Talk:Homophobia: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Homophobia/Archive 14) (bot |
→Heterophobia: new section |
||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
[[Special:Contributions/50.45.147.246|50.45.147.246]] ([[User talk:50.45.147.246|talk]]) 18:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC) |
[[Special:Contributions/50.45.147.246|50.45.147.246]] ([[User talk:50.45.147.246|talk]]) 18:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
:{{not done}} - Please be specific about what edit you are requesting. <small>(''bias'' is a noun or a verb; I think the word you are looking for is the adjective ''biased'')</small>- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 19:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC) |
:{{not done}} - Please be specific about what edit you are requesting. <small>(''bias'' is a noun or a verb; I think the word you are looking for is the adjective ''biased'')</small>- [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 19:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Heterophobia == |
|||
It shows definite bias to assume the term "Heterophobia" is used only by "LGBT rights opponents". It should be changed to more neutral wording, unless neutrality is no longer a concern |
Revision as of 21:00, 11 January 2014
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homophobia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Homophobia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Homophobia at the Reference desk. |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homophobia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Contradiction
The start of this article says homosexuals are more likely to be victims of hate crime than any other minority but the article on Asexuality says asexuals are more likely to be discriminated against. What to do? 86.41.75.170 (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The term "hate crime" especially as it used in the common speech refers to hate assault. Discrimination is far broader of a term. Discrimination could refer to refusing to rent a house to someone because of their minority status or refusing to treat them in a hospital. However I do not believe that asexuals are more likely to be discriminated against. I do however believe that Asexual erasure is an issue but that is a whole different concept.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Asexuality" does not say that asexuals face more discrimination but quotes one study that says they do and one that says they do not. That article should explain which view is most commonly held, but that is an issue for its talk page. TFD (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Map
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Aless2899 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Insertion of this image on other articles in currently being disputed so such a request should not be taken until the matter has been resolved. From my reading, it seems the image fails the policies on original research.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Image should be deleted as WP:OR - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I second Knowledgekid87. Too much original research to incorporate into any article. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 00:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- thirded EvergreenFir (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Even the strongest consensus here will not lead to the file's being deleted; it is hosted on Commons and would need to be nominated for deletion there. I think the image is inappropriate for this or any other Wikipedia article, not so much because it's OR per se (we tend to allow more leeway with things like maps and graphs, as long as the information they convey is clearly presented, verifiable, and not misleading) but because it's vague, confusing, and arguably speculative. I'd encourage Aless2899 to consider working on a revised version, based on simpler criteria that are less subjective, and to solicit feedback before adding it to articles. Rivertorch (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Rivertorch - I understand the use of contributors creating maps that compile information for heuristic purposes, but this seems to be completely WP:OR in that the user created their own index. AFAIK, the formula they used is not used anywhere else. If it is, a citation would be very useful and I would totally accept it as a heuristic. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I can't think offhand of an article where I'd accept it, heuristic or not. The formula used to appears to be based on subjective criteria, some of them hard to quantify or even to classify, and that means it wouldn't be a good candidate to illustrate any Wikipedia article, imo. Still, I think it's a fascinating map that with some tweaks might conceivably be useful for another project (e.g., Wikivoyage? idk). I see that discussion has also taken place at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 150#Wikipedia's obvious biases and prejudices where, if you skim past the offensive nonsense, you'll find some points relevant to what you're saying. In any event, there's not much point discussing the map here: consensus is not to include it in this article, and that's unlikely to change. Rivertorch (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Rivertorch - I understand the use of contributors creating maps that compile information for heuristic purposes, but this seems to be completely WP:OR in that the user created their own index. AFAIK, the formula they used is not used anywhere else. If it is, a citation would be very useful and I would totally accept it as a heuristic. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Even the strongest consensus here will not lead to the file's being deleted; it is hosted on Commons and would need to be nominated for deletion there. I think the image is inappropriate for this or any other Wikipedia article, not so much because it's OR per se (we tend to allow more leeway with things like maps and graphs, as long as the information they convey is clearly presented, verifiable, and not misleading) but because it's vague, confusing, and arguably speculative. I'd encourage Aless2899 to consider working on a revised version, based on simpler criteria that are less subjective, and to solicit feedback before adding it to articles. Rivertorch (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- thirded EvergreenFir (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Concerning the word Homophobia (and Heterophobia)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey guys. Reading through these archives a bit and seeing that this comes up now and then. I invite you all (probably to my detriment) to join the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#The_meaning_of_words_and_that_meanings_destruction For my personal opinion I believe both articles are named incorrectly and should be merged or filed under "Discrimination and/or hatred of Homosexuals" and "Heterosexuals" respectively. Peace and love to you all! :) 46.59.34.174 (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Homophobia is not just discrimination. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. It includes hatred, prejudice and what not too. But all those things have their own place. Prejudice can be filed under the general article of homosexuality and so can religious opposition. For example under "criticism of homosexuality" or something. Same as for heterosexuality or heteronormativity. This is not about you guys who edit this article but about everyone and I posted a similiar notice under terrorism and I am discussing it under chemophobia and somewhat under an other article too. It is about what words are, how they are constructed and in which context we should use what word and why. I'm posting here and under terrorism because I see it has been an issue in the past. I see you are a student of sociology with a PhD! Please comment there concerning my note that psychologists use it with a different meaning than some sociologists. Please explain why you as a sociologist use it as you do and why you believe the suffix -phobia is a good one if it is and what criteria you sociologists use in the formation of new concepts and words in your studies. If you want to :P 46.59.34.174 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Is this not also currently considered to be the main article covering opposition to homosexuality, opposition of the type that does not include fear or hatred? North8000 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Propose closing this thread. Rivertorch (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Is this not also currently considered to be the main article covering opposition to homosexuality, opposition of the type that does not include fear or hatred? North8000 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. It includes hatred, prejudice and what not too. But all those things have their own place. Prejudice can be filed under the general article of homosexuality and so can religious opposition. For example under "criticism of homosexuality" or something. Same as for heterosexuality or heteronormativity. This is not about you guys who edit this article but about everyone and I posted a similiar notice under terrorism and I am discussing it under chemophobia and somewhat under an other article too. It is about what words are, how they are constructed and in which context we should use what word and why. I'm posting here and under terrorism because I see it has been an issue in the past. I see you are a student of sociology with a PhD! Please comment there concerning my note that psychologists use it with a different meaning than some sociologists. Please explain why you as a sociologist use it as you do and why you believe the suffix -phobia is a good one if it is and what criteria you sociologists use in the formation of new concepts and words in your studies. If you want to :P 46.59.34.174 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Where is the 'Response'? This is clearly a bias page. On the page for 'Gay Agenda' you have a 'Response', and again are clearly bias. This is not balanced or simply fact based reporting. 50.45.147.246 (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not done - Please be specific about what edit you are requesting. (bias is a noun or a verb; I think the word you are looking for is the adjective biased)- MrX 19:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Heterophobia
It shows definite bias to assume the term "Heterophobia" is used only by "LGBT rights opponents". It should be changed to more neutral wording, unless neutrality is no longer a concern
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- B-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- B-Class Discrimination articles
- High-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles