned is clearly inappropriate. Same as anything from the Daily Mail, NARTH, Most Pro-Religious sources for the reasons already noted etc. NARTH especially is well known for manipulating research and pushing their own agenda and i'm pretty sure the Southern Law Poverty something-or-other calls them a hate group. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's basically easier to tell you not to use sources that Conservapedia love  J e n o v a  20 19:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Glass houses. Right now this article has severe sourcing problems in the other direction. Using advocacy organizations / speeches as sourcing, and complete lack of sourcing for the false premise that much of this is built on.  ....that premise being that the ONLY definition for homophobia encompasses any and all opposition to homosexuality. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * North, I am inclined to agree. Could a paragraph perhaps be put in the article saying that the term homophobia is not accepted by many and that some critics argue that no such thing exists. And another question, Jenova (you appear to be gay), what opposition do you have to the changing or acknowledgement of other terms and viewpoints. The wiki is all about giving a neutral and unbiased view. Just because some people are anti-gay because of their beliefs does not make them unreliable. We must trust the wisdom of Holy Mother Church in these issues and listen to Her and give Her acknowledgement, just like we do with liberal criminal front groups like MS(LSD)NBC and Media (Doesn't) Matters AndrewrpTally-ho! 20:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per above, I'm (slowly) working on that. Except I intend to cover the major viewpoint that it legitimately applies to only true phobias (rare) rather than the viewpoint that no such thing exists. Which is also the other side of the dispute about promultaging a pejorative term of referring to any opposition to homosexuality as a "phobia". Obviously a group here prefers that the latter happens and has been using the article (in its current state) to promote that viewpoint. Getting this done will be a key first step in repair of the article.  I have been referring to the article as a "house of cards" (a clear wp:npov violation) in this respect because the way it is written is founded on a (false and unsourced) presumption that the ONLY definition of "homophobia" is one which identifies all forms of opposition to homosexuality or to the societal normalization of it as "homophobia".  BTW, if anyone is curious about my irrelevant real world POV, I'm am for such acceptance, but not for the insults and "dirty pool" tactics against folks who feel otherwise which this article as it is currently written promulgates.  Again, that is not a basis of my arguments or efforts which are based on following wp policies and standard good, neutral article practices.     Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Per above and stated previously, any WP:Reliable sources that support changes to the article would be welcomed by the supposed gang against change, as has been implied. This has been stated repeatedly and yet we are still waiting for reliable sources. Those will dictate where the article goes. Our opinions and fringe sources do not count. And further accusations that other editors are suppressing the truth or unpopular ideas is not only false but disruptive. Please present the sources first, WP:Reliable sources, otherwise it certainly feels like this is all an exercise in causing drama. If you honestly think that NARTH or the RealCatholicTV are good for sourcing anything but unquestionable opinions about themselves then you need to review sourcing policies before you waste your time king any more research with unacceptable sources. That's akin to using gay rights bloggers to source an article on the history of the Catholic Church, it's laughable at almost every turn. Instead we should be using the strongest sourcing possible for all articles. If you're here to stir up trouble then please stop, if you honestly have an interest in improving this article then you have been given a clear direction on how to do so, many times. I have few options besides these that don't involve some administrator involvement. Insomesia (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Having a quick look through the sources for this article most of them appear to be dictionaries for the definition, quotes from historical figures (e.g. Coretta Scott King), declarations/statements from international organization or nations or governmental agencies or related such organizations, and declarations/statements from major scientific institutions and civil rights organizations worldwide. There does not appear to be any real cause for complaint about the substance, content, and sourcing of this article. --Scientiom (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The complaint is from the other side, alleging the common and referenced homophobia in the article is not the accepted or most common definition of the word. They have so far refused to provide sources showing this radical redefinition until recently, when they have offered sources from NARTH and the Catholic Church, which as has been pointed out is laughable and in very poor taste, while expressing the lowest standard of knowledge to reliability, neutrality, and this topic in general.
 * Thanks and have a nice day  J e n o v a  20 08:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Scientiom, I wish that the article did actually use and look at the dictionary definitions. What the article actually does is pretend that the definition common to all of the dictionary definitions (i.e. an actual phobia) does not exist. North8000 (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * North you were shown dictionary definitions last time that showed this was the accurate definition and you argued against that, you're now claiming they supported your position instead?  J e n o v a  20 10:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Read this page from "Treatable phobia?" downwards North  J e n o v a  20 10:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * - Oxford Dictionary
 * - Avert.org
 * - Yahoo, not reliable but still backs this up
 * - Thefreedictionary
 * End this pointless biased, unsourced and time wasting crusade or get some evidence North, we've all been asking you for too long for this to be taken seriously anymore  J e n o v a  20 10:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) No, what I actually said is that:
 * the one definition in common to ALL dictionary definitions is the true "phobia" one.
 * SOME definitions include a second one which defines all opposition to homosexuality as "homophobia".


 * What I'm saying is that the article:
 * selects and uses only #2
 * IS worded throughout as if #1 does not exist.  Through the article is lists any and all opposition to homosexuality as being "homophobia".  Adoption of such a POV is basicaly saying that #1 does not exist.
 * Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links. The two dictionaries in there prove my point. North8000 (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that took a whole 3 minutes to do what you've been arguing about for 3 months . Thanks  J e n o v a  20 10:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously the scope of this article is only one of the definitions. The other definition that you'd like to include is likely more appropriate on Wiktionary than it is here; it is hardly discussed in academia (if at all) and I'd be surprised if there were sources outside of hard right fringe sources discussing it (and of course the obligatory dictionary definitions).  Perhaps a paragraph saying that there is a different definition of the word, but even that seems inappropriate as it doesn't seem relevant without more sources discussing it.  S Æ don talk  10:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, you've pointed out a more fundamental problem. As structured, the content of this article is about opposition to homosexuality, put under a POV ("phobia") word as a title. If the content of the article remains about opposition to homosexuality, the article really needs renaming.  If it's about the word (a violation of wp: not a dictionary, but a commonly accepted one) then it needs to cover the word (it's definitions, who is pushing which definition etc.) North8000 (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So called "opposition to homosexuality" (i.e. It's really opposition to LGBT rights) is indeed a result of homophobia and is known as homophobic bigotry. Just like "opposition" to racial minorities (i.e. really opposition to racial minority rights) is a result of racism and is racist bigotry. --~ Knowz  (Talk) 11:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That analogy (to an embedded trait such as race and not to a behavior) promotes one POV. Also off topic to what it was responding to which is that it is a pejorative term for things which have other neutral terms. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sexual orientation is an embedded trait. And again, I repeat, everything in this article is well sourced using reliable and established sources (see my comment above). --Scientiom (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * North you appear to be moving from your argument that homophobia does not mean homophobia as defined by the sources and dictionaries to now claiming homosexuality is a learned behaviour rather than a genetic trait?  J e n o v a  20 14:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got that one backwards. Race is a social construct. Sexual orientation is a trait. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, race or colour, regardless, my point is about the fact that racism and homophobia are similar (not to stray too far from the topic, but: indeed, studies have shown that if you're racist you're likely to be homophobic and vice-versa - as well as sexist, etc). --~ Knowz  (Talk) 14:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding to both, I believe that homosexuality is an embedded trait. But most opposition is founded on a sincere belief that it is a choice and a behavior. 14:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Any sources for that POV? No  J e n o v a  20 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the first half I assume matches your own views. The second I thought was obvious and undisputed (that many think that it is a choice) North8000 (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but then that still requires evidence. To say that many think it is a choice is original research, a lot of it is just ignorance or people not liking gay people. Again it needs sources. And then just because 1 side exists it doesn't mean we can allow the other side to have a free-for-all with no evidence. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 16:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about article content. I guess this is a tangent, but someone else sprouted the tangent.  :-) North8000 (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: as an embedded trait sources. Have a look here: http://www.catechism.cc/articles/homosexuality-sin.htm under heretical ideas, 5 and 6. and here: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/does_God_create_homosexuals.php . People CHOOSE TO BE gay! Race is a trait. You can not change your race. But as I quoted above, gayness is not a trait. It is an objective disorder that people chose because they are possessed! "The truth is that God doesn’t create anyone with a homosexual orientation and that all those who are truly homosexuals (even those who are not engaging in homosexual acts) are homosexuals because of a demonic takeover and mortal sin. Those who scoff at this statement are simply faithless liberals who don’t want the truth and have no concept of the supernatural world." AndrewrpTally-ho! 14:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great "sources" (for Conservapedia, perhaps). Wikipedia is based in the real world, and we require real sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a joke right?  J e n o v a  20 14:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, these are incredibly reliable sources. What about the Vatican? The Church? SSPX? FSSP? MHFM? SSPV? CMRI? For YOU a "reliable" source is pro-gay liberal fodder, yes? AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church (isbn: 978-0895261441)
 * You may aswell use sources from the Ku Kux Klan on articles about Africa if that's the best argument and your logic you have.
 * And on the same logic i could reword articles on religion using Elton John's autobiography as the source so think it through. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 15:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When everything you are saying is contradicted by the scientific consensus (and what has been long established), you have no base to stand on. Also, I'm wondering if you're actually serious or just trolling now, because a lot of what you just said is simply ridiculous. --~ Knowz  (Talk) 15:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/ http://americansfortruth.com/ Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church. (isbn: 978-0895261441) Also, science can never contradict the Church (canon 159) AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you say so... have a nice day. *Giggle* :) --~ Knowz  (Talk) 15:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably reliable (but primary) that those opinions exist and who holds them. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (commenting against my better judgment re "science can never contradict the Church") Indeed, no. The stakes are too high. Galileo was quite right to recant. Rivertorch (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, It's about sources
North8000 and Andrewrp you seem to be under the mistaken impression that all the other editors just don't like the sources you're presenting for political/social reasons despite that repeatedly being told that the issue is they are unacceptable for sourcing a Wikipedia article. I'd like you to use Reliable sources/Noticeboard, a noticeboard that is neutral and looks only at the source presented and what it is being used to source. Frankly the insistence on using what are some very unreliable sources concerns me as to what sources you have been using on other articles. But for now please use the noticeboard if you still want to use any source here. In that way this page isn't wasting your time and you'll have neutral editors looking only at the quality of sources. Insomesia (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? I haven't presented any sources, nor done anything (put material into the article) that requires them.  North8000 (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You've at least held up NARTH and the CatholicTV youtuber and presenter that these are worth considering as good primary sources. We can't use them but don't take the editors judgement on this page as final if you don't wish. There is a neutral Sources page that will help by looking solely at the source and how it is to be used. You've stated that your views are easily sourced and that you would provide those sources. Reliable sources/Noticeboard is there to help. Otherwise it seems like you just want to have a good argument. We're here to build articles. I see your discussion as stalling that effort. Please prove me wrong and present those reliable sources so we can try address your concern. Insomesia (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I said I'll do that.  When I do, that will make it TWO people (myself and Andrewrp) on this talk page who has provided sources for their assertions on this page. North8000 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not just sources. Reliable sources. Neither of you has done that yet. Rivertorch (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly after 3 months this is just disruptive and using the talk page as a forum. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that the folks promoting the "their preferred definition (that all opposiion is "homophobia")is the ONLY definition" view have provided ZERO sources for that implausible assertion, while saying high quality sources are needed to make the "sky is blue" obvious statement (that another view exists) even on the talk page. I can see how this article has been kept as badly POV'd as it is. North8000 (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And what have you provided to challenge this? Jack shit thus far North  J e n o v a  20 10:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The meaning of homophobia does not change based on the existence of opposing political or religious preference (i.e. "other views").


 * Weinberg [who originated the term] also made it clear that he considered homophobia a form of prejudice directed by one group at another:
 * "When a phobia incapacitates a person from engaging in activities considered decent by society, the person himself is the sufferer...But here the phobia appears as antagonism directly toward a particular group of people. Inevitably, it leads to disdain toward the people themselves, and to mistreatment of them. The phobia in operation is a prejudice, and this means we can widen our understanding by considering the phobia from the point of view of its being a prejudice and then uncovering its motives."
 * ...snip...
 * Empirical research more strongly indicates that anger and disgust are central to heterosexuals’ negative emotional responses to homosexuality. Thus, in identifying discontinuities between homophobia and true phobias, Haaga (1991) noted that the emotional component of a phobia is anxiety, whereas the emotional component of homophobia is presumably anger. These conclusions are consistent with research on emotion and on other types of prejudice, which suggests that anger and disgust are more likely than fear to underlie dominant groups’ hostility toward minority groups. Indeed, the dehumanization of gay people in much antigay rhetoric and the intense brutality that characterizes many hate crimes against sexual minorities are probably more consistent with the emotion of anger than fear.
 * ...snip...
 * I noted above the claim by antigay activists that they are not suffering from homophobia. Strictly speaking, they are probably correct. Most of them do not have a debilitating fear of homosexuality (although they often try to evoke fear to promote their political agenda). Rather, they are hostile to gay people and gay communities, and condemn homosexual behavior as sinful, unnatural, and sick. Whereas this stance is not necessarily a phobia, it clearly qualifies as a prejudice. It is a set of negative attitudes toward people based on their membership in the group homosexual or gay or lesbian. Some antigay activists will object to being called prejudiced because, they will argue, to be prejudiced is a bad thing.
 * ...snip...
 * Rather, we need only agree that the phenomenon meets the criterion of being a negative attitude toward people based on their group membership. Regardless of one’s personal judgments about homosexuality, negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians clearly fit the definition of a prejudice.




 * Internal footnotes omitted. Emphasis mine. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK now we have opinion pieces from both sides in the talk page but not in the article. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Opinions from both sides but only reliably sourced for one side...  J e n o v a  20 21:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to be getting the point. When someone says "I am opposed to equal rights for LGBT people, but I'm not a homophobic bigot", they are indeed homophobic. It's just like someone saying "I am opposed to equal rights for racial minorities, but I'm not a racist bigot" - but even do they contend they are not, by the very virtue of their stand, they are indeed racist. You need to understand the point being made here. --Scientiom (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are about 5 things in tangled together in what you just said. Regarding applicability of the term "homophobia", you have just voiced the opinion of one side of the debate. The other would say that a better analogy would be that it akin to labeling any opposition to pedophilia as "pedophilia-phobic", or opposition to marijuana as "marijuana-phobia". North8000 (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're grasping at straws now, have sunk really quite low, and still cannot seem to understand the point: Homosexuality is a sexual orientation (along with heterosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality) - and just like race/colour, sexual orientation is a core trait/characteristic. Pedophillia is a mental disorder - not a normal characteristic. Marijuana is an object - not a characteristic. Now that that's cleared up, perhaps you should go over what has been said to respond to you and try and understand it properly. --Scientiom (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quit the attempt-at-patronizing crap. The core issue is the use/definition of the term. One side of the controversy defines ALL opposition to homosexuality as "homophobia", the other does not.  You keep stating that one side of the controversy as fact, and then pretend that anybody from the large group with the opposing viewpoint (regarding scope of the term)  just doesn't "understand".   What arrogance and rudeness. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy of  J e n o v a  20 13:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * * facepalms* North, no matter what your opinion or argument is, if you don't present any reliable sources to back up the changes you would like, then it's just not going to happen. Now, once and for all, please present the reliable sources or stop with this endless line of argument that will go nowhere. Silver  seren C 22:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Next stop is administrator support, this has been going on too long. Insomesia (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a boomerang waiting to happen. What's happening here certainly needs more eyes.  You have extraordinary claims (essentially that your view is the ONLY view) explicitly and implicitly embedded in the article with no sourcing for such, and then saying that "sky is blue" statements must be sourced to even bring up those concerns on the talk page.  And,  from the looks of it, this concern has been raised continuously about this article by an immense amount of people since its inception, and a group has simply harangued / intimidated away the people who make the point or used the "double standard" approach that I described to prevent resolution. I encourage you to throw that boomerang. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been chasing the same discussion in a circle by my count. There seems to be an agreement that if you had some reliable sources to support any changes ... well, they would be eagerly looked at to see what could be of use. Instead we have some un-reliable sources and claims of a conspiracy to prevent the truth from getting out. Some editors are already exasperated by this, others are quickly getting there. The time for you to finally present some reliable sources to support whatever it is you think should change is way overdue. If you want to keep arguing that everyone's against you then go ahead, we can find someone else who can help the situation. It says right at the top of the page that this is not a forum about the subject, its a discussion only about the article. Maybe you should excuse yourself to do the research and come back when you have something we realistically can use. The article is based on sources, reliable ones. Insomesia (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quit the "conspiracy" crap. I said I would take care of getting the obvious sourced and written (that an alternative viewpoint substantially exists).  Now, will you start working on the implausible unsourced assertion (that your view is the ONLY view) that is embedded throughout this article?  The latter has been my topic; you can't demand a source for discussing that something is unsourced. North8000 (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussing it has been a pointless venture for 3 months as you can't prove what you are claiming. If you were able to then i assume you would have. And it seems a safe assumption you also would have gone to administrators by now if you thought they would back you up. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * North8000, you and one other editor keep insinuating that you're prevented from "fixing" this article by a group of editors. In fact, it's the scarcity of reliable sources that is doing that to you. The other editor, BTW, has started a post at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard so perhaps some new viewpoints will enlighten us all. Insomesia (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just discovered Christophobia. It seems a perfectly good term for how some people feel about Christianity. I doubt if they're scared of Christ. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The new wave. Brand anybody with an opposing belief set as having a "phobia" of your belief set. (by "your" I didn't mean you specifically) :-) North8000 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's how the language works these days. Can you accept it yet? HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, to restate it slightly, Try to establish the idea of branding anybody with an opposing belief set as having a "phobia" of your belief set. To help that process, get a couple of other people who think the same and POV a Wikipedia article to promote your idea. North8000 (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. Nobody is labelling any such people as having a phobia. You are simply wrong. And very foolishly stubborn. I'm certain you don't use every other word in the English language in its purely literal sense. Why use this one that way? Nobody else does. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with on you on your first sentence.  The relabeling of opposition as a "phobia" is why people are trying so hard to apply this word to any opposition. Do you really think that there would be such effort to do so if such were not the case? North8000 (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the existence of the word Christophobia actually proves that the suffix 'phobia' is now used to simply mean 'opposition to...' HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * North is an WP:Activist trying to rename a word he doesn't agree with to fit his perspective and this is why he has 3 months to waste arguing over this and won't provide the sources. That and they probably don't exist. We saw the same thing on Straight pride where he did the same thing. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenova20, please cease the personal attacks immediately. North8000 (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a personal attack. I see what seems a pretty accurate description. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Update
In addition to a thread at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, there is Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where every source presented has been generally dismissed as having any value on this article, and User talk:Andrewrp which relates to using this page as a soapbox. Insomesia (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The "there's no such thing as homophobia" argument has/is failed/failing on all 3 of these fronts. If arguments continue after this while ignoring the points raised there then it's just a continuation of disruptive soapboxing and using the talk page as a forum.
 * Hopefully there's a general consensus to head this off in future, thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not even the argument that is being made at the wp:nopv noticeboard. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A new approach?
It occurs to me there may be one thing all of us can agree on at this point: the discussion on this page is going in circles and leading nowhere except perhaps into an uncomfortable domain where good faith is questioned and tempers are short. I hate that, and, judging from recent comments, no one on either side of what seems an unbridgeable chasm likes it very much either. I'd like to propose trying a different approach in an attempt to halt the downward spiral. My proposal involves deliberately breaking the cycle of post and response. Here's how it would work:

Those who have participated in these threads would agree (tacitly or otherwise) to make no further posts relating to anything currently on this page through the end of July. This would provide North8000 approximately five undistracted weeks either to find the reliably sourced evidence several editors have asked for to support his claim or to revise his claim in such a way that others understand it and agree that it warrants serious consideration. Anyone would be free to comment about unrelated matters, of course, but if anyone were to add a comment to an existing thread or begin a new thread on a related topic, no reply would be offered until August 1 (except perhaps for a note pointing them to this thread to explain why no one is replying).

On August 1—or earlier, if North8000 chooses to post evidence or a revised claim prior to that date—the voluntary restriction would be lifted, and discussion could resume. Then a concerted effort would be made to quickly (not hastily) and fairly assess where consensus lies. (This really shouldn't take more than a week at the outside, even if other editors offer their own evidence or detailed rebuttals.) At that point, anyone who questioned the assessment or believed that consensus here was at odds with consensus projectwide would of course be free to file a request for comment within a reasonable period (say a week). After that, any editor repeatedly arguing against consensus or otherwise editing tendentiously would find himself or herself the subject of proceedings at the usual venues (WP:WQA, WP:RFCC or WP:ANI, as appropriate).

I know this would be unorthodox, and it does look sort of complicated when I type it out like this, but it's actually quite simple. No one would need to unwatch the article—just make a conscious decision to refrain from continuing the discussion, and stick with it. I propose this in the spirit of WP:AGF with the explicit aim of ending the stalemate in a way that minimizes contention and offers a clear path to resolving the dispute. Rivertorch (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the two editors, one of whom has been warned already, the other who is declared an interest in working offline, have stoked the reactions and have been told that they have/are crossing the line. Let them be and see if they come around with reliable sources. If they continue then we ask for administrator support. Let's get back to work on the article itself and let all the drama go rather than allowing it to set an agenda here. Insomesia (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is such a ridiculous mis-statement of the situation with respect to myself that I can only assume that it is an attempt to bait me. Nevertheless, unless it continues even more, I'll refrain and stick to my above stated approach. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you feel baited, that is, of course, just my take on the situation. I hope you do find sources and will be happy to consider anything you have to offer as I have stated previously. Insomesia (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's all stick to the high plane and stick to content/issues etc. and stay away from characterizing individuals / behaviors unless such become truly bad. The latter is not directed at anyone specificually. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for illustrating my point. Rivertorch (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that you were also doing that stuff more than anybody .  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, tell me this is trolling
(from )
 * "We must trust the wisdom of Holy Mother Church in these issues and listen to Her and give Her acknowledgement."
 * "Have a look here: http://www.catechism.cc/articles/homosexuality-sin.htm under heretical ideas, 5 and 6. and here: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/does_God_create_homosexuals.php . People CHOOSE TO BE gay! Race is a trait. You can not change your race. But as I quoted above, gayness is not a trait. It is an objective disorder that people chose because they are possessed !" (emphasis mine; I only emphasised parts that remind me of films and books about witch trials)

If this is not trolling, I am appaled. If it is, I humbly beg User:Andrewrp to send me an e-mail admitting it in order to restore my faith in humanity and I promise I won't reveal it. Assuming that it is not, I must say how horrifying it is to read something like that on a Wikipedia talk page. To be honest, I don't edit articles such as these so I haven't had much opportunity to encounter something like this, but I am now genuinely afraid of venturing into articles (and their talk pages) about sexism, racial discrimination, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's not trolling it would seem. You do come across such extremist and completely ignorant editors once in a while. --Scientiom (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm, admittedly, not all that surprised. Silver  seren C 00:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "completely ignorant" is a personal attack. This entire thread is off topic and should be hatted before an admin stops by and starts handing out blocks. – Lionel (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. From my perspective it's an accurate description, so long as one reads it as knowing effectively nothing about this topic. That's what ignorant means.HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst User:Andrewrp keeps his views only to talk pages and is not attacking any particular editor individually, I don't see any need to start handing out blocks. Whilst many people will find his views on gay people distasteful, I suspect most will find them so ludicrous that they're impossible to take seriously (and therefore difficult to distinguish from trolling).  As User:Scientiom says above, there are people out there with his mindset and whilst the vast majority of people will find them laughable, he still has a right to have them. Black Kite (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See Poe's law. S Æ don talk  06:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if we can say that we can't tell whether Andrewp is trolling, why tolerate it anyway? Why tolerate something that is indistinguishable from trolling when all it can add to the article is what trolling would add?  He may not have done anything blockable, but he's far from a constructive influence on the topic.  S Æ don talk  06:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking Poe's law myself when I checked and saw that his account was three years old. If he were really that hopelessly clueless about our sourcing requirements, he couldn't possibly have survived on WP that long. Have to agree with Saedon here, though. It was disruptive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Taken seriously or not it's still pretty uninformed and not appropriate for the talk page. If he wants to spread his bile then he needs to do it elsewhere. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I'll drop a warning on his user talk. Black Kite (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Black Kite  J e n o v a  20 12:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just read his sources as i was bored and the first says being gay is fine unless acted on, while the other says it's unnatural and the result of evil demonic posession...this guy didn't even get sources that are consistent in any sense of the word.
 * I feel sorry for any poor loony that actually believes in demonic posession these days although i have a strong inkling these beliefs are more common amongst people who are just thick.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 13:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Jenova on feeling sorry for thick brains. – Teammm  (talk · email)  17:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the wisdom of Holy Mother Church invaluable. I am certain that Satan is present in the world and under the right conditions can possess people. I'll go a step further than Andrew and say that through exorcism these people can be saved as demonstrated by Jesus. Am I an extremist? Uninformed? Completely ignorant? Do I have "think brains"? – Lionel (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's something for you to figure out. – Teammm  (talk · email) Face-smile.svg 02:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lionel, you're free to think what you like. We don't have Thought Police here. (Which is good because you probably wouldn't like what I think about your thoughts.) But this is Wikipedia, and what we include here is based on reliable sources. I doubt if you can provide any reliable sources to support your beliefs here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What next
The core of my argument is that there is an unsourced assertion repeated many times in the article that the view that "all opposition to homosexuality is homophobia" is the ONLY view. The group here has been evading this topic, misstating it, and camouflaging it with a variety of insults, and even saying that sourcing is required to challenge the lack of sourcing. It's clear that the group of 3-4 folks here will not engage in a discussion on that point. The other different track is that I said I'd 'd find sourced material covering the other viewpoint (that "homophobia" rightly refers to actual phobias rather than all opposition). Unless someone restarts this with more insults, I plan to give up on trying to get the 3-4 folks here to actually deal with the "unsourced assertions" issue in my first sentence, and I'll work off-line on the second item. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What's next is that you either present reliable sources to back up your exceptional claims or you move on. Insomesia (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another complete mis-statement of the situation, but I guess there's no reason to expect that pattern to change now. My main claim is that your exceptional statements are unsourced.  How is "unsourced" an exceptional claim?  Don't bother "answering", because your responses are never to the actual question / core issue anyway.  North8000 (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have been asked and you have agreed to note any statements that are not sourced. There is a section up further where you agreed to note any unsourced statements. You have yet to note any at all. Insomesia (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What "group"? There is no "group". To describe those (a vast majority) with whom you disagree as a group implies some sort of conspiratorial collaboration. That's just bullshit. I am writing my own thoughts here, no something out of some evil gay manifesto, nor something influenced by what others say. HiLo48 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't include you in the "group" as I don't think that you are a regular here. And three people working towards the same end does not need or merit the strawman characterization of "conspiracy", it can be just three people working towards the same end.  I don't wiki-know the other three folks.  I do wiki-know you and respect that you always say what you genuinely believe to be correct / the right thing to say.  This overall exchange here has turned into all nastiness and zero substance and zero real dialog and thus a waste of time and sanity and so I think that it is time to sign off from it and do what I said I'd do at the beginning of this section.   The best to you all.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * North is right on target. The POV issues with this article are legion. The unsourced assertions should be tagged. At the very least, considering there is a full blown POV discussion raging---the article must be tagged POV. In lieu of working offline, might I suggest working at a workpage such as Talk:Homophobia/other viewpoint, or if the previous attracts trolls, perhaps user:North8000/Homophobia other viewpoint. This way editors interested in fixing the article can assist you. I compliment you on your dedication--against entrenched opposition--to a neutral, balanced article where even minority viewpoints are given due weight. – Lionel (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't pretend that North8000's POV was treated as anything but a possible view that could have been included. They were asked to point out what needed sourcing, nothing was noted. They were continuously asked for reliable sources to back up their POV. No reliable sources were presented. No trolls appeared to oppose them and no entrenched opposition can be found as there was none. If reliable sources are presented everyone here has been willing to give them due consideration, even the reliable sources noticeboard was pointed out to ensure the POV could be given fair consideration. Insomesia (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe you'll be more helpful than North, Lionelt. Can you please list what sections (specific sentence would be more helpful even) need to have better sources? Once you point them out, then we can start to fix them. Unfortunately, though the lengthy discussions above and repeated requests for North to point out what exactly is wrong with the article, nothing has actually been put forward to be fixed. We can't fix something that isn't pointed out that it needs fixing. Silver  seren C 00:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't do that because I thought that that wouldn't be the best place to start because it includes about 80% of the article. For example each place where it lists a form of simple opposition to homosexuality as categorically being homophobia.  Instead I thought it best to start by developing a structural discussion/approach on the talk page.   Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do the places where it lists that have sources that also say the same thing? If so, then I don't see how there is an issue with those places. Silver  seren C 04:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This may be a waste of time, because North8000 seems to have an infinite capacity for not hearing what is said, but I'll try. The word "homophobia" is used to mean "simple opposition to homosexuality", and editors have even quoted dictionary definitions to show that that is the case. In my opinion it is unfortunate that a word including the suffix "phobia" has come to have that meaning, but whether I or North8000 or anyone else likes it or not, that is what the word means. A word means what it actually is used to mean, not what someone or other thinks it logically should be used to mean. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson summed this mess up perfectly. Unfortunately, North8000 still doesn't get it. Twøcents (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm at where I described in my first and third post in this section. My last post was to just clarify one area. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversial or not...
I just came to the page and read through the comments, so I'm not truly familiar with the situation. I wasn't aware that the term "homophobia" was controversial. It seems to me that the most common usage of homophobia/homophobic in American society is toward those who are opposed to the LGBT community, be it from a religious, moral or other viewpoint. I did find this interesting - from Research Frontiers, Spring 2012, at the University of Arkansas: "Psychologists have determined that homophobia is not an actual phobia. Their recent study indicates that the condition arises out of feelings of disgust, not from fear or anxiety as true phobias do. Their findings also suggest close associations between homophobic tendencies and concerns about contamination as well as conservative views about sexuality in general." The link is not the complete study, and I don't have the time/resources right now to track it down. Sorry. Scrapbkn (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ...I'm confused on the point of your posting? Just questioning if "homophobia" is controversial? Also, Webster's Dictonary, 2nd entry says "intolerance or aversion for" which clearly fits.
 * Also, I question the reliablity of the U of AR, which I know nothing about, but it is in a homophobic southern state. The study was only 138 people, which seems very small to me, and was it just around the university or Arkansas in general? I'd say it is slanted conesrvative then....although the results are probably true, where most people aren't affraid of gay people.

C T J F 8 3 10:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the huge comment section above over whether the use of the word "homophobia" to denote people who are against the LGBT community versus people who are afraid of the LGBT community. One commentor is arguing that the first use is somehow controversial. I don't see it as so. That was the point of my comment. As to the UA report - it doesn't strike me as particularly homophobic. In fact, IMO, it rather supports the use of the word as people who are against, or disgusted by, the LGBT community. I will give you that the sample does seem rather small, but I'm no expert regarding sampling and statistics. Take it or leave it - I just put it out there. Scrapbkn (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Core point of bias: definition
I've made a few fragmented comments before but wanted to sum up one of the core points of the bias of this article. One definition of homophobia which is widely accepted is where there is a true "phobia" (using the common meaning of "phobia") a rather rare condition. There is a current battle in the real world over a second definition which activists and others are trying to promulgate which is to define all opposition to homosexuality and opposition to the societal normalization of homosexuality as "homophobia". It is clear that their objective is to denigrate any such opposition by labeling it as a "phobia". The latter definition is certainly a controversial engineered political term political term that is being promoted.

Instead of really covering the above, the article basically stifles it. The article gives short shrift to the widely accepted definition, and adopts the second contested definition not only as fact, but as being THE definition. In essence, the article presents the views of one side of the controversy not as views, but as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. The content of the article also implicitly does the same. It essentially presents any and all opposition to homosexuality or to the the societal normalization of homosexuality as being "homophobia". It will take some pretty substantial changes to fix this substantial POV problem with the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * North - Here in Australia, a somewhat different culture from yours, the words homophobic and homophobia are used to simply describe opposition to homosexuality. There is no particular emotional loading to the words. As with many words in the English language, the literal meaning is never really considered. I really don't think you have much of a case that this is a particularly political term. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that info/perspective. But the core of my case is simply that that particular definition is controversial in many places. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sidebar: the USA is one of them where that definition is controversial. And, on a world scale, I think that the USA is somewhere on the liberal side of the "middle of the road" regarding homosexuality issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It stifles it because it's not real, it's an argument used generally by homophobes arguing they can't be homophobic because they aren't scared of gay people. That's not how the word works and it's not how phobias necessarilly work, as can be seen on the Phobia article.
 * That being said, i don't think a sentence or 2 explaining this or attempting to move people to the Phobia article would be a bad idea to cut these arguments down before they occur in future. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming you intendedd to say that it would not be a bad idea; I concur. It's a bud nip thing. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I re-read my reply and believe it to currently say that i don't think it's a bad idea . It makes sense that if people have trouble understanding something we make it more obvious. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 13:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenova20, your post sidesteps the main point of my post, and what follows is based on the POV problem that my post is bringing to light. Namely, that the fully accepted definition is ignored, and one side's view of the second definition is presumed to be not only fact but also the sole definition. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there any scholarly sources that clearly explain what you say are two definitions? That may help clarify this point for everyone. Even though this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary I think we could offer clarity, and context.Insomesia (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look for scholarly sources (this may take several days), but in the meantime we need to keep WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE in mind. North8000, you have offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim about widely accepted versus controversial definitions. Since your claim flies in the face of easily verifiable common usage (see any dictionary from the last 20–30 years or look at various reliable sources in a simple Google search), I can see no reason to spend time discussing it further. You're making an extraordinary claim; the onus is on you to back it up. Rivertorch (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well a simple example is to look at the definitions in the dictionaries. The widely accepted definition is the one that is included in ALL of them. The questionable definition is the one that is included in only in SOME of them. The extraordinary claim is the one that is used as a premise for most of this article.  The unsupported extraordinary claim is actually the one that this article as currently worded is based on, that a particular contested definiiton is the only definition.  North8000 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My dictionary only has "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." Mirriam Webster states "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." Can you point to a mainstream dictionary that has the two you're talking about? Maybe we could simply compare what a number state and see if there is much of a difference.Insomesia (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:TRUTH North that is the current level of your argument. Rivertorch is entirely correct. You cannot claim the sky is in fact yellow without reliable and verifiable proof, otherwise people will just nod along and assume you're crazy. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 22:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether intentional or unintentional, Insomesia has reinforced my point.  They have just quoted 2 dictionaries which have the widely accepted definition which I speak about. A definition which the wording of this article essentially claims is non-existent.  Using your metaphor, I am noting that the claim that the sky is yellow is controversial, the wording of this article is founded on an unsupported assertion that the sky is yellow.  North8000 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read it wrong? Only one of the two dictionary entries Insomesia quoted mentioned fear. The other, which is that of the Oxford American and other Oxford dictionaries, mentions only aversion. Fwiw:
 * Chambers Dictionary: "a strong antipathy to homosexuals"
 * American Heritage Dictionary: "Aversion to gay or homosexual people or their lifestyle or culture. 2. Behavior or an act based on this aversion."
 * Random House Unabridged Dictionary: "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals  and homosexuality:"
 * Collins English Dictionary: "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality."
 * So you have it backwards. We have thus far three entries that mention fear versus six that mention aversion, antipathy, discrimination or hatred. In any event, this article isn't about a phobia as in an extreme or irrational fear (akin to acrophobia or claustrophobia); it's about prejudiced attitudes (akin to xenophobia or Islamophobia), which is verifiably the primary usage of the term and has been for many years. Can you provide any sources to suggest otherwise? If not, we're simply wasting our time here. Rivertorch (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If Homophobia isn't a suitable name for this article, what is? HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Homophobia is the correct title for this article. I am basically asserting that the term should be covered in a more objective and wp:npov manner. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you're asserting that it should be covered with a POV that more closely matches yours. You're not stupid. You must realise that your opinion is not centre of the road on the issue of homosexuality, no matter how much you would like the centre of the road to agree with you. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. My own opinion is that I'm in favor of the societal acceptance and normalization of homosexuality, although I'm opposed to many of the tactics of the activists working toward such.   So my argument is not driven by my POV on the topic, it is driven by general and Wikipedia objectivity principles.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Then I'm even more confused about your goal here. You're "happy" with the title of article, but you don't like the article's definition of the topic? I truly don't get it? HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is going anywhere and until some solid proof is put up that counters what we already have in the article then it's time wasting and we're basically pandering to the minority opinion with no verifiability or intention of offering any, as we saw the last time this discussion came up. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jenova20, that is flawed on several levels. If you have done that to stifle other people who have pointed out the POV problem here, I can see how the article ended up with such a severe POV problem. North8000 (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, a small step would be to add a section which covers the controversy over the second definition, namely controversy over defining all opposition to homosexuality or the societal normalization of it is "homophobia".  North8000 (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What controversy? You haven't provided any evidence that there is one. Rivertorch (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * North, as with the last discussion here where you tried to challenge the meaning of the word. Read Activist and either get proof and provide it here (reliable proof) or accept that your view is in fact at worst biased POV and at best it's unsourced speculation.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Quit that crap bogus ad hominem personal attack tactic of the linking to wp:activist!  And the person with the unsupported extraordinary claim here is you and parts of this article, not me. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With some misgivings, I'll say that if it can be shown that there is in fact a real controversy regarding the definition or usage, it should be mentioned in the article. It would have to be clearly noteworthy, with significant discussion by secondary sources (preferably in peer-reviewed publications, although in-depth coverage in multiple other sources meeting WP:RS should do the trick), and care would have to be taken to ensure WP:UNDUE is followed. In the absence of such evidence to the contrary, I'm not aware that any notable controversy exists. That it exists in the minds of various individuals (e.g., certain activists opposing equal rights for gay people, some people with a flawed understanding of etymology, and so on) is, I suppose, no surprise. Rivertorch (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rivertorch's view. North8000 the burden is to show cause that there is noted controversy and then to help effect any changes that should be made. This article is far from perfect but that doesn't mean it can have more unsupported views. At some point I'm going to look into heterophobia to see how it should be represented here. I think what we have is abysmal as yet, but I haven't looked into the available sources to address it.Insomesia (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * North8000, you raised the topic. Again. It really is incumbent upon you at this point to provide some supporting evidence for your argument. Otherwise, it's hard to be infinitely patient. Really. I've assumed the best of faith on your part, but I don't think it's asking too much for you to document the validity of your argument. Othewise, it's just your argument, and whether that argument is right or wrong is beside the point; you've been around the block here and must know perfectly well about WP:V and WP:NOR. And WP:IDHT, for that matter. Rivertorch (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I resent the accusation of a personal attack North, especially since you have brought nothing to the table here thus far and clearly not read WP:Activist. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 22:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I see that as perhaps inflammatory and not moving the discussion forward. That essay is quite flaw as far as I can see, it presumes the worst intentions and puts anyone "we don't like" into a box with a label. I like Rivertorch's approach to just seeking sourcing to back up the assertions. At the end of the day that's what will matter.Insomesia (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That the second definition is controversial is easily sourced. But, it is even simpler than that. To give one of hundreds of examples and pose it as a question: The statement "Disapproval of homosexuality and of gay people is not evenly distributed throughout society, but is more or less pronounced according to age, ethnicity, geographic location, race, sex, social class, education, partisan identification and religious status." is place in this homophobia article. Where is the suitable sourcing that says that this disapproval is "homophbia". Without that, the insertion of that sentence here is synthesis, unsourced, and a wp:npov violation. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a source that seems to cover it. The other source in that paragraph may also do so but I felt a journal article might be stronger. I think it's meant as a summary sentence but do agree it could be clearer.Insomesia (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

True fear of homosexuality is most certainly homophobia. That is not what is in question North8000. However due to the use of the english language it also includes aversion, antipathy, discrimination and prejudice towards homosexuals. Etymology does not equal proper usuage. Other words that use phobia in the sense used in this article include Islamophobia, Biphobia, Ephebiphobia, Gerontophobia, Heterophobia, Lesbophobia, Pedophobia, Surdophobia, Transphobia, Xenophobia. Other words in the terms of social prejudice that don't match their etymology are Antisemitism. The etymology would suggest discrimination against all semitic people yet Antisemitism only applies to Jews. Misandry and Misogyny etymologically suggest only hate of men and women respectively but actually also include objectification as well as creation of limiting gender roles irrespective of a persons possibly non-existant hate. Now I may just be barking up the wrong tree here but if you really had an agenda to correct the -phobia articles or other social articles with etymological "misuses" wouldn't you also be crusading those articles.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any place that "phobia" has been misused except here. Nevertheless, the reason for my comments is not that, it is the severe POV problem / wp:npov violation described. North8000 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Asserting that the meaning has been misused is a big accusation though North8000 and you have just been given many more examples by Rivertorch of phobias that do not have the meaning you expect.
 * If there is such a severe POV problem you would be best providing references we can use after so long discussing this, or getting in a neutral third opinion.
 * Either way the onus is still on you to provide evidence of a POV and misuse of the word and meaning. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I already did that, which essentially boils down to this: Out in the real world, there are two widespread conflicting viewpoints regarding whether or not to define ALL opposition to homosexuality as "homophobia".  This article states the views of one side (the side that wants to do so) as fact and in the voice of Wikipedia. Then it goes on to essentially list all forms of opposition to homosexuality as being examples of "homophobia".  Which of the following things that I just said do you doubt/contest? North8000 (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I missed where this point was proven. To me the bottom line is reliable sources to show how this article, as it is now, should change. If you provided this already I'd appreciate if you could repost here again. If not I think we really need to see those sources, without them the point you're making feels like a strong opinion, which may be true to you, but for our purposes for writing the article is not enough. To put it more bluntly, we need a simple answer, do you have reliable sources to support the change you seek? If not then we are wasting your time. If you do have some sources we should be looking at them to see what will make the article better.Insomesia (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (added later) Well, everything I said about "out the real world" is easily sourcable.  WP:RS's do not cover wp:npov policy violations, so my observations about the article's policy violation problems are not covered by wp:rs's, nor do they need to be. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All of them North, since "Out in the real world" is not citeable as evidence. It is completely POV and Original Research still, just as the last time you asked. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is bogus to imply that something written on a talk page is bogus because it is uncited. Talk pages do not have citations and references. North8000 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not seriously suggesting you don't see the difference between the encyclopedia and the talk pages for the articles after being here so long?
 * Everything here on the talk page is conversation, everything on the article page is the encyclopedia itself and should be cited fact, not uncited POV. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I not only see it, that was specifically my point, and that your previous post ignored that. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You do see that you can't just cry bias without provided resources though right?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To say it even briefer, I'm saying that there are two significant viewpoints, "A" and "B". This article in essence makes an unsupported and unsourced statement that "B" IS THE ONLY VIEWPOINT.  I am complaining about that. What in this sentence are you saying I need to source in order to make the complaint? North8000 (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well sorry North but your viewpoint "A" is still unsourced. Can you provide anything to show it exists outside the heads of a few random people? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside from that, the other viewpoint present is the meaning of the word which is sourced. Is that what this is again? The meaning of the word? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'm hearing, and what has been alluded to by others elsewhere on this page, is that, at least for now, there are no reliable sources to support changing anything in the ways that North8000 is suggesting. For myself this is sufficient reason to wait until any further developments emerge, and they most certainly need to be in the form of presenting reliable sources. Anything else is just wasting the poster's time and energy and there is no need to do that.Insomesia (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm done saying the same thing over and over now. Until such time that reliable proof is offered up then i'm not touching this with a barge pole. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 14:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that "A" exists, and to a significant degree, and that such is easily sourceable. It sounds like you are saying that you do not acknowledge that. In that case, I'll get that sourcing. That's half of it. For the other half, where is the sourcing for the assertion in the article that "B" is the only significant viewpoint? And "B" by the way, is the assertion that the ONLY significant viewpoint is that all opposition to homosexuality is "Homophobia". North8000 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's obvious. It's the definition of the word. HiLo48 (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One more comment, and then per Insomesia and Jenova I think I'm done here, as consensus is crystal clear. The English language is littered with words and usages that some people—even lots of people—disagree with or disapprove of. So what? (See this relevant essay.) I don't think anyone here is doubting that there are people in this world who object to the word "homophobia" being used in the way it's generally used. But that's not noteworthy, and even if it were, it couldn't be taken as a given; it would need to be verifiable using reliable sources. Either there is a significant controversy over what has long been the primary usage of the word or there isn't—and if there is, reliable sources are out there to document it. If there isn't a significant controversy, then it would violate all three core content policies for this article to say otherwise. If you disagree, that's fine, but please don't keep arguing against consensus without bringing something new in the way of actual evidence to the table. Rivertorch (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's backwards. In Wikipedia, one must provide sourcing for what is IN the article. What is IN the article is the assertion that the only significant definition for "homophobia" defines all opposition to homosexuality as "homophobia". Where is your sourcing that that is the ONLY significant definition? I was preferring to keep it in talk although wp:ver clearly supports tagging the unsupported assertions. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've not seen another Wikipedia article where we somehow justify the obvious definition as the only one. You're the only one here arguing that it's not. And you've been doing it for a long time. You should probably be ignored on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To simplify, no, I'm arguing that what is in there is unsourced. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think that you are right and everyone else watching this page is wrong, there are legitimate avenues to pursue. Beating a dead horse isn't one of them. Rivertorch (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the next baby step up will be tagging the unsourced assertions. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, ignoring consensus to tag something without providing the evidence that everyone is asking you for is not a legitimate next step. DR, which I linked above and link here again for your convenience, show the next steps per policy. Rivertorch (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus can't overrule the verifiability requirement. Sincerely  North8000 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:V, like all policies, became policy as a result of consensus back in the day, but whatever. Clearly, your interpretation of how WP:V applies to this article is in opposition to the local consensus. Therefore, it's up to you to demonstrate that global consensus supports your interpretation—and the way to do that is to ask for uninvolved editors to weigh in. Hence my suggestion. Rivertorch (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a lot simpler than that. Unsourced assertions, once tagged, need to e either sourced or removed. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be sourced...
Just so we're not overlooking what is a valid concern - that something in the article needs to be sourced - North8000 will you post the most-in-need sentences here that you feel are unsourced? This gives me a specific article issue to address and to me this would be a more productive route to improving the article.Insomesia (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to. I'm a bit hurried at the moment, but I will. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like you have plenty of time, considering the fact that you're still ranting on this page down below. 19 days have passed. Did you find any reliable sources or places in the article where you feel is unsourced? Twøcents (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The irony: POV fork?
Roughly speaking there have been three camps in the ongoing debates:


 * 1) That the ONLY definition of significance for "homophobia" includes ALL opposition to homosexuality, and thus that the way that the article is written is fine.
 * 2) That the only legitimate definition of "homophobia" is where it actually is a "phobia"
 * 3) That both viewpoints significantly exist, in which case the article needs a significant re-write

Ironically, if #1's assertion were to be considered true, then Wikipedia rules would call for deletion of the article as a POV fork of the articles covering opposition to homosexuality including illegalization and denial of rights. Other than items that would be ruled out be wp:Not A Dictionary, it covers the same thing that those articles cover, repeated under a POV title. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop this vexatious nonsense. You won't change anybody's mind with that approach. And changing people's minds is your only (flimsy) hope. HiLo48 (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Insults work so much better than addressing what I wrote. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, Homophobia is about the concept, not the word, and therefore WP:NOTDIC does not apply. Further, claiming that it is a POV fork would be claiming that Homophobia as a concept or attitude does not exist, which is frankly ludicrous.  Finally, claiming that the title is POV is equally flawed - there are multiple (in fact, thousands upon thousands of) neutral reliable sources that refer to it in the sense that the article is written about.  The only issue here is whether the concept of homophobia as an actual phobia is significant.  As a test on this, a Google search for Homophobia returns 11 million results, whereas including "irrational fear" throws back only 82,000, the first of which is that well-known work of fiction Conservapedia.  IMO this minor alternative etymology of the word perhaps deserves a mention in the article, but that's all. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the persons promulgating view #1 and 90% of the content of this article, it is neither, it is about all opposition to homosexuality. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly how the word is used; it's the dictionary definition. Whether you like it or not, it has become the de facto standard in referring to people or entities with negative attitudes towards homosexuality, and per WP:COMMONNAME that's how it needs to be defined.  The fact that a minority perceive it to be pejorative is in the end irrelevant, though I note a section of the article acknowledges that issue (which in the end is all we need). Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you going to argue the same for islamophobia, xenophobia, and antisemitism? Twøcents (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. If it's truly only a matter of proper usage, then this matter should be brought up on those pages as well. If it's only directed at the word "homophobia", then it appears to be ideologically driven. References from reliable sources that are not actively involved in anti-LGBT activities should be provided in order to prove the common usage is somehow controversial. Scrapbkn (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing he has nothing against Islam, foreigners, or Jews, but has something against those darn homosexuals. Twøcents (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, articles about a term which simply assigns a pejorative name to something which already has a more neutral name either should not exist, or should turn it's lens on the term itself. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. Twøcents (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I suggest not that I'm significant enough to make a suggestion. In my opinion from the definitions in the dictionaries I've seen homophobia is about all forms of discrimination or prejudice towards homosexuals INCLUDING but NOT LIMITED TO irrational fear towards homosexuals. So if we really want to change the article why don't we just add to it a paragraph about people who fear homosexuals or propaganda to make people fear homosexuals. My guess is that most people would fear homosexuals because of false stereotypes.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've kind of faded out on this. I came back & posted the above because that's where the logic led when thinking about it for a discussion on my talk page. Plus the general topics of articles on a word (esablished, or trying to get established) where it assigns a pejorative name to something which already has a more neutral name. North8000 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'll say it again - the article isn't about the word, it's about the concept which that word defines. Since the established (and it is established) term for that is "homophobia", what other "neutral" term could the article be under?  Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm basically of view #3, which that both views significantly exist. The starting point on clarifying this would be the dictionaries that folks here have selectively avoided. An immense ignored stream of people pointing out this problem here since day one would be another clue.  And again, IF we were to posit that view #1 is correct, THEN this article would be a POV fork. (and, if not, the article needs a major rework)  For example, a POV fork of Societal attitudes toward homosexuality, and a neutrally worded term for opposition to homosexuality would be would be opposition to homosexuality. North8000 (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this argument is still going in circles, I'll quote someone else above:
 * This may be a waste of time, because North8000 seems to have an infinite capacity for not hearing what is said, but I'll try. The word "homophobia" is used to mean "simple opposition to homosexuality", and editors have even quoted dictionary definitions to show that that is the case. In my opinion it is unfortunate that a word including the suffix "phobia" has come to have that meaning, but whether I or North8000 or anyone else likes it or not, that is what the word means. A word means what it actually is used to mean, not what someone or other thinks it logically should be used to mean. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See Etymological fallacy.  Twøcents (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Well, to answer the points and assume WP:AGF (though it's starting to run short), it can't be a POV fork, because Societal attitudes toward homosexuality is not the same subject as homophobia, which isn't necessarily societal. And if you believe that both views significantly exist (in general, and not amongst people from a narrow POV), then some sources from outside that narrow group would be a good starting point. Finally, Opposition to homosexuality would fail WP:COMMONNAME, because negative attitudes to homosexuality are usually called homophobia, not "opposition to homosexuality". The article would effectively start "Opposition to homosexuality, usually referred to as homophobia...", and homophobia would have to redirect to it. It would then contain vast amounts of sourcing using the word "homophobia", not "opposition to homosexuality", which would be ridiculous. I completely understand that there are a group of people with negative attitudes to homosexuality who object to being called "homophobes", but Wikipedia cannot adjust its policies to protect their views. It would be like renaming Racism to Opposition to people of a different race. And yes, there is a certain amount of WP:IDHT going on here. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Under the IDHT, I might point to what has happened in the section. My post and point of this section was, in essence that "If #1 is right, then it's a POV fork." Then everyone (except for a brief assertion in Black Kite's most recent post)  missed the operative  part of the post and and answered (and insulted) as if this section was me arguing that #1 was false (along with inappropriate eye-rolling and links to WP:IDHT.  Nevertheless, this isn't headed anywhere and so I'm going to fade out unless there are any new misrepresentations or misunderstandings of my post that would require clarification. The best to you all.   Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Would a FAQ be helpful?
Since we seem to be spending energy having the same discussion now for several months perhaps a FAQ would help those looking to make a point find an answer to their concerns without engaging everyone. In this way those who disagree with some facet of the article may find why the article stands as is rather than how they feel it should look. Thoughts? Insomesia (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That won't work, we have an issue with people being called homophobes and looking up what it is exactly and then trying to change the word rather than their attitude. We can't please these people no matter what we write on this talk page. They want the article to express that they can be homophobic without being called homophobes. Or at least the impression i've got over the last 4 months. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need to consider applying general sanctions to this article. We would first need to establish that all forms of DR have been attempted and that users with a WP:FRINGE POV are still attempting to push an undue agenda.  On the other hand, we might be able to fit this article under the category of pseudoscience (since the arb decision was "broadly construed" and this matter is scientifically settled).  If so we can ask for enforce at WP:AE.  Something to think about.  Sædon talk  00:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't doubt it may come to something like that, I think it's premature at this point. I don't like to see unsupported, fallacious talk page comments—especially when they just keep repeating the same things over and over ad nauseam—but I wonder if responding to them every time may somehow, strangely enough, be reinforcing the behavior. I may be wrong, but it occurs to me that refusing to respond might be a better approach. This would only work up to a point, I admit. Still, it seems worth a try. Rivertorch (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignoring them hasn't seemed to work for the past months but I'm willing to give it a try. Insomesia (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in. Sorry Rivertorch but they're just reading the other discussions and getting more aggressive in their arguments. It's gotten to personal attacks now and that's unacceptable ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's best to let discussions like this die out while resisting the temptation to get the last word in. Absent concrete suggestions to improve the article backed up with reliable sources, no reply is required. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the trio here missed the third alternative when the same problem has been noted by an immense number of people for the entire history of the article which is to start listening. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Without reliable sources, there's simply nothing worth listening to. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an effective tactic to parry them. When they complain about the lack of sourcing for how the article is written, tell them that need sources to complain about a lack of sourcing. Nice going, that has been very effective at keeping this article in its badly POV'd state. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you were asked multiple times to provide a couple instances of POV to work on here North but have declined to. And if you want ot challenge POV with another POV then you do need sources, you should know that by now. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My complaint (and that underlying many of the others) is lack of sourcing for the POV that this article is built on (the POV being that that your preferred definition is the ONLY definition); it is not to assert an alternative POV. So again, your tactic of saying that sources are required to complain about a lack of sources has been very effective.   North8000 (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'd like one example of hundreds, here it is. In one section it places "Disapproval of homosexuality and of gay people is not evenly distributed throughout society" in the "homophobia" article which structurally is a statement, in the voice of Wikipedia that "Disapproval of homosexuality" is per se homophobia.  North8000 (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Disapproval of homosexuality is homophobia North, the definition says as much. Just like disapproval of Muslims is islamophobia, disapproval of blacks is racist, disapproval of women's rights is sexist etc. I'm sure we've gone through this conversation or one similar to it already. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 21:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And where is the sourcing that says that that is the ONLY definition? North8000 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is the section Homophobia not sufficient to cover the minority view of the meaning of the word? Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While the "minority" premise is yours, that section does discuss the other major definition, the "phobia means phobia" definition.   The problem is that the rest of the article is structured to be a statement (in the voice of Wikipedia) that the second definition/view does not exist of is inconsequential. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On your analogies, the second 2 are not analogous (they are not "phobia" words) and the first one describes a term/article with the same set of problems. Defining any opposition to the religion as a "phobia".  Of course getting a Wikipedia article to promote the contested "phobia" terms for opposition is a way to help try to establish that controversial definition.  As the trio at the article has been doing. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the same thing North, welcome to the English language where words don't always mean what you think or what they sound like. Your logic is more akin to trying to get a big section of the article on the colour red to say how more people believe it is actually dark orange and you're attempting it multiple times, failure after failure, without proof and to no avail. Isn't it time to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quit the "drop the stick" crap. There has been an immense amount of feedback from an immense amount of people for the entire history of this article about a particular serious POV issue. Just because the trio that likes it as-is has so-far managed  to keep it that way does not make what is contained in that wide-ranging feedback a "dead horse".  The only dead horse is thinking that any one of the trio would be swayed from their quest (to entrench a controversial definition that defines all opposition to homosexuality as a "phobia")  by any argument or sourcing. North8000 (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow, multiple ill informed people also believed the Earth was flat. The only difference is their ignorance ended when confronted with proof ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * North8000, I'm not sure who you are trying to castigate as the "trio", I suppose I could be one as much as any of the dozen or so editors who have called you to task and asked for reliable sources, but again the issue comes back to instead of making accusations about other editors could you please focus on actual changes to the article supported by reliable sources? Really, that's the only thing that will change the nature of this discussion. If you have reliable sources, great, let's move forward. If not, fine, we can wait until you do find something that may work. No one has even suggested that reliably sourced counter-arguments or "fringe" theories has no place, instead it has been emphasized, over several months, that we need reliable sources to make the changes you seek as they are understood. I have no doubt that you believe what you do but the rest of the world needs to be swayed with reliable sources that we digest and restate. Insomesia (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, saying that I need sourcing to complain about lack of sourcing. Same old tactics.  Signing off. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking for reliable sources to make contested changes to sourced content is a policy, not a tactic. We are building an article, not waging a battle. Insomesia (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As Insomesia said, you can't defeat a statement, referenced or not, with another unsourced statement. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

FAQ started
I've "boldly" started a FAQ and welcome any constructive edits to benefit any who make it to this talk page and may be helped by a succinct recap of what has transpired over many months. Let's try to keep in mind that everyone has the right to their own opinions but the article needs reliable sources to evolve. I hope the FAQ can be a welcome centering point where some basic content that isn't spelled out in the article can be made clear for those interested in having an informative article. Insomesia (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Page Watchmen
I'm probably going to kick off this discussion on a bad note by bringing this up, so I want to make it clear that this is not said with for any reason other than to question the appropriateness of this issue I'm raising. It seems to me, by looking at the talk comments page, that this page has a small number of "watchmen" who spend most of their time guarding this page, and others related to homosexuality. Some of these users, judging by their own pages, seem by be homosexual activists. Now this is all perfectly fine, but I sense that they have created a stonewall here, where anyone desiring to challenge this issue is turned away. I may completely wrong here, but that what I've gathered after a brief review of this talk page. I just wanted to dialogue this and see if my initial concerns are to be validated or debunked. I'm not intending to throw any stones. —Maktesh (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then that would make you a heterosexual activist? It's not nice to make assumptions, accusations or sweeping generalisations and it really isn't acting in good faith.
 * This also isn't one side against another, it's an issue of a couple people trying to challenge what a well documented word means so people don't call them homophobes. If you want to join in too then start it on the Racism, islamophobia, antisemiticism articles aswell or you're really just trolling. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "I may completely wrong here". The odds are extremely good. [[Image:Smile.png|16px]] (Incidentally, I don't have OED access here, but since when is "dialogue", in the sense you used it, a transitive verb?) Rivertorch (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are very perceptive, Maktesh. I for one am impressed with your powers of observation. And whatever you do: do not ever take the name of "Stonewall" in vain. – Lionel (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I could rephrase that basically as you should treat others how you expect to be treated. Opposition to gays is homophobia, opposition to races is racism and opposition to Jews is antisemitic. That's how it is simply. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, then; let me clarify. I don't have an opposition to gays. Just a distortion of truth and/or reality. This page is doubtlessly biased in favor and support of homosexuality. Let me guess; you're going to ask me to back up that claim with a reliable source which will not exist, as 'common sense' tells us that reliable sources are probably not going to document bias on a Wikipedia page. As a straight American, and one who is generally in the middle of the road, I can say that this page reads in a sense that implies those who have a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality are homophobic, and it unfairly links this idea with that of racism and sexism. I'm simply arguing that homosexuality should be presented as it is in light of international culture; a minority group with a high amount of controversy surrounding it. Both sides here need to be presented, and only one of them is. I'm not one to write for the other side (the "homophobics" as you call them), but I would like to see a slightly more rationalized approach to this page. As above, I see there has been quite a bit of discussion over the naming of this article. If the page watchmen were really open to discussion, it seems as that everyone could have been made happy. We can dictionary-argue all we want, but that still doesn't change the implications of the page name. And once again, I'm not opposed to homosexuals. I simply don't understand why this article feels it is necessary to deem homosexuality as normative. Also worth noting, the fact that my very minor edit was already reverted with a comment that makes no sense shows that my concerns are valid. —Maktesh (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "As a straight American, and one who is generally in the middle of the road" - maybe you should stand somewhere safer while waiting for replies.
 * On a serious note, there's no pleasing everyone and we can't change the meaning of the word - if we do that we run foul of Wikipedia policies. If we don't claim it is what it is then we'll be accused of bias.
 * If you really want to change things then pick a sentence you have a problem with and post it here with your opinion and i'll look into it. If you are unrealistic though or expect a rewrite of an article on your say so with no reliable sources then i can't act. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * People who say they have a "moral, ethical or rational disagreement" with equal rights for racial minorities are still racist. Same here (those who say they have "moral, ethical or rational disagreement" with equal rights for LGBT people are still homophobic) as concurred by reliable sources on this topic.
 * But I concur with Jenova20; if you can point out specific sentences one by one and suggest changes, I'll also be more than happy to discuss any proposed changes on their merits. --Scientiom (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am puzzled by claims of "support of homosexuality" and "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality". How can one support homosexuality or morally, ethically or rationally disagree with it? It sounds weird. It's like supporting or morally, ethically or rationally disagreeing with rain, digestion, or plants being green. It's going to rain whether one likes it or not. A homosexual person will always be characterised by homosexuality, whether one opposes it or not. Therefore, "opposition to homosexuality" simply doesn't make sense. What one can do is support or disaprove of a homosexual relationship, which ultimately comes down to recognising or denying rights of homosexual people. Surtsicna (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And BINGO! - that's the definition of homophobia ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's not misquote me here. I never said I have "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality". You blocked two different quotes from me and meshed them together, out of context. I'd rather not play that way. I said that those (not me) with "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality" are unfairly labeled in this article. This article is clearly a proponent of the gay agenda (no different than, for example, Focus on the Family's traditional marriage agenda). I see that as being inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Now let me assume your response will be something about that being my personal opinion, and I need to find sources to back up my allegations. Cool. Will do, one way or another.


 * Now let me pose a question, because this gets back to my earlier point. IF this article is biased in support homosexuality, then it seems that it was written that way. After its authorship, it is then guarded by members of the community who side with this view. As such, they then place the burden of proof on those who desire to make changes. Is this right (in regards to both legitimacy and accuracy)? That's just what I see here. Now I'll bring up changes that i think need to be made, but they largely relate to the tonality of the article. It sounds, when read, that a homosexual activist wrote the content. On top of it, it reads in homosexuality as normative, when it clearly is not. Something not being normative is not wrong, but I believe that, what, 3-5% of human beings identify themselves as LGBT? Anyway, I'm not trying to argue or debate the facts. Just seem both sides fairly represented. —Maktesh (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maktesh this is lunacy for this simple reason "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality" - that is homophobia.
 * I'm not changing the meaning of the word, neither are you, or anyone else here.
 * IF you disagree with homosexuality for any reason that is your right, but it is also anyone elses to call someone with those beliefs a homophobe. It is NO different than saying i have "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with Africans" - it's not acceptable and you have to accept that if you say it, people will label you racist for it.
 * I personally don't morally, ethically or rationally agree with the hold religion has over some people but luckily as time goes on and people get more educated i am not in the minority on that. People not agreeing with equal rights for LGBT however are - and rightly so. Thanks and have a nice day ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maktesh, I honestly did not intend to misquote you or to say that you are the one with "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality", so I used "one" as the neutral subject of my sentences. I was, in fact, referring more to some comments in the preceding section, while your comment was just conveniently close for me to quote some phrases that seem illogical to me. I apologise once again if you think I referred to you personally, as you don't seem to be someone who believes in exorcisms, blood libels, witch-hunts and what not. Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Deju vu alert, didn't we just have this discussion above? And didn't those general skeptics of the term also have to be compelled to come up with reliable sources to counter anything found in the article? And aren't we still waiting for any reliable sources to be produced? I thought so. I suggest these discussion be closed as this page is for improving the article not a general forum for questioning the motives of other editors. Insomesia (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, yes and concur. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, WP:NOTFORUM ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely alright, Surtsicna. No hard feelings there. Insomesia, I'm not questioning the motives of the authors. I'm questioning the motive of the article. Now I understand that some of you will say that I'm beating a dead horse, but to me, it's very much alive. I would like to question (again) the titling of this article. My starting source? Phobia. My secondary source? |Dictionary.com (And yes, I see the secondary definition there. I'm not saying that the exact meaning when the etymology of "homophobia" is fleshed out is inaccurate. I would argue that, in light of the disagreements and controversy, that perhaps a better term could be used for those who have "a moral, ethical or rational disagreement with homosexuality." The implication is clear, because the original, basic, and commonly understood meaning of "phobia" relates to an irrational fear. I would argue that undoubtedly, using that term along with the stigma attached, is in a sense wielding a biased weapon against the other side. I think it would be far more rational to come to a page/section title that is considered more mainstream. If you want me to blow this issue up, I will, but for now, I think it is far more reasonable to quietly come to a middle-of-the-road decision.


 * I will shorten my thought: I feel as though the secondary meaning of the word "homophobia" is being used, along with the stigma of the word "phobia" to intentionally mislabel a particular group of individuals. As such, it is being held up by minority activists, who are puppy-guarding a page which directly relates to their motives. WP:CONFLICT Yes, I'm going to throw that flag. I'm looking at Jenova20 and Insomesia. After taking a brief look at your user and talk pages, it does seem as though a COI rests somewhere in there. And again, I'm not necessarily against homosexuality. I just want to see an unbiased article. Peace. —Maktesh (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I expect you to either retract that comment/accusation or strike it before i have an administrator look into it per WP:AGF, WP:personal attack and not to mention WP:IDHT or WP:NOTFORUM and WP:COI and WP:Bias since you have not mentioned this on Islamophobia.
 * If you want to dispute the meaning of the word after countless discussions and no reliable proof...fine, but accusations are a step too far. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 00:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Look up our article on Etymological fallacy, and you'll see why that dog ain't gonna hunt. Agree with the others that further discussion is pointless. Thanks for your input, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's just try not responding and see what happens. Rivertorch (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Jenova20, let me look at these accusations one-by-one: WP:AGF/WP:personal attack; I am assuming good faith, and that attack was not personal. I respect you, as well as your opinions very much so. I'm simply stating that I think it's time to admit a conflict of interest. Although we're disagreeing, I like you, and I think that you're being very unfair and jumping the gun to throw those labels down. WP:IDHT; This is my main concern. I don't feel there is a general consensus here; I feel as though your "side" has banded together here, and locked down this page, ganging up on whosoever should come by. I "get" that point. A handful of users in support of the same idea, who I'd still like to see support that idea that there's no COI telling me I'm wrong isn't a "consensus." As for the WP:NOTFORUM; Don't patronize me. This is 100% relevant to the article. As for WP:COI and WP:Bias, I'm not even going to touch those, because I'm not really sure what your point was, other than to throw down a bunch of improper allegation of my "misconduct." (Oh, and don't even start on the Islamaphobia. I'm not going to debate on multiple fronts, and implying that my claims are invalid as I'm not discussing this over there? Posh.) So no, I'm not taking back or striking out what I said. I do, however, apologize if it came off incorrectly.

Dominus Vobisdu, thank you for posting that. It really validates my point. As I said, see Phobia. Let's see if that page can be changed to represent the new definition which has been created here. Then I'll have no problem with it. To be blunt, an obscure (but arguably accurate) term has been used here, which is an intentionally loaded term initiated by the gay agenda. The same as others are created by the anti-gay agenda. Again, I like to think I'm not unbiased, but in the middle. Stopping the discrimination of and stigma surrounding homosexuals is different from the redefinition of marriage. From that position, I'm saying that this article is biased. After I'm done here, I plan to go to other articles, including ones that are biased in the other direction. —Maktesh (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is how I read these arguments: a) anti-gay activists don't like the term "homophobia" because in general society, it has come to mean a "hatred of" or being against LGBTs and b) there is now an attempt to force a very narrow reading of the definition of homophobia back to a "fear of" instead of the much more broadly used "hatred of" definition. The term is hardly "controversial", except possibly to those to whom it applies. Scrapbkn (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction: It's not the more narrow view, per say, it's the mainstream view and understanding of the word. For the third time, I will cite Phobia to prove this. Changing the definition of "homophobia" is arguably in support of the gay agenda, which Wikipedia seems largely biased towards. This can be seen on nearly every page related to sexuality or marriage. Especially Marriage and Same-sex marriage. The majority of Wikipedia users have attempted (nearly sucessfully) to redefine marriage in a community that is supposed to thrive on supportable, unbiased facts and avoidance of COI. —Maktesh (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I always get a kick out of the nonsense that comes out of some people. Funny how serious they are when they say it too. For the record, gay people aren't concerned about the definition of a word, they simply want to marry their partner. That's all. People who oppose equal rights for gay people don't want to be portrayed in a negative light, but we don't have control over that. No one is going to appease you by giving a word an alternate meaning that originates from you, contrary to what it is and contrary to the reality in why it is understood to mean what it means. The objectivity of the situation characterizes you. You keep mentioning "phobia" and how it's not fit...how do you justify the opposition's actions and their tactics in persuading public opinion? It's not rational and most understand that behavior as fearing some terrible outcome, if gay people have equality, that doesn't exist and hasn't existed. Then it goes back into a roundabout about how the negative outcomes do exist and you give obscure examples. Most people today realize there is no substantial reason why gay people are treated differently, so homophobia is what it is and it means what it means and it applies to you. If you can't prove that reality to be false, then there is no more reason to discuss it. – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 04:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Changing definition
So just as a jump off from the above discussions ... Do we do a good enough job in explaining how the definition has changed over time and crtian groups may still cling to one definition over another? And does it align with what reliable sources support? Insomesia (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's deceptive / manipulative. Nobody comes here wondering / complaining why the article doesn't exclusively use the most pervasive dictionary definition.  They are wondering why /complaining that the  article pretends that the most pervasive dictionary definition does not exist. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All right—since no one else is going to let this drop, I'll wade in again. You definition of "most pervasive" seems decidedly odd. Do we need to review the dictionary entries yet again? Rivertorch (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. I just think it's a waste of time and thought to keep repeating the same thing. – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And in the end, this is a high-traffic article; it has over half a million hits a year. If the definition was clearly incorrect this page would be deluged with objections, rather than just the occasional one.  That, I think, is the most pervasive argument. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether the "phobia = a phobia" is most pervasive definition vs. just a common definition is arguable, but sidebar to the issue which is "why is the article written as if that definition did not exist." The FAQ does not address this and thus  not the actual issue that has been continuously raised. And this page has has a large amount of objections regarding this point, voiced throughout the entire history of the article. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's the point; it doesn't. In the last three months, apart from yourself there's been a registered editor who thinks gays have a "terrible and diabolical agenda", two shouty IPs, an IP that thinks that "Wikipedia is an officially pro-gay document" and one that thinks NARTH is a reliable source. And that's fairly typical of all the archives. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe time to walk away North? Thanks ツ Je no va  |20]] (email) 20:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This WP:DEADHORSE really needs to rest in peace. These attempts to revise the accepted definition of homophobia have failed and consensus has been reached. Unless there are reliable sources to support the opposing view presented by North8000 and a few others, then the article should stand as it is. This is not an article about the etymology of a word, but rather an article about the commonly accepted concepts associated with the word. The article does an excellent job of comprehensively covering that concept. The end. MrX 21:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Black Kite, you can't possibly consider that straw man tip of the iceberg to be a be a summary of what folks have weighed in on here on the problem. I would have though better of you. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a straw man at all - I actually spent that 20 minutes between your comment and mine going through the last three months of archives. And - apart from your contributions - that's exactly what I found. There may well be more intelligent discussions further back in the archive, but on a quick scan I just found more of the same. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just had to take 30 seconds and look a few inches up to find the first 1% example of what you missed/ignored e.g.  "I feel as though the secondary meaning of the word "homophobia" is being used, along with the stigma of the word "phobia" to intentionally mislabel a particular group of individuals. As such, it is being held up by minority activists, who are puppy-guarding a page which directly relates to their motives." North8000 (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, let me add "... and an account which directly accuses editors of being homosexual activists who are a minority of editors trying to keep the article in a pro-gay format" to my list. Personally, I didn't think you'd want to highlight that one. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Jenova20, my thought has been to mostly give up on this but just make a few comments. When folks responses go beyond disagreement into dirty pool tactics, as they continually have done here from the trio, that raises more severe issues that need a response and has prolonged the exchanges. And so if the trio here would disagree but avoid those nasty tactics, brief comments is all that you'd see from me here. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you would be best reading WP:NOTFORUM then. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 22:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So I discuss that there is a lack of sourcing supporting a structure that presumes that the "phobia is a phobia" definition does not exist, and you try that lame crap of linking to not a forum. Perfect example of the dirty pool tactics I just described which is creating the situation here. North8000 (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Off-topic constant discussion of unnamed trio which likely doesn't exist. wp:deadhorse argument as Wikipedia doesn't change the meaning of words. Sorry you're upset. – ツ Teammm  ( talk  ·  email ) 23:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * North i could tell you anything and you would still be banging on about this and so i'll recap. You can't overturn a statement with an unsourced one. You can't use the talk page to endlessly complain about the meaning not being the true meaning and providing no sources. You can't continually ignore the dictionary definitions already given for the preferred ones you cannot show evidence of even existing. The talk page here would usually be used as:
 * Person A) problem or something to add.
 * Person B) Done, or need a better source.
 * Person A) Here, this is more neutral or reliable i think
 * Person B) Thanks for your contribution, done.
 * What you have is:
 * Person A) This isn't right.
 * Persons BCDEFG) How so?
 * Person A) Because it's not but i can't won't prove it.
 * Persons BCDEFG) Well that's not how this works and 4 months of arguing won't make it so.
 * Kay? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 23:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking for wp:reliable sources to support a fringe theory with due weight is not a dirty trick or anyone "puppy-guarding a page." We are wasting your time here because as you've been told before no changes will be undertaken without reliable sourcing to support them. If you feel one of the pillars of editing Wikipedia is a dirty trick then you should expect more of the same on every article, it's a policy. Making personal attacks and comments at everyone who opposes your view has swayed no one. I don't know what you hope to accomplish but it does not seem like you are here to improve the article as much as expressing personal opinions on a subject and editors. Insomesia (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have just completely mis-stated and mis-characterized my argument (which is saying that there is a lack of sourcing for the premise used, not promoting any new "theory"). That material you are describing I didn't write, please reread to see what it was doing there. I've made no personal attacks, and in fact false accusation of such is a personal attack.  Quit the crap. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly tried to sway editors here that our present coverage is lacking in some way, you've convinced no one. You have asserted you will provide sources, reliable ones, to bolster your position, none have been provided. You have alluded to a trio cabal that is thwarting your efforts, absent any evidence, which likely there is none, that is a vague personal attack against all regular editors here who disagree with your efforts. Suggesting I'm engaging in crap is furthering the damage, please stop. Insomesia (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've been swayed. No, in all seriousness, North is bringing up a very valid point. I'm bringing my discussion from up a few headers down here. That's what this is all about, anyway; Changing the definition. The bottom lime is that if I'm right, and if this article is biased, not much can be done to change it, due to the source demand (which I won't rephrase from North's earlier comments), which is unreasonable. Again, I'll say that the secondary meaning of the term is being used here in order to demonize those who personally disagree with you. Just in attempt to simplify things, wouldn't aversion to homosexuality be a far more reasonable attempt for proper titling? The fact that the "watchmen" here are so cemented on this issue indicates that it's not as innocent as argued. Furthermore, Black Kite, you're citing me as saying the gays have a "terrible and diabolical agenda?" That, my friend, is a misquote. I said that there is a "gay agenda." A personal attack and distortion of the truth is uncalled for, except in a losing battle. That, my friend, is filthy. I don't appreciate having that kind of bulls**t heaped towards me. So unless you're referring to someone else, and leaving me out, that's what I see. EDIT: Apologies, I see you were referring to someone else. I just assumed that I was included in your figure. Still, I think my voice counts for something. Also, how exactly is this a "fringe theory," Insomesia? And arguing that you're not puppy-guarding this page is a lost cause. —Maktesh (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So would you re-title Xenophobia as Aversion to foreigners? Clearly not (I hope). WP:COMMONNAME is policy here, and it states "Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article."  And as will be seen by looking at the article or by a simple Google search, by far the most frequently used name in reliable sources is not "aversion to homosexuality" but "homophobia".  I don't see why we're going round in circles here. If someone - anyone - can present multiple reliable sources that the article is mis-titled, or that it is biased in some way, then fine but that has not happened yet - all we are getting is unsupported assertions that "there are massive objections to this" and "it's not the majority view".  There is a whole section in the article - Homophobia which deals with the alternative views; any more than that would be WP:UNDUE.  What, exactly, do you want this article to present that it doesn't now? Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the majority of the article is structured / premised upon as if the promoted "all opposition is a phobia" definition is the ONLY definition. (And as a sidebar, there is no sourcing for the "ONLY definition" premise.) So by placement it asserts that every type of opposition to homosexuality is "homophobia".     Here are two ways to fix it.   The simplest one has already been noted.  If this is an article about opposition to homosexuality, then rename it to that, a more neutral term, which titles are supposed to be anyway.   The other would be would be a Homophobia article that turns the lens on the term itself (including the history of who is promoting its various definitions etc.)such as the Homosexual agenda article has done. In fact, that article is a near-perfect parallel to this situation. Where one side of a controversy is promoting use of a pejorative term for something which already has a more neutral term. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that you don't want Wikipedia to actually have an article entitled Homophobia that is actually about the subject that is most commonly known by that term? I think I can safely say that this won't be happening.  If you believe that the article is biased or misleading, then the simple way to fix that is to provide reliable sources to prove your claims.  As has been said numerous times. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As per the tactics that the trio has continuously used here, you have just completely mis-stated what I said. And my "claim" is that there is a lack of sourcing for the "only definition" theory that this article is premised upon.  Folks keep mis-stating that.    Rather than respond on that, I will just refer anybody one post up to see what I actually said. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that doesn't wash. You clearly stated you wanted to rename this article to a title that doesn't reflect the concept's common name, and you clearly stated that you would want Homophobia to be a history of the word's etymology.  To turn round and say that's not what you said ... well, words fail me. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did have one additional idea which is to do both of the ideas I mentioned. Move the entire contents of this article to a new "Opposition to homosexuality" article. And then write a short article here at Homophobia that turns it's lens on the term as the Homosexual agenda article has done. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

...I can keep doing that until you follow policy or we can all give up and get some admin in to slap some sense into people. Let's also challenge the logic again of you accusing the "trio" of censoring the real meaning of homophobia and not sourcing it, while trying to challenge it without sources and then trying to rename the article because you can't change the meaning of it. If i slapped up a progress bar between nothing and admin action we're 99% of the way to admin action here. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you have completely mis-stated what I said.  Please see above to see what I actually said. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * North8000, what you "actually said" is essentially something you've been repeating, with variations, for many weeks now. With the exception of a small group of newbies and single-purpose accounts plus one established editor whose point of view on LGBT-related topics is apparent, no one is buying your argument. It doesn't matter if everyone has missed your point, and it doesn't matter if your point is valid or logical or whatever; you've had feedback from many other Wikipedians and ample opportunity to hone your argument, and what you're saying now is gaining no more traction that what you said umpteen kilobytes ago. In the final analysis, it all comes down to consensus, and consensus—both here and at the two noticeboards where this recently came up—is that the article does not have the problem you suggest. At the risk of what I say being labeled "crap", I'm going to say very plainly that incessant arguing against consensus is classic WP:IDHT behavior, and your dismissal of multiple editors' suggestions of dropping the stick is troubling. Many of us, perhaps most of us, have found ourselves in situations where consensus is against what we firmly believe to be correct. (I know I have.) That's just the way it is. I don't like it any more than you do, but I accept it. With all due respect, I encourage you to accept it too. Rivertorch (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually nobody has addressed my point, and folks have been conspicuously avoiding it and avoiding addressing it, to the point of continually modifying what I said and then addressing the imaginary modified versions. But, again, either way, I only intend to make a few comments now and then.  Again, when folks use dirty pool tactics (as has been happening) this forces lengthier exchanges on the tactics. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if no one has addressed your point, restating it ad infinitum isn't helpful. "Dirty pool" is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but you might consider the possibility that ceaseless repetition of the same point serves more to irritate your fellow editors than to enlighten them. Even if you dislike their tactics, there is no forced exchange. I'm pretty sure that if you drop the subject, everyone who has been replying to you will happily drop it as well. And if they don't, well, there's still nothing forcing you to respond. Silence isn't equated with agreement in talk page discussions—not when one has already expressed one's view, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that very civilized post.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. William Avery (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia as distinct from rational or moral critique
This is a great article, but I do think it needs to make the distinction between the irrational nature of homophobia and the wide range of legitimate rational, moral, practical, philosophical and sociological critiques of homosexuality that exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.18.12 (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be a bit out of the scope of the article. Do you have any reliable sources that talk about this? Maybe they can show a way of addressing the issues. Insomesia (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this thought. Anti-gay redirects here. Realistically speaking, the term in and of itself is biased toward homosexuality. It seems to claim, or at least imply that one who simply disagrees with the ethical or sociological aspects fall under the category of homophobia. This is a well-constructed article, but titling and categorization feels as though it was written by someone in favor of homosexuality, not by an unbiased group of authors. That aside, the term seems very unscientific to relate to other forms of disdain or disagreement of/with homosexuality. As a side note, this tonality of this article seems to over-relate racism, as well as sexism to this topic. —Maktesh (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you need wp:Reliable sources to lead the way. Insomesia (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems obvious that this article was written by somebody who has a pro-homosexual agenda,and who refuses to accept that most people have a principled opposition to homosexual behaviour per se, which is entirely rational. In the interests of accuracy this article should revert to the definition of homophobia found in the Oxford Dictionary, and not lend any credibility to a new definition favoured by a group with a political and social agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garysher (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I almost stopped reading that after "pro-homosexual agenda", but I definitely stopped reading after "most people have a principled opposition to homosexual behaviour per se". Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While you have your Oxford dictionary out look up Irony, Biased, Deluded and Liar. You just demonstrated all 4 with that ill advised post. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That ad hominem dismissal of the points made should keep the expressed overwhelming reality at bay and out of this article for a little longer. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * North if you don't understand the basic principals of editing here like our Oxford friend above then you need mentoring and staying away from controversial topics until you can demonstrate you are neutral and your judgement unclouded. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that we'll let others read this section and decide exactly who has that problem. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are asserting that "most people have a principled opposition to homosexual behaviour", include wp:Reliable Sources. If you cannot include any sources, refrain from commenting here. The article is about homophobia, which is a fear or hatred of homosexuals. I would also suggest reading the oxford dictionary's definition of homophobia prior to recommending its usage. Acronin3 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia Garysher and thank you for your first contribution. I'm sure we would all be interested in the reliable sources that support your assertions. Just so you know, this is not a dictionary, and the article is pretty clear about its scope and the context in which the concept of Homophobia is explored. MrX 19:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and the fact that this whole article is built on an assertion with ZERO sourcing, that assertion being that the "all opposition is phobia" definition is the ONLY definition. Only at this article do they get away with claiming that you need sourcing to complain that something is unsourced. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * North there's only so many times i can ask you to source your claims but you are unable to listen, hear or comprehend that. It's getting much easier to ignore you than try and work with you. You don't just want to complain about something being unsourced, you want to make it say the opposite and still be unsourced. It's laughable and it won't work, so just carry on flogging the dead horse cos it sure ain't gonna move. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As the OED definition is "Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality.", I fail to see the problem. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP isn't talking about the OED, he's referring to the definition given in the Oxford Dictionary of English which isn't related to the OED at all. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification Black Kite. I still fail to see how that definition, "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.", changes anything (especially in the light of WP:NOTDICT and all the other sources given that support the article). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In case there is anybody here who genuinely doesn't understand what I was saying (vs. the people who deliberately "mis-hearing" me as illustrated above). There are two definitions: 90% of this article is written upon & with and putting forth the UNSOURCED, implausible premise that #1 is the ONLY definition. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The above "all opposition is phobia" definition which does exist in about 1/2 of the dictionaries. It is obviously a controversial definition.
 * 2) The "phobia is phobia" definition which is in all or nearly all dictionaries.


 * I tend to agree with you, North. The idea that the majority of California voters (who voted for Prop 8) must be suffering from an irrational fear doesn't make much sense.  The term "phobia" implies an anxiety disorder; to imply that all opposition to homosexuality is a sickness makes for a biased article.  Homophobia is a loaded word; the term "homonegativity" is not, and is more generally descriptive.  Yet I notice that separate article has recently been deleted :(  --Pekoebrew (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Homonegativity? Never heard of it. But I've heard of homophobia. It means a dislike of homosexual activity, often extending to discrimination against gay people. At least it does where I come from. The Australian Football League is currently in the middle of a campaign to reduce discrimination against gay people in the sport. Every article in the media about it, and every radio and TV program discussing it, describes the problem as homophobia. They definitely don't mean fear of homosexuals. The meanings of words change. Decimate no longer means to reduce something by 10%. Should it? Of course not. Most words in English no longer literally mean what their linguistic roots literally imply. Understand? (Oh BTW, that literally means to be positioned beneath your leader's standard, or flag. Should we return to that meaning?) HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The meaning of words change, but all other words that end with the suffix -phobia carry a clear implication of diagnosed anxiety disorder. Are you suggesting this word should be the exception?  But you're right, the media has indeed accepted this loaded word to describe all negative feelings towards homosexuality.  The day may come when this is recognized, and a more objective term like homonegativity will become the norm.  But I won't hold my breath... --Pekoebrew (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. "Xenophobia" is an obvious counter-example. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * English is simply NOT an objective language (in the sense that Pekoebrew just used that word). HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, but one can always try to help the language in that direction. --Pekoebrew (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't hold your breath. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a really weird conversation. It seems to me that the only people arguing against what I see as the reality that homophobia simply means a dislike of things homosexual are people I would describe as homophobic, and I when I say that I don't mean that they are afraid of homosexuals. That those who the word describes choose to assign a nastier meaning to the word than the intended and common one really is their problem. It's not intended to mean what you claim it means, so stop thinking that it does! HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The word is almost always intended as a disparagement; I've seldom heard it used any other way. The phobia suffix practically guarantees a loaded usage.  The implication is always that something must be wrong with you if you have negative feelings about homosexuality.  Yet if such feelings are based upon rational principles, or (as I believe) are a naturally evolved human trait, then the phobia concept doesn't apply.  But now I'll desist; getting too far into general discussion. --Pekoebrew (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, when I use the word I probably do mean it to carry a negative meaning, just as with many other words, because I simply cannot see truly rational thought taking anyone to the positions of opposition to homosexuality that it usually refers to,  BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN IT'S A PHOBIA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  (Why did you again refer to "the phobia concept"?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, getting right to the heart of it, what it negative about it? Of course, the only possible answer answer is that it labels such (opposition etc) as a "phobia". So its to label things that aren't a phobia as a "phobia", and then being able to claim that such is not mislabeling because "homophobia" does not mean phobia.  :-) North8000 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There's another meaning that's negative to me, and I did explain it. It's negative because, to me, it's not a rational position to take, and it leads to discrimination. Even if you don't take a discriminatory position yourself, you take (and promote) a philosophical position which supports others who do discriminate. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you not agree that folks promote the use of this term because it labels such opposition with a word that has the word "phobia" in it? North8000 (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. At least where I come from. Most people don't think about the etymology of a word before they use it. (They're not word nerds like you and me.) It simply IS the word for all negative attitudes towards homosexuality. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody has to think about the etymology of this word; any halfway educated person knows what the word/suffix phobia means. You can yell that homophobia does not mean phobia all you want, but does the average person see it that way?  Would you at least agree that the suffix might lead some people to think that homophobia is some kind of psychological disorder? --Pekoebrew (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What some people think is not the measure by how the article is constructed. We go by reliable sources and the article reflects that. If you want to change what we presently have you will need reliable sources to lead the way. This has been shared with North8000 for the last 4-5 months but it bears repeating. Let reliable sources speak for the changes you seek, otherwise we are likely done here. If you feel you need its use, there is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard which can help determine what reliable sources can be used to support particular statements. Insomesia (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

''' This is already answered at the top of the page. ''' Read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:ACTIVIST. You are not going to change the definition of the word and if attempts continue i will seek administrational support. Also, arguments such as "Perhaps not, but one can always try to help the language in that direction." are futile as Wikipedia cannot become a primary source. You are Beating a dead horse and should read Xenophobia and Islamophobia for more examples of the English language and its quirks. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, yes this went too far into general discussion, and I apologize for my part in that. You're right, Wiki is not the place to make language more objective, but rather to report meanings that are current. When and if "reliable sources" become brave enough to buck the trends of political correctness, I'll be sure to reference them :) Bye for now... --Pekoebrew (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Heterophobia.
While I agree with the merge in spirit as a wikipedia editor I must say that the consensus was not to merge. Why does heterophobia redirect to this page now if people didn't agree yet to have them merge?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to delete it and we already had a small section on it. If it's not reliably sourced and/or violates WP:WEIGHT then just take it out. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Homophobic" is a Political Slur
This article does NOT present a balanced view, but rather the views of extremists who use the term "homophobic" as a political slur in an attempt to silence meaningful debate. Those who hold this agenda take a page from Hitler's Fascist playbook, labelling anybody who accepts the moral view of Natural Law that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore both evil and immoral as a "homophobe" even if such individuals intend no harm whatsoever to those who adhere to homosexual lifestyles. A balanced article would acknowledge this reality in its introductory paragraph. -- Norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.71.187 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Norm. Your definition of "reality" is at odds with the consensus of editors here, and you offer no evidence to support it. If you have a specific recommendation—e.g., new wording, supported by reliable sources, that you think should be inserted—please feel free to make it. Otherwise, it looks like one more original research-based variation on a perennial proposal for this article. (Btw, I think you're the first person I've seen fulfill Godwin's law in the first post of a thread. Wow.) Rivertorch (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, you didn't even mention the futility of the "natural law/behaviour" argument...Bigotry/homphobia = choice. Sexuality = innate feature ツ Je no va  20  (email) 19:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, an immense number of people have said the same thing about the article, and the trio keeps running them all off. To the trio here, the more people who say it the more they consider that a reason to not fix it, the reverse of reality.  North8000 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Gay Cabal theory has already been tried, by you, and failed many times on this page. The answer remains the same and has been mentioned to you numerous times. If you have reliable sources to support your assertions, we would love to see them. In fact there is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard so you don't even have to post here to get a fair hearing. In the absence of those you're repeating the same discussion without WP:LISTENing to the feedback that many editors have shared on this subject many times. Insomesia (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A complete misstatement of the situation and my argument, which is that the article makes and implies an unsourced assertion that the "all opposition is phobia" definition is the ONLY definition. And from that policy-violating launch pad it builds the problems that an immense number of people have complained about . North8000 (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Norm. Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sure we would all welcome your contributions to this article, and especially your information on natural law, Fascism, homosexual lifestyles and political slurs, which I'm sure all come from highly reliable sources. Everyone is free to edit articles on Wikipedia, however you should realize that Wikipedia is not a debate site, nor is it a forum. &mdash; MrX 20:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes, you've asserted that position repeatedly, in several venues I believe, yet it has gained no traction. And no reliable sources to bolster any changes have been presented. If you have a specific improvement in mind and the reliable sources to back those up then we can go forward from here. Otherwise you should expect the same answers you were given previously. Insomesia (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The old "you need a source to discuss lack of sourcing" trick again.  Probably works well for chasing away people who don't know any better. And no, what I said it hasn't gained traction with the POV trio that has been blockading the fix.  But the discussions here will probably help coalesce things to get it fixed despite them. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No trick. Just adhering to policies. If you gain consensus for any changes I will, of course, abide by the decisions made. Insomesia (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see precisely what improvement to the article is being discussed here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Errm . . . yes. That was sort of the main thrust of my reply. All it takes is one drive-by IP, and we're off. I feel as if I keep shutting a door that blows open every time there's a gust of wind, but the latch is broken and and there's never a calm day and we're all doomed to endless repetition. Over and over and over and over and over and over . . . we might as well redirect Infinity to this talk page. Hey, anybody have a proposal involving actual letters forming words that lead to coherent sentences—you know, the sort of thing that actually might go into or come out of the article? If not, we're wasting our time. Again. Rivertorch (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, this is due to the same editor over the past 3, 4, or so months. Insomesia (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed fix
The problem and the potential fix are knitted into /throughout the fabric of the article. So listing the details of a fix would be very lengthy. An overview would be a good place to start. There are two definitions of homopohobia, in shorthand they are:


 * 1) 1 The "all opposition is "phobia"" definition


 * 1) 2 The "actual phobia" definition


 * 1) 1 is obviously controversial (for example, continuously in the talk page of this article since the moment of its inception) look at the talk page for the #1 is in some dictionaries, #2 is in every dictionary.  In short, the overall problem article pretends that #2 does not exist.  Not only does it not cover it, but throughout it tacitly includes statements (as fact, in the voice of Wikipedia) that every form of non-phobia opposition to homosexuality is "homophobia."

There are three broad choices for a fix:


 * 1) 1 One is to cover the term as a term as the homosexual agenda article does. The shortest way to get there would be to reduce this article to as stub build it using the homosexual agenda article as a guide.  Of course this includes including both definitions.


 * 1) 2 One is to rename this article to a NPOV title for what 95% of it's actual current content is, which is Opposition to homosexuality'.  As a secondary matter, There are a few choices of what homophobia would then link to, probably to a disambiguation page or to a homophobia definitions section of the renamed article, or an article just on the term.        Someone  said that this was considered once before; it's probably the easiest and best fix.


 * 1) 3 The is the most complex and probably the least desirable. Which is to list both definitions.  And provide context / attribution for all explicit and implicit statements that non-phobia opposition to homosexuality is homophobia.  For example, it would preface the listing of such with something like "proponents of terming all opposition to homosexuality as being homophobia cite the following as examples of homophobia:"


 * 1) 1 and #2 might inevitably become one and the same. #1 could cause a "Opposition to homosexuality" article to get created, and #2 could cause short article covering homosexuality as a term to get created. So they could lead to the same place, which may be the best.   A substantial article: Opposition to homosexuality covering that,   and a short article covering Homophobia as a term.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Definition #1 is by far the common one in the circles where I mix, and a major one of which is a pretty conservative part of Australian culture. HiLo48 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Both definitions are in the article and both are discussed and explained. I still dont see the issue here other than the editor accusing a "trio" of stifling discussion. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 17:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Responding to HiLo48, I think that a breeze through the major dictionaries would indicate otherwise, I think one would see that #2 is in all of them and #1 in only some of therm  But, even if that were true, it does not support the claim knitted in throughout the article it is the ONLY definition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * North8000, I think your argument is based on a series of false premises. First that there is a problem to be fixed. At the moment, consensus disagrees with that assessment.


 * The next false premise is that "the overall problem article pretends that [definition] #2 [phobia/fear] does not exist". This assertion is erroneous. In fact, fear as a cause, and by extension, definition of homophobia is examined at several points in the article. Do you not see them?


 * Finally, your proposed solutions to the (perceived) problem are in themselves problematic, and not just because they are based on false premises.


 * Solution one attempts to diminish the impact and importance of homophobia in society, essentially seeping it under the rug.
 * Solution two recasts the subject of homophobia in terms that you find to be NPOV, but consensus finds to be very POV.
 * Solution three attempts to address what the article has already adequately done with 110 source citations, with appropriate WP:DUE weight.


 * There is nothing stopping you, or any one else from finding reliable sources that support the idea that homophobia actually means fear of homosexuals, and that opposition to homosexuality should be explicitly excluded from the definition, although I'm sure you would acknowledge that that would be a minority view. If those sources exist, then you are free to add that viewpoint to the article in due proportion. On the other hand, broad, sweeping generalizations about how biased and wrong the article is, or how poorly sourced it is, without specific examples, simply will not gain any traction here. &mdash; MrX 19:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. Insomesia (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be problems with the article first before proposing "fixes" and currently, there are no agreed-upon problems with the article. I'll address your concerns anyway.

1 The "all opposition is "phobia"" definition 2 The "actual phobia" definition 1 is obviously controversial (for example, continuously in the talk page of this article since the moment of its inception) look at the talk page for the #1 is in some dictionaries, #2 is in every dictionary.


 * According to the lead of the Homophobia article right now, the definition of homophobia is: Hatred (antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion are just more synonyms) and irrational fear toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). That is the definition of homophobia, backed up by many reliable sources. Just because the suffix -phobia is attached to the word does not make "homophobia" literally only about the fear. See Etymological fallacy.
 * Also, there is no "controversy" surrounding this term and if there was, it is being created by people who have something against homosexuality disliking being called "homophobes".

In short, the overall problem article pretends that #2 does not exist.


 * "Irrational fear" is listed in the lead with due weight. The article is not trying to hide anything.

Not only does it not cover it, but throughout it tacitly includes statements (as fact, in the voice of Wikipedia) that every form of non-phobia opposition to homosexuality is "homophobia."


 * That is the definition of the word backed by reliable sources. Deal with it.

There are three broad choices for a fix:

1 One is to cover the term as a term as the homosexual agenda article does. The shortest way to get there would be to reduce this article to as stub build it using the homosexual agenda article as a guide. Of course this includes including both definitions.


 * Well, someone has an agenda (and it certainly is not a homosexual one). Is this proposal trying to eliminate or hide "homophobia" and make it seem like it does not exist? Sorry, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. This article is backed by many reliable sources, and it is not going to get trimmed down because it offends those who have something against homosexuality.

2 One is to rename this article to a NPOV title for what 95% of it's actual current content is, which is Opposition to homosexuality'. As a secondary matter, There are a few choices of what homophobia would then link to, probably to a disambiguation page or to a homophobia definitions section of the renamed article, or an article just on the term. Someone said that this was considered once before; it's probably the easiest and best fix.


 * Again, are these proposals trying to make the homophobia concept not visible? I went ahead and copy-and-pasted someone else's response because it is getting tiresome repeating the same thing over and over again because someone here just can't WP:LISTEN.
 * So would you re-title Xenophobia as Aversion to foreigners? Clearly not (I hope). WP:COMMONNAME is policy here, and it states "Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." And as will be seen by looking at the article or by a simple Google search, by far the most frequently used name in reliable sources is not "aversion to homosexuality" but "homophobia". I don't see why we're going round in circles here. If someone - anyone - can present multiple reliable sources that the article is mis-titled, or that it is biased in some way, then fine but that has not happened yet - all we are getting is unsupported assertions that "there are massive objections to this" and "it's not the majority view". There is a whole section in the article - Homophobia#Criticism_of_meaning_and_purpose which deals with the alternative views; any more than that would be WP:UNDUE. What, exactly, do you want this article to present that it doesn't now? Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

3 The is the most complex and probably the least desirable. Which is to list both definitions. And provide context / attribution for all explicit and implicit statements that non-phobia opposition to homosexuality is homophobia. For example, it would preface the listing of such with something like "proponents of terming all opposition to homosexuality as being homophobia cite the following as examples of homophobia:"


 * Both definitions are already listed in the lead: Hatred (antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion are just more synonyms) and irrational fear toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Reliable sources and dictionaries are not "proponents" of anything.

There is not a problem with the article at its current state or anything unneutral about it. I thought I made my points clear at the | noticeboard a while back. North8000, if you are not going to argue the same things on islamophobia, xenophobia, and antisemitism as you did on homophobia, then please keep your unhelpful biased ranting somewhere else. It truly seems like you have an "opposition to homosexuality" but dislike being called a homophobe, so now you're trying to change the homophobia article (since you can't redefine words in actual dictionaries or encyclopedias) either by giving undue weight to "fear" or hide the concept all together to fit your non-neutral point of view. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not work that way. Twøcents (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict—concurring with MrX, replying to North) I concur. As I've stated before (repeatedly), I think that your premises are faulty. A specific note: dictionary definitions are never more than a starting point for determining the scope of a given article. One reason for that has to do with the rapidity with which language evolves. There are many dictionary entries for usages that are downright rare; eventually they will be labeled "obsolete", but this can take many decades. This article is primarily about a phenomenon that is widely referred to as "homophobia" (almost exclusively so in both academic writings and popular culture, as far as I can tell). Rivertorch (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Twøcents. If nothing else, this recrudescence has prompted me to return once more to the OED which gives a usage example that couples the word tellingly: "There is no such thing as the homosexual problem any more than there is a black problem—the problems are racism and homophobia." That was from the Globe & Mail of Toronto in 1975. William Avery (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The guardians of the "all opposition is phobia" assertion woven deeply into the fabric of this article have avoided the points in my discussion. There is no real conversation going on here; folks on such a fervent quest will not be convinced; the fix will need to come from more eyes. Signing off on this thread. North8000 (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Definition 1 includes definition 2. Wikipedia does not limit defintions but tries to remain broad and encyclopedic. This argument is about making definition 2 "homophobia includes fear" legitimate. It is about deligitimizing defintion 1 which has tons of sources. I would admit it would definately be wrong if this article dosn't mention irrational fear as being homophobia but it does.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also see Gay panic defense for more irrational fear. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked, saw once again that no reliable sources were presented for the rename proposal, among other things, and immediately stopped caring. Seriously, North, it's been stated time and again and you should know this from every other Wikipedia article, it's all about the sources. If you don't have any to present, then your argument has no weight whatsoever, it's just an argument to original research. Silver  seren C 02:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources for using a neutral name for the article? I was just trying to put what hundreds of people have said here into wiki-terms and propose a solution. Of course the same group that blew them off and/or chased them away is not going to be convinced to fix it. Folks are still "mishearing" my argument and pretending that I am trying to present new material (which I am NOT) so that they block the conversation absent sourcing on non-existent statements.  Again, my complaint in wiki terms is LACK of sourcing for the statement "Definition #1` is the ONLY definition" which 80% of this article is built upon.  Unless someone misrepresents what I said again (as Silver seren did by essentially saying that I was making unsourced claims) I'm signing off on this thread. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article has a "neutral" name. Funny how you never proposed calling the Straight Pride article you worked on "Opposition to Gay pride" or changing Heterophobia to "Opposition to heterosexuals". It's because it's biased in such a way that no one could take you seriously and would call your neutrality into question as i am now. Biased much? ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding to Jenova20 The Straight pride article already IS what my proposal #1 is for this article which is an article about the term. And there is no heterophobia article, so I could not argue for change on a non-existent article. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You've never proposed changing Racism "opposition to other races" either while we're on about it. The editor just wants to push an agenda and finds it easier by accusing "a trio" without mentioning names so it can be taken to admin ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First, there are millions of articles in Wikipedia which I've never even seen much less proposed changes on, so it is not meaningful that I have not done anythign at any one particular article that you select.  But, on that article I would not propose such a change because it is not a case where there are 2 commonplace definitions of the term, nor is the article built upon a selected controversial defintion and in a way that denies the controversey and 80% of which denies the existence of the other definition.  North8000 (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what it was. It had no notability and asserted itself as a real term, despite being nothing more than a "me-too" victim tag used by homophobes claiming that the gays are victimising the straights with their wanting equal rights. It had little mention of anything and isn't a real term with any definition, it's just a word that was used a few times by people. All exactly why it was deleted, no notability.
 * The 80% argument is bull, it's down to WP:WEIGHT and what the sources say, not misrepresenting them.
 * Your request for rewriting the article with no sources isn't working, your assertion the article is unbalanced hasn't worked. New approach or another 4 months of WP:IDHT? ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't propose it when it did exist and before it was deleted for notability though. North, it's a new month but the same argument with you. ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely no sense.  I can't even tell what you are trying to say. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a reply in response to your reply in line with what it itself is in reply to (if that makes sense) ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I felt that the comparison to the other 2-3 articles would be useful and informative and so I responded on that. The rest is nasty mis-representations of what I said and what the situation is. I realized that even responding on each new mis-representation would make this a perpetual thread so I'm going to break that cycle. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * North, if you were trying for the legitimization of definition 2 I would be completely on your side. But you are not. You are trying to say that definition 1 (which by the way includes irrational fear) is deligitimate, depite tons of sources that state otherwise. So as long as the 80% of the article you are talking about can be sourced it will remain. However if you do find a source that says 1) homophobia is only fear and 2) this fear does not cause any of the characteristics of defintion 1 then we would be forced to list it as an alternative view. However you will not even then be able to deligitimize the so-called 80% of the article which defines using defintion 1. we understand that people may not like being called homophobes but thats not our call. On your statement of homophobia being a political slur, is it really any more of a political slur than any other word for discrimination (racism, sexism, antisemitism)? I would think not. But we are not going to change an already established name of an article because it may or may not hold certain political connotations. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me.  Maybe what I'm saying to say is easily misunderstood.   I'm saying that BOTH definitions are legitimate. And the core of my complaint is that 80% of the article is tacitly a statement that #2 does not exist. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 2 is mentioned in the article because that it fits into #1. If you want me to look to see if I can find stuff about fear of homosexuals I can definately look for information. But I won't use it to say that any definition discludes anything. Most people who use the phobia is only a phobia concept don't understand anything about the english language and how you can't follow the literal meaning of the term all the time. I would be glad to research information on fear of homosexuals especially fear connected with the false stereotypes of homosexuals with children or the fear propagated by the lavender scare. Those could be great contributions to the article.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find a lot of this covered in Homosexual panic and Corrective rape where the work off the premise of irrational fear and it leads to violence. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Rainbow, thanks for your efforts but I think that you are still missing my point. The core of the problem is that 80% of the article categorically calls ALL opposition to homosexuality "homophobia".  When it does that it it uses only one of the definitions and pretends that the other does not exist.   And, as such, the 80% weighs in on one side of the controversy. Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's homophobia for you North. If 80% of the sources consider All opposition homophobia then that's what we have to go with. That comes down to WP:WEIGHT, manipulating references and misrepresenting them, WP:NPOV too to an extent. IS there any point saying this though when you will reply by telling me i have misunderstood you? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this is getting no where and is turning into a disrupitive dispute over unsourced information. North my suggestion to you would be to drop the subject and move on to more constructive editing on another page. I will also like to point out that this is called beating a dead horse and to remind you North that Wikipedia is not a forum for you to talk out your debates on the subject. You must have reliable sources to prove your claims and it is a standard on Wikipedia. It is not something that people are making up that is how it goes on here. So please drop the subject North and move on. You are being a disruptive user and I suggest to anyone if this continues to report him to the ANI. ^_^ Swifty * talk 18:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've participated in these discussions in the past and I've been monitoring them as a lurker for quite some time. I'm afraid that I must agree with Swifty.  North, you have long since crossed the line into both tendentious editing as well as disruptive editing.  Everyone here has been very patient with you.  It is time to stop.  Move on.  Find a constructive outlet for your time and energy.  It is clearly not productive here.  I'd rather not go the ANI route, but it's justified at this point.  Henrymrx (t&middot;c) 21:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. It's abundantly clear that North is not going to contribute constructively to this article, and should move on to others where he may be of use. Otherwise, a topic ban seems to be the next step. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was already signed off on this thread. I jumped back in to clarify something for Rainbow who is one of the few civilized folks in this debate and the only one who has tried to understand and respond to what I'm saying vs. the trio who keeps "mishearing" so as be able to attack it.   BTW, lose the bogus accusations, of which there were about 6 in the last few posts.  The particularly novel one is accusing someone who hasn't edited the article of "Tendentious editing" North8000 (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Norm that this article comes across a little unbalanced. The problem as I see it is that the introduction fails to make clear that the term homophobic is used almost exclusively by one side in a political debate. The idea that it may be a slur is relagated to a small subheading at the end of the article.
 * It is true that the word homophobic is now broadly used to characterise disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle. But, I don't think it is ok for the article to use it in this sense. Such use reflects the view of the gay rights movement that criticism of the gay way of life is motivated by irrational fear.
 * Don't get me wrong, homophobia does exist. For example, I have known men who saw the very existence of homosexual men as a threat to their own masculinity. But for Wikipedia to adopt the rhetorical of the gay rights movement and label all criticism of the homosexual lifestyle "homophobia" would be non-neutral.

Chappell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't redefine, we just report where there is reliable sourcing available. Homophobia is used in multiple ways, even as an attack on some gays and lesbians who don't conform to the ideals of the rest. The problem with have with personal opinions here is that many do consider any attempt to attack them for anything to do with sexuality as homophobia. Andthat is one of the definitions.
 * It's often equated with racism for this very reason. Some people do consider some things offensive and others don't. That's just how it is and because it is how it is and can be cited reliably - we include it. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. The only way to achieve that in less than a decade is nuke the article to a stub and start over. It's riddled end to end with implicit assertions that there is only one definition, which is in direct conflict with sourcing. North8000 (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Many false premises there, Chappell. The term is not "used almost exclusively by one side in a political debate". There's no such thing as "the homosexual lifestyle" or "the gay way of life" (although, interestingly enough, those phrases are often used by—wait for it—one side in a political debate). And homophobia as it usually manifests doesn't involve fear per se. So it's hard to take your assessment of the article seriously when it's based on a thoroughly faulty foundation. Rivertorch (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm back. First off, I support North's proposition here. I feel that it is a healthy compromise, which does not place one side of the debate significantly over the other. Furthermore, Rivertorch; You're wrong. That's really all there is to it. You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't just say that those terms aren't used by one side in a debate, yet say that "your" term is universal. If there is "homophobia," and that's a justified term, then I have all right to claim that there's a "homosexual lifestyle." Am I incorrect in this assumption? —Maktesh (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are deeply mistaken, yes. Rivertorch (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As a preface, 99% of the time I am in conflict with Rivertorch regarding this nightmare POV of an article, which is a witchunt promulgation of the controversial characterization of any opposition to homosexuality as a "phobia".   But, regarding the "lifestyle" question, I must side with Rivertorch.  I believe that the body of evidence indicates that homosexuality is an embedded attribute, which is much more than a lifestyle.  IMHO folks with that attribute should able to lead good normal lives without hostility. Articles that promote the POV of villainizing (rather than a dialog with) people who believe otherwise (such as this POV mess of an article does) are delaying the day when that can happen. Sorry for the soapbox.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This thread will go nowhere. The title suggests that something needs fixing, but a large proportion of editors see nothing broken, and won't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont see how anyone using the term "homosexual lifestyle" can edit this article neutrally and unbiased. I would rather get administrator assistance to finally end the use of this page as a forum for people unhappy with being called homophobes elsewhere. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A total mis-charactizaiton of the issues raised here (which include rampant policy violations throughout the article). and of of most of the people who raised them.  And an ad hominem argument, and personal attacks as well.  You're really doing well. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Says the person who has a lot of spare time to accuse "the trio" of editors of controlling the page...Instead of sitting here forum shopping and making veiled insults, personal attacks and accusations how about you actually try improving an article with reliable sources? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying an article or this article? North8000 (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (added later) And saying that discussing on the talk page of the article in question is "forum shopping".  That's novel. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Any ツ Je no va  20  (email) 23:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that means that you are implying that such would be a first. Add that ridiculous insult to the previous three offenses.  You are too uncivilized to carry on a discussion with. (too broad, see below)  I'm signing off on this thread. North8000 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)  North8000 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying you've wasted 4 or 5 months here (on this 1 page) arguing without even presenting a reliable source so how about actually adding to the project instead like we are when we're not using up precious time replying to your assertion that this article is biased yada yada yada. If it's broke then fix it or at least provide a realistic argument so that others can. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's getting to the situation at hand, (even if I don't agree, which is fine). I should have said (just) that the behavior in this thread was too uncivilized to continue, and so I struck the broader comment. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies; I think that my comment was misunderstood. I'm simply saying that one person or group can't make a blanket statement of what terms are accurate in and of themselves. It's not necessarily appropriate to state that "homosexual lifestyle" is an invalid term, and say that "homophobia" is. What you're doing, River, is redefining words, terms, and meanings to fit your own preferences. On that note, yes, there is a homosexual lifestyle. As there is a heterosexual lifestyle. I don't think that any of us would argue that sexuality isn't a core issue in people. By using this term, I'm simply noting that there is a difference in one's romantic relationships as they identify with hetero/homo. Regardless, I see the problem with this page being that biased sources are available, but there really are no unbiased sources -nor can there be- due to the IPU argument (i.e. "Proving that something doesn't exist). —Maktesh (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Without re-igniting a lot of stuff, the gist of my ongoing argument is that there are TWO definitions for the term. 1.  The "only phobia is phobia" definition and 2.  The "all opposition is phobia" definition.  When it comes to definitions, this article gives little or no coverage to the first definition.  But more importantly, the bulk of the article implicitly states that the first definition does not exist by simply flatly identifying all opposition as "homophobia".   The best solution would be to rename the article "opposition to homosexuality" and cover that as a whole and then have just a section on homosexuality. Plan B would be to cover the missing definition more thoroughly and then more thoroughly dissect and fix the other problems of the article based on that.  Since they are structural policy violations, that makes plan "B" not as subject to the POV preferences of a few, but I still think that "Plan A"  (the name change) would be the best overall solution, but I would intend on starign finding and putting in the missing sourced material on plan B eventually if "Plan A" is not possible.  I guess another plan would be for both articles to exist, one on the "opposition" topic and one on the term, but that is less desirable. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're pretty far off the mark if you believe "there really are no unbiased sources" on this topic Maktesh. Read some of our core policies on Verifiability, aswell as WP:Reliable, WP:Weight, WP:Fringe, WP:Activist, WP:Neutrality, WP:POV to name a few. Do we accept KKK sources in the Black history month article? Nope ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Phobia ?
If a person of one sex has a clinical, psychical phobia against other persons of the same sex in general - what kind of word would be used, then ? I do know from the area of sociophobia that this actually exists, both with women (who have a real, clinical, psychical phobia towards women in general) and men (who have a real, clinical, psychical phobia towards men in general). How would this very specific kind of ... sociophobia ? - no, this isn't the right word, because it is not socially oriented - be called, then ? The problem is even greater : If I say "sociophobia", is this - citing from the article, reworking it a bit - "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward social situations" ? My complaint is that the word "phobia" is used here in an non-clinical sense, thus effectively shutting out all women and men who have clinical psychical phobia disorders towards the same sex. To put it cynically, the excluding of these people (by not allowing them to find a specific psychological term for their real phobia) is as if a real, clinical, medical, almost sociophobia-like phobia towards people of the same sex should not exist. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alrik Fassbauer, would you please make new posts to the bottom of the talk page, and no offense, but your post seems to drift off the topic of how to improve this article on homophobia. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM for more information. &mdash; MrX 23:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition clairification
So if I understand clearly, people that don't want to allow marriage and adoption for gays are considered homophobe? Because I personally am opposed to give homosexuals those rights but that doesn't mean that I'm homophobe. I mean I don't hate them, I actually have a friend who's gay and she knows that I don't agree with her lifestyle but she doesn't call me a homophobe. People that are homophobe are the ones who hurt gay people because they're gay. Your definition implies that half the world's population is homophobe? Please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.49.47 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's 3 questions at the top of this page answering this. You have your opinions and others have theirs. Some will agree with you and others will disagree. You might want to check your closing statistics also. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 14:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I read the article and it doesn't say that opposing same-sex marriage/adoption is homophobic. A large majority of the world do oppose those things but in the Western world it's less than half. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Christianity section
Speaking, again, as the user who wrote the bit that this section is based on about how there's significant scholarly debate over the historical context and the meanings of particular words, I'm still not sure this is where it belongs. Since this is the article on homophobia, not a general treatment of the Bible/Christianity/Judaism and homosexuality, I think we should focus on the parts that are about homophobia; some contextualization of such views with scholarship is necessary, as I tried to do with "historical context and interpretation is more complicated," but in the article on homophobia, I'm not sure the particulars of how the interpretation may be incorrect are relevant because we're writing about the bias that people use the interpretation to support - ie. we're already at one remove from the subject of the interpretation. Am I making sense? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As the information is routinely used to justify violence and killing of LGBTQ people I'm more inclined to leave it in unless reliable sources refute what we have. Insomesia (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not that the material is incorrect! It doesn't need to be refuted. I'm concerned about relevance. I'm also not sure what is gained on the anti-violence front (RIGHTGREATWRONGS aside) by expanding what I wrote about how the history of those passages doesn't necessarily support condemnation of LGBT people (=article topic) into the whole scholarly debate itself. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it provides focus on the core beliefs that fuel homophobia. We likely should expand the section to discuss the rise of the Christian right from Anita Bryant and delve into how anti-gay hate groups propagate anti-gay myths including spreading lies like that Jesus in some way condemned LGBTQ people. And that their anti-gay myths fuel violence against LGBTQ people. Insomesia (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're definitely right that there's so much more to say about Christian political movements against gay rights. My concern, again, is that that is the topic of the article, but that including all the nitty-gritty about conflicting interpretations is making this into an export of The Bible and homosexuality, which intersects it but doesn't totally overlap. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, in many ways it is the propagation of these lies that feeds homophobia so perhaps it needs to be made more clear. For some religious people, the basis of their homophobia is based on these lies. And these same myths are regularly featured in American politics and media like Fox News, and Christian right outlets. There is even a major church movement to bring a Supreme Court case via the IRS whereby churches explicitly tell their congregations how to vote. The traditional mantra of the Republican party is Guns, God, and Gays to drive voters to the polls. I have little faith that the The Bible and homosexuality and similar articles are up to par on these issues. They seem to be the nexus of extreme POV editing whereas this one is surprisingly stable and watched. Insomesia (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting really off-topic. Please, let's stay focused on the present content discussion - whether the scholarly debate over the interpretation of the passages that homophobic religious people use to justify their homophobia needs to be re-debated in full here. (We should also not conflate some statements with others - the statement that Jesus condemned homosexuality is a flat-out lie as far as all the evidence we have, the statement that Paul did is more nuanced and actually does depend a lot on the translation of rare words/nonce words.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To me it seems we're debating how to improve the section detailing the basis of homophobia in Christianity. This is a huge topic so I think it's worth exploring how to best serve our readers. While it's fair to point out we should have this content/context neutrally presented in other articles i think it's also fair to say we can do better at presenting a reasonably concise overview here why this topic is central to this article. Insomesia (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we do detail the basis of homophobia in Christianity. It's those passages (we don't cite them all, but we allude to there being more). You're quite right that Christian homophobia is central, but the fact of its not currently being so won't be solved by adding in the textual debate - we need to write more about how homophobic Christians act on their interpretation of these verses. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For anything approaching in neutrality, we'll need to delete the entire article and start over. But other than the problem that is present with 90% of the article (implicitly defining all lack of approval of homosexuality as a "phobia") that section doesn't seem bad. North8000 (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we stop way too short on the homophobia core in Christianity, I will think on it a bit more what i think matters most to this article and see if I can find some good supporting sources. There are plenty to choose from, but finding something concise may be the key. Insomesia (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just stick "main article: The Bible and homosexuality" above the section. Problem solved. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 08:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've explained already, there is no such thing as "(dis)approval of homosexuality", just like there is no such thing as (dis)approval of rain. You can avoid getting wet, but it's still going to rain whether you approve of it or not. Similarly, one can disapprove of homosexual relationships, but a homosexual person will still be homosexual, whether celibate or not. Supporting or disapproving of homosexual relationships ultimately boils down to recognising or denying rights of homosexual people to have a non-clandestine relationship - which is what homophobia is usually understood to mean. Surtsicna (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You've put it better than i could ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is correct for folks like us who believe that it is usually or always an embedded attribute rather than a choice / behavior. But that is just a belief, not a decided fact.   For folks who believe that it is a choice / behavior, or that in some cases it is, there certainly can be disapproval. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)