Talk:Homophobia

3rd sentence of Lead

The third sentence of the first Lead paragraph currently reads:

In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."

This seems a little off to me for a couple of reasons. First off, the beginning paragraph of the Lead is supposed to define the the subject generally without getting too specific. (WP:MOSBEGIN) This sentence is a very specific direct quote from a single person. (Unfortunately I don't know enough of the sources to know whether it is NPOV, but the "dehumanize" and "deny their humanity" bits seem a harsher than, say, what I get when I look up homophobia on Miriam Webster or Dictionary.com.) I think it also bugs me because the language seems rhetorical instead of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias (See WP:Quotations).

Second, per WP:LEAD, the Lead should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. I've read through the body of the article and I can't find anything in the body about dehumanizing or denying humanity. The only thing in the body I can find that resembles the quote in the Lead is in the "Distribution of attitudes" section where a study found that "hatred of gay people, anti-Semitism, and racism are 'likely companions.'" Even then, the statement in the Lead is much stronger than what the body is saying.

Anyway, I suggest that the 3rd sentence of the Lead should be moved to the body, possibly to the "Efforts to combat homophobia" section. I'd make the edit myself, but I seem to remember this being a fairly controversial article, so I figured I'd just propose it here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. It is somewhat UNDUE in the first Lead paragraph and can be moved to "Efforts to combat homophobia" or "Distribution of attitudes". Alternatively, it can be moved to last paragraph of the Lead.--В и к и T 20:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would agree it's out of place in the lead, but is a reasonably notable opinion to go in the body. William Avery (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Agree. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, how does this look? It's a direct copy-paste, but I tried to find the most relevant place to put it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That placement looks all right to me. If that section can be fleshed out a little more, I can see some mention of it (not necessarily King's words, specifically) being appropriate for the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm good with it. It always made me uncomfortable playing the race comparison card in the lead. —Maktesh ^(talk) 05:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but the "decision" to move vital info was not announced to all of the major contributors of the article, I being the author of most of the lead. The quote is specific to homophobia, nothing more, nothing less, hence its importance to and position in the lead. Consensus had been reached a very, very long time ago on this inclusion and the onus is on those who go against the consensus to read the talk archives. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the onus is on CJ Withers to point to a relevant discussion that demonstrates consensus and makes obvious how the reverted edit contradicts it). And there is no policy requiring announcing anything to major contributors. NE Ent 23:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:Status Quo might apply. Until North8000 came along this article was surprisingly stable, then the talkpages were rendered rather useless. Now that a campaign has been waged that there must be dire structural changes we're seeing a concerted effort to find problems even where few in any exist. All articles need, or will see, improving with time. I'm not convinced that it reaches the level of concern flailed about but why don't those who do remain here seek to act cordially and accept that just maybe the article itself has been free of drama is that is doesn't have major problems that require gnashing of teeth. Any reasonable request - as always - will be entertained. If it helps the article then great. Insomesia (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No, status quo is an essay, CCC is policy. Given his agreement to not edit here, bringing up North8000 is highly inappropriate. Let's discuss the articles, not personalities. NE Ent 12:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Bringing up a fact that has dramatically affected this talkpage is always appropriate, and you have to actually have a consensus measured to determine a change has taken place. Two against one is hardly a consensus arrived at. Insomesia (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

@CJ Withers, Sorry about that, I'm quite new to the article and didn't know that you had written the Lead. Would you mind pointing me to the specific archive that has the old consensus, because I am interested in reading it, if it's not too long. Also, I would appreciate it if you would address the points that I made above (about how the sentence does not summarize the article, is too specific for the 1st paragraph, and is fairly rhetorical in tone, which isn't quite appropriate for the Lead section). ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. The lede is supposed to summarize the body and it doesn't make much sense to use a quote from another person to summarize an article they didn't write. Sædon^talk 01:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• @CJ See WP:CCC. Sædon^talk 01:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, stability and consensus were already acheived; please read archives as that it why they are kept. Let me correct the confused/misled: the purpose of encyclopedic "leads" is to introduce the subject first by defining it and then by explaining what the article is about by highlighting some main points. If the lead were simply a summary or outline, it would be called such. I agree with Insomnia in that such recent edits with drive-by consensus are disruptive. --CJ Withers (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please link to any Wikipedia policy regarding "stability." NE Ent 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." - MrX 22:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The material should remain in the lede unless a consensus forms to move it lower in the article. At the moment, there does not seem to be such a consensus. As for myself, I'm on the fence and open to compelling arguments to sway me one way or the other. - MrX 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems there's a lot of history here that I'm not aware of. Regarding the policies, I agree with both MrX and NE Ent. Consensus can change, but until there's a clear consensus here the article should stay as it is now. If we're just counting heads here, I think we have Wikiwind, William Avery, Born2cycle, Rivertorch, and myself who are ok with the move. CJ Withers opposes, MrX is on the fence, and NE Ent hasn't expressed an opinion. I personally think that the best way to move forward would be to give and evaluate policy-based arguments. I feel I've given some fair arguments above that haven't been addressed by anyone opposing the move. As for CJ Withers argument above, I don't believe that stability is a good enough reason to not try and improve stuff, and I'm not convinced by the argument that if the Lead were a summary it would be called such. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You can put me on the fence, too. I agree with CJ Withers that it's important to define what an article is about, as well as to summarize its contents, in the lede. (I'm paraphrasing, CJ; I know that's not exactly what you said.) I do think that the Coretta Scott King bit helps greatly to define the concept; I just think it may be preferable to define it without relying on a direct quote from any one identified person, no matter her expertise on the concept and no matter how eloquent her words may be. I also think that in defining the concept we might do better sticking to what the relevant scientific fields (e.g., psychology, sociology) have to say. Other figures associated with MLK have expressed opinions contrary to Coretta's, and I'd hate to see the article devolve into a tit-for-tat, "she said, he said" attempt at "balance". Rivertorch (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I think Adjwilley acted very constructively here, by proposing something on the talk page, gaining agreement, and making the change. The idea that past major contributors would need to be individually notified every time an article is edited is neither practical nor necessary; they do not own the article. Consensus is not set in stone, and the above discussion demonstrates strong support for the edit, with only one editor clearly opposed to it.

Personally, I think the quote is informative and interesting, but it always struck me as jarring in its present location in the lead paragraph. I support moving it to the body for now. I'm not necessarily opposed to reintroducing it somewhere in the lead section, but it needs context. We need to cover the basics before we start introducing commentary from individuals.--Trystan (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's jarring, in part, because there's too much peacocking of CSK before getting to the quote; Author! Activist! My first preference would be moving it into the article, but if it's to remain in the lead, the introduction to the quote should be much shorter: change "In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that" to "Coretta Scott King has explained". Because we're a wiki, users unfamiliar with her can just click on the link. NE Ent 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree; we need more context for the quote, not less. The information about King explains why a quote from her is notable and warrants inclusion. The text should make sense as read, without requiring reading another article first.--Trystan (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that more context should be added, and I also support the move. —Maktesh ^(talk) 04:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm against it in the lead, but, more importantly, the idea expressed above that someone must be consulted because that individual wrote the lead is essentially the antithesis of the community development of a Wiki. It also seems to run afoul of WP:OWN. --Nouniquenames 05:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2012

Request the following passage be ADDED to the Homophobia page in the Distinctions and Proposed Alternatives section:

Stephen M. White and Louis R. Franzini introduced the related term of “heteronegativism” to refer to the considerable range of negative feelings that some gay individuals may hold and express toward heterosexuals. This term is preferred to “heterophobia” because it does not imply a fear-based constellation of negative thoughts and emotions, as the corresponding term “homophobia” correctly implies in the attitudes of prejudiced heterosexuals.

Reference:

White, S.M., & Franzini, L.R. (1999). Heteronegativism? The attitudes of gay men and lesbians toward heterosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 37 (1), 65-79.

December 3, 2012

COI of Editor: Louis R. Franzini, Ph.D.-- Co-author of referenced journal article— Preceding unsigned comment added by LRFranzini (talk • contribs) 3 December 2012

Note: I have copied the above text from User_talk:LRFranzini as it was originally placed there by a new user that I believe was acting in good faith. I may or may not respond to this request and have no prejudice against any other autoconfirmed editor in good standing responding to this request as s/he sees fit. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I added it to the Opposition > "Heterophobia" section which seemed more appropriate. - MrX 19:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The last edit summary [1] cites the quote in this edit request, but the quote here isn't faithful to the language used in the study's extract. The extract clearly states that his study found "less phobia", which is very different from saying that he found no phobia at all. Thus, the current language in the article deviates from the source cited and needs to be changed for NPOV. Belchfire-TALK 21:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean this (emphasis added):

Each group was given its respective “phobia” questionnaire. Hypotheses that homosexual participants would report less phobia and more negative experience than heterosexuals and that gay women would report more phobia than gay men were supported.

If so, I don't think this correlates to the actual text submitted by Dr. Franzini (above). - MrX 22:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I shouldn't have to point this out, but this Talk page is not a valid source for the article, I don't care who posts on it. We need a link to the full text of the article for verification. Failing that, we have the abstracts that are available online, which do not support the current version of the article. Belchfire-TALK 22:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite understanding the nature of this dispute, but I looked up the article's text online, and these paragraph seemed relevant, since they're setting out the differences between homo/hetero phobia/negativity.

First, the most commonly used term ‘‘homophobia’’ unfortunately implies a pathological level of fear or dread which may overstate the attitudes and emotions of some people. An alternative term, ‘‘homonegativism’’ (Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), refers to the entire spectrum of negative sentiment toward homosexuals, from dislike through hostility and hatred to actual fear. We offer the corresponding term, ‘‘heteronegativism,’’ as it applies to gay men and lesbians who dislike, hate, or fear heterosexuals. ‘‘Homophobia’’ and ‘‘heterophobia’’ will only be used in the present study in reference to feelings of extreme, unreasonable fear or dread of people of the other orientation and to refer to scores on assessment instruments. Otherwise, the more encompassing and less clinical terms ‘‘homonegativism’’ and ‘‘heteronegativism’’ will be used to refer to the range of negative feelings that people of one sexual orientation may hold toward people of the other.

The second caution regards the appropriateness of the use of the term ‘‘heterophobia’’ in reference to homosexuals. It is clear that many homosexuals are often subject to discrimination and violence. Fear of particular hostile individuals or threatening situations is clearly quite rational. However, the generalization of such fear to the innocuous social situations typically described on questionnaires could be considered irrational.

While the terms ‘‘phobia’’ and ‘‘negativism’’ are by no means interchangeable, because phobia is considered a part of the more encompassing negativism, theoretical statements regarding negativism would generally be expected to hold true for phobia as well. Thus, the expectation that gay men and lesbian women would experience less negativism toward heterosexuals than the reverse suggests that homosexuals would also report less phobia than heterosexuals. (pages 66-67)

I hope this helps. Also, @Belchfire, I think you mean "abstract", not "extract". ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks. Belchfire-TALK 22:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative meaning

It should probably be noted at some point that fear of homosexuals is not the only meaning for the word "homophobia." "Homo-" is Greek for same, and "phobia" is fear. Thus "homophobia" can and is used to describe the fear of sameness of monotony. I'm having trouble finding a date when first used in this sense, but sources on this definition http://phobialist.com/ , http://guidewhois.com/2011/04/fear-of-monotony/ , http://www.fun-with-words.com/phobias_e-h.html . I am not suggesting that it should be a major part of this article, but it should at least be given a sentence under the "Origins" section. I recommend this at the end of "Origins:"

Homophobia can also be used to describe the fear of monotony or sameness. This definition is not commonly used, and due to misunderstanding chronophobia (fear of boredom) may be used in many cases.

This could all be sourced to the guidewhois link, is short enough not detract from the more common meaning, and links to a subject better equipped to handle this definition. I do feel that detracting from the more common meaning would be a mistake.

Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwawaygull (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts? (1) What is guidewhois.com, and what makes it a reliable source? (2) I This seems farfetched and trivial, at best. Rivertorch (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious: do you object to words like "butterfly" because butter does not fly? Regardless of what the individual components mean, "homophobia" means "bigotry against gay people." On the Wikipedia we are supposed to go with what words mean, not what we want them to mean. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

AP

Please explain to me how stating that one of the biggest news sources in the country is removing the term 'homophobia' from their Style Book, quoting and explaining their stated reason as to why, and noting the alternative term they will is a violation of WP:NPOV. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It should be mentioned. Additional (not blog) sources Chicago Tribune, La Times .La Times Baltimore Sun NE Ent 19:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC) updated NE Ent 19:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Black Kite's edit summary is false. Politico is not a blog; it's a news organization. The information about AP is neutral, factual, supported by a reliable source(s), and it's relevant to the section. Apparently, however, it's inconvenient to those holding a particular POV. Belchfire-TALK 19:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Let's keep the discussion focused on content, not the perceived motivations of other editors. NE Ent 19:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPADE. Belchfire-TALK 19:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to mention APs change of heart, but let's stick to the facts, not mention some random AP staffer's POV, and source it to something a little better than politico. There are plenty out there. And, of course, there are many that suggest APs change is down to political interference. Balance, always balance. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling a deputy editor a "random staffer" is a bit BLPish. NE Ent 19:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@Belchfire - That's weird, because it says blog at the top of the page and in the url: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/ap-nixes-homophobia-ethnic-cleansing-150315.html - MrX 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Random staffer"? Per the description AP Deputy Standards Editor, it looks to me like the person quoted was in a position to speak for the organization on its reason for the change, which means it was perfectly appropriate to include and, again, appropriate for the section. Belchfire-TALK 19:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Politico is a news organization therefore a RS source. Whether it's better or worse than the Baltimore Sun, for example, is an opinion, not a fact. The way to strike balance is to include some comments about the APs action, not edit war over the insertion. NE Ent 19:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A blog on an otherwise reliable news organisation's website is not a reliable source, it's an op-ed. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)