From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Items[edit]

The last sentence at the top of the page in the 'Homophobia' section of this article should be placed in the 'Opposition to the term homophobia 'part in the 'Criticism of meaning and purpose' section. It should also give the sources for which it says the term homophobia has been criticized by and give more information as to why it is criticized, how it came to be criticized, or any details other than just saying that is has been criticized.--SheaMcbubble (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You're referring, I think, to the lead or first section. (There isn't a "'Homophobia' section".) The purpose of a lead section is primarily to summarize the content of the sections that follow, so the sentence in question does belong where it is because the topic appears to be covered at some length later on. I'm not so sure it's covered well—some of it looks like undue weight to me—but that's another matter. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede change[edit]

I've already reverted twice and am not going to edit war so maybe somebody else can take a look at the change and see if they agree with it or not. I obviously don't. The article is far more encompassing the the first definition that appears in a dictionary. Not to mention it's redundant to the last sentences in the same paragraph. Capeo (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition to your reverts of EsEinsteinium seen here and here, I have also reverted EsEinsteinium here. EsEinsteinium needs to make his or her (or their) case on this talk page, or face being WP:Blocked for WP:Edit warring. As noted at the top of this talk page via its FAQ, we do not rely on dictionary definitions for initially defining homophobia. We do not rely on dictionary definitions for defining many things on Wikipedia. Dictionary definitions are often outdated, simplistic, and/or not too reflective of the literature (at least in an in-depth way). And per WP:Due weight, we go by what the vast majority of the literature states. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The dictionary aspect is already covered in the second sentence of the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The introduction of the article by usage of the widely held dictionary definition is the most definitive means of ensuring that it reflects the formal definition. Any further extensions in meaning resulting from popular usage of the term can then be utilised in the second sentence of the opening paragraph. To place the formal definition in the second sentence serves to try and diminish its significance and clearly violates WP:NEUTRAL. The argument that dictionary definitions are outdated and unsuitable for usage is moot, given that major dictionaries are updated up to four times a year in order to ensure that they reflect appropriate usage of the terms, so while they may not reflect all that such terms connote, they do serve as an appropriate formal definition. While Wikipedia is obviously not a dictionary, in order to ensure comprehensive coverage it is essential that the formal usage and definition of words are taken into account, and not side-lined due to a lack of correlation with editors' personal preferences in regards to their usage. Furthermore, two of the three Reliable Sources actually acknowledge the dictionary definition of homophobia, so the "majority of literature" appears to further support the incorporation of such a definition as the opening line of the article per WP:Due weight. EsEinsteinium (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Taking all the RS into consideration the first sentence, as it currently is, best summarizes the article, which is the point of the lede. Strictly speaking we don't even need sources in the lede but in more contentious articles it can avoid constant changes. The lede reflects the article, not formalized definitions, and the article clearly shows that the dictionary definition doesn't come close to encapsulating the subject. Capeo (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
In order for the lede to be appropriate for the encyclopaedic entry, it should appropriately define and summarise the topic in question, which is most appropriately achieved by utilising the formal definition, as supported by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which has utilised a very similar lede. Furthermore, a number of the RS that are being used to "support" the current lede actually directly acknowledge the formal definition as an accurate introduction to defining the topic, so to ignore this risks being a clear example of WP:ADVOCACY and is demonstrably most unsuitable, as it contradicts WP:NEUTRAL. The primary concern of my edit was to ensure the balance and suitability of the lede, and as such it should have been treated under WP:ROWN in good faith, and it is very unfortunate that was escalated into an WP:EDITWAR. I shall compile a new version which incorporates the last line of the introduction into the lede in order to reach a compromise EsEinsteinium (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I have now instituted a revised version of the edit in line with criticism made in regards to the previous edit. EsEinsteinium (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Which has quite rightly been reverted. The overwhelming majority of articles don't cite a dictionary definition in their lead. I wonder why this one in particular has attracted your attention? William Avery (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. The status quo definition is appropriate and due weight. This seems to be cherry picking a single source to demonstrate the whole "phobia means fear and we're not afraid of gays" thing I've seen on social media. At best, it's WP:OR to emphasize that point. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
First off, I would like to thank everyone who reported me for edit warring and "ignoring the consensus" instead of actually communicating with me to demonstrate what the consensus was - I found that to be very helpful and it is most encouraging for editors merely trying to ensure the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia for all. Contrary to the claims made by a number of editors, there are numerous sources cited, many which were already included in the article itself prior to any of my edits, which clearly acknowledge the common and appropriate definition of homophobia as in line with the dictionary definition, so if anyone is cherry picking, it is those who chose to ignore that these numerous RS exist, and instead like to pretend that the know better than the frequently updated and most prestigious dictionaries in the world, and countless RS published by authors across the political spectrum. Furthermore, if Wikipedia is truly striving to be a reliable and well-orchestrated online encyclopedia, it would be entirely appropriate to acknowledge the means by which neutrality has been achieved in more professional encyclopedias on the matter, with the likes of the Encyclopedia Britannica clearly introducing the topic by utilising the formal definition, in order to ensure neutrality and accuracy of information. I completely agree with the statement of User:EvergreenFir that the claim homophobia is still directly interpreted in line with its etymology is highly inaccurate, but for those of us who actually check the wealth of RS present on the topic, the reality is that (whether editors like it or not) the term is still applied formally to the "fear and strong dislike [or hatred] of homosexual people", and to claim otherwise contradicts the very sources cited, and is a clear demonstration of WP:ADVOCACY. The current consensus of the editors opposed to my edits appears to be clear that they value triumphing their own personal views over the fundamental principles of WP:VERIFY AND WP:NEUTRAL, but it is important to acknowledge that, in accordance with the fundamental rules of Wikipedia, WP:NEUTRAL is "non-negotiable" and "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor editoral consensus".EsEinsteinium (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Communication was done here, which you engaged in, but decided to continue editing the lead regardless. You claim that there are numerous RS which support your claim, but the burden is on you to demonstrate that. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
If one would care to observe the dates, they would notice that the only discussion that I had prior to my last edit was with Capeo. All of the editors who have further critised me will find that I have not made any further edits since they brought up their objections. The rationale of my edit is clearly supported by the first three RS already present in the article: see[1][2][3] and by four out of the seven sources in the homophobia bundle[4][5]. I can't help it if editors haven't taken the time to read the sources that were present within my edits that clearly support my reasoning. EsEinsteinium (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2017‎ (UTC)
I'm the one who added those three scholarly sources, and that was to show that homophobia concerns transgender people in addition to gay and bisexual people (since the inclusion of the transgender aspect was being contested at the time). That first source is more diverse than stating "irrational fear or hate of homosexual people." Indeed, your first sentence (the one you added to the article) focuses solely on gay/lesbian people. The three sources I provided do not, despite the quotes I focused on for the latter two sources. Your wording states "by its strictest definition." The sources you added do not support "by its strictest definition," and neither do the sources I added. So there is a bit of WP:Synthesis to what you added. The point that I and others are trying to get across to you is that homophobia is widely discussed beyond a fear of homosexual people. So, per WP:Due, it should not be the first definition, even if amended with "or hatred," "or strong dislike." The fear aspect can come second, like it currently does, and, above, I already noted that it comes second with dictionary sources. So did Capeo. There is also no need to state "homosexual people" and then later "lesbian, gay." The lead can just state " lesbian, gay," and then state "lesbian, gay" again if needed. We don't state "homosexual" or "homosexual people" unless for clarity or professionalism (such as in an article specifically about sexual orientation) or otherwise needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who added the sources, what matters is that they directly support my use of the definition to the letter. If directly writing upon what a source directly states constitutes WP:Synthesis, then all edits supported by reliable sources ever made would violate it, so you are clearly throwing that at me to try and distract from the fact that I have demonstrated my edit to be fully substantiated by the sources in question and doesn't violate any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I only added "by its strictest definition" to try and appease those in the Wikipedia community who would endlessly critise the phrasing of the lede - which funnily enough you have resorted to now that I it couldn't be clearer that I have numerous RS backing up my revision. Clearly I should have read the article Appeasement first and realised that trying to reach a compromise that worked for all in line with WP:CON was futile. The community asked for me to discuss my edits - I have now done so; the community has asked me to explain my rationale - I have done so; the community has asked me to abide by the Wikipedia policies and guidelines - I have done so; the community demanded that I use reliable sources that support my edits - I have done so; the community has asked for me to cite the sources - I have done so, posting links to the very sources on this talk page, and yet still the community refuses to acknowledge the facts in front of them which clearly support my case. It would have been much easier if you had lowered that facade and said outright that nothing anyone ever said would change your own personal views on the article, and as such you would never give even the slightest leeway on the matter. It might be helpful to add that to the FAQs under the heading "Why has this article misrepresented the definition of homophobia for the last 10 years?", but wait... that would require admitting that in spite of the community's claims to strive for verifiability WP:VERIFY, neutrality WP:NEUTRAL and due weight WP:DUE, the editing community actually don't care what the numerous reliable sources say[1][2][3][4][6], and don't care what has been clearly demonstrated to be the professional and accurate means of addressing the topic, as shown by the likes of Encyclopedia Britannica[7]. I have been rendered powerless to amend the inaccuracy and apparent bias of this article, as the "community" over-rules and ignores any of my views that do not comply with their desire to ignore the truth, in direct contradiction to the very central Wikipedia polices created to prevent this hippocracy. I came into this edit with the best of intentions, hoping to preserve the noble policies and principles upon which Wikipedia was supposedly founded, and presumed that others would do likewise - but clearly I was wrong. I have done all I can to try and rectify this article, but I can't make those who refuse to open their eyes see. EsEinsteinium (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Why the sources were added and what they address (meaning beyond fear) does matter since they were not added to support what you are going on about. The fact that the literature generally treats homophobia as broader than fear also matters, but you obviously don't care about that even though you keep wrongly citing WP:Due. And how do you think you are not engaging in WP:Synthesis when you are adding "by its strictest definition," which is not supported by the sources? As for the rest, except for stating that your characterizations regarding the experienced editors (including me) are wrong, I don't have anything else to state to you since you are clearly set in your viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You know, we've been down this road before. I don't have time to sift through the archives today, but I'm getting a distinct feeling of déjà vu. EsEinsteinium, please don't insert any more "compromises". You've been edit warring, so at this point you need to stop editing the lede entirely because you do not have consensus for any of the changes you've made. If you can cogently and concisely propose a revision here on the talk page, then we can discuss it, but before you do, please carefully read what the users above are saying about dictionary definitions. This has been discussed previously, consensus was clear, and it hasn't changed. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
EsEinsteinium, why don't you actually take the time to read WP:Neutral? Like I tell everyone else who misunderstands that policy, being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Per its WP:Due weight section, it means giving the vast majority of our weight to what the vast majority of the literature states. This is why you trying to prioritize dictionary definitions over what the literature usually reports on this topic is a WP:Due violation. Essays or supplement pages such as WP:ROWN and WP:ADVOCACY are not WP:Policies and guidelines. I have been known to cite WP:ADVOCACY (which was only recently updated from an essay to a supplement page) as well, but WP:ADVOCACY is not what is going on here. At the WP:Edit warring noticeboard, you've indicated that you won't continue to edit war on this matter. I hope that is the case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
For your information I have indeed read the article - multiple times, but it appears that some of those who oppose my edits do not appear to care what the rules actually state, but instead directly contradict them or try to ignore sections of them in order to support their views. Arbitrarily spitting out un-grounded accusations of rule violation is counterproductive, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from perpetuating in doing so in the discussion on this article. EsEinsteinium (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2017‎ (UTC)
I've already said my opinion on this but I'll try to be more concise: the lede summarizes the article, the article encompasses far more than a simple dictionary definition, thus giving precedence to an over-simplified dictionary definition in the first sentence of the lede makes no sense. There, done. Now, EsEinsteinium, it's tough to buy these arguments that you were unaware that your edits were against consensus. The first clue was me reverting you. That unto itself denotes a lack of consensus. See the BRD cycle. You then reverted me, I reverted you and invited you to the talk page where I went, joined by Flyer22. You didn't engage on the talk page and proceeded to revert again. Then Flyer22 reverted you and you finally came to the talk page, promptly ignored us, and then tried to reinstate nearly the same edit, glaringly without consensus. This is one of those rare instances where a dictionary definition is valuable. Look up consensus. Capeo (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the times, you will notice that nothing was said on the talk page by you, or anyone else for that matter, about the lede until AFTER my penultimate edit - please check the facts before throwing around false accusations. The sole comment which I received from anyone other than yourself prior to my last edit was one from Flyer22 Reborn, which I took as positive advice in regards to how it would be necessary to justify revisions to the article, as I naively assumed that they, like myself, had the best interests of the accuracy and due weight of the article at heart, which I mistakenly took into account. Then, having justified my edit on the talk page in line with the criticism you gave, and the "guidance" given by Flyer22 Reborn, and rectified any clear contradictions to the issues that had been raised, an hour later I made the ONLY EDIT which I performed following the initiation of any discussion on the talk page. Following a torrent of criticism and accusations on the Administrators' noticeboard from a number of editors, and simultaneous criticism on the talk page from such editors, only two of which had any communication at all with me beforehand, it then became apparent that there was more widespread opposition to any editorial improvement to the lede of the article, and following that, I made a sum total of NO EDITS. There is nothing to buy - it's all there in black and white. EsEinsteinium (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
EsEinsteinium, WP:Neutral is not a Wikipedia article. It is a policy. And if you read it and it still do not understand its WP:Due weight portion, I don't know what else to tell you. But do look at this similar discussion at Talk:Nigger. Although the lead uses a dictionary source in its lead (and not for the first sentence), the discussion I linked to shows that there can be issues with using dictionary sources for topics, and the dictionary source in the lead of the Nigger article is specifically used for how the word originated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
EsEinsteinium, I cannot help being intrigued by your implication that you have a better grasp of Wikipedia policies than the rest of us. You've been here for eight months; the five users who have engaged with you in this thread have all been here for years, and we collectively have made 11,494 times more edits than you. This is not to say that you might not be right and the rest of us might not all be wrong—stranger things have happened in the history of the universe—but it seems quite unlikely. Before lecturing established editors further over their alleged failings, please consider reading the archives of this talk page. (There are 14 pages of them.) If you do, you'll see that your arguments are neither new nor unanswered. RivertorchFIREWATER 07:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it is because with my more recent exposure to the policies I am able to take them at face value, without having my view of them twisted by over a decade of utilising them to best suit my own editorial preferences. EsEinsteinium (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong. Probably why you did not address my comparison above regarding the Nigger article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)



  1. ^ a b Maurianne Adams, Lee Anne Bell, Pat Griffin (2007). Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice. Routledge. pp. 198–199. ISBN 1135928509. Retrieved December 27, 2014. Because of the complicated interplay among gender identity, gender roles, and sexual identity, transgender people are often assumed to be lesbian or gay (See Overview: Sexism, Heterosexism, and Transgender Oppression). ... Because transgender identity challenges a binary conception of sexuality and gender, educators must clarify their own understanding of these concepts. ... Facilitators must be able to help participants understand the connections among sexism, heterosexism, and transgender oppression and the ways in which gender roles are maintained, in part, through homophobia. 
  2. ^ a b Claire M. Renzetti, Jeffrey L. Edleson (2008). Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence. SAGE Publications. p. 338. ISBN 1452265917. Retrieved December 27, 2014. In a culture of homophobia (an irrational fear of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender [GLBT] people), GLBT people often face a heightened risk of violence specific to their sexual identities. 
  3. ^ a b Kerri Durnell Schuiling, Frances E. Likis (2011). Women's Gynecologic Health. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. pp. 187–188. ISBN 0763756377. Retrieved December 27, 2014. Homophobia is an individual's irrational fear or hate of homosexual people. This may include bisexual or transgender persons, but sometimes the more distinct terms of biphobia or transphobia, respectively, are used. 
  4. ^ a b
  5. ^ Newport, Frank (3 April 2015). "Religion, Same-Sex Relationships and Politics in Indiana and Arkansas". Gallup. Retrieved 12 June 2016. 
  6. ^ Newport, Frank (3 April 2015). "Religion, Same-Sex Relationships and Politics in Indiana and Arkansas". Gallup. Retrieved 12 June 2016. 
  7. ^ "Encyclopedia Britannica on homophobia". 

Inaccuracy To Be Corrected[edit]

I don't know how to edit (or if I even can), but the following inaccuracy seems worthy of correction by someone who knows how.

The article states: "The Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains some passages commonly interpreted as condemning homosexuality or same-gender sexual relations."

I propose the "especially the Old Testament" portion should be removed, and a reference should be made to this page:

The view expressed in the current version is a common misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that Leviticus gets cited at least as often as the allegedly relevant verses in any of the other books, Old or New, but it's only an impression. Clearly, your impression differs. Can you point to a reliable source? Incidentally, I just looked at Homosexuality in the New Testament and Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible, and both are a mess. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for highlighting that inaccuracy. Indeed there are verses in the New Testament which are also commonly interpreted as condemning homosexuality or same-sex relationships, such as Romans 1:26-27 and Matthew 19:4-6, and as such I have cited these passages and removed the clause referring specifically to the Old Testament. EsEinsteinium (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I should say you're welcome, but I reverted you. Your wording lacked neutrality. RivertorchFIREWATER 01:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)