Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-24 Homophobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Homophobia State: Closed Requested By: CaveatLector Other Parties: Mangoe, Rbj, Yonmei, Haiduc DanB DanD Mediated By: Selmo and Wikizach Comments: Case underway; could proceed to Medcom

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-10-24 Homophobia 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion 1.4.1 Yonmei 1.4.2 CaveatLector 1.4.3 Rbj 1.4.4 Outside opinion by User:DanB DanD 1.4.5 Mangoe 1.5 Provocative and disruptive comments 1.6 Article dispute or user dispute? 1.7 Selmo's Response 2 NPOV 3 "Pejorative" 4 Recess

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-10-24 Homophobia

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: CaveatLector^Talk 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Homophobia (Talk:Homophobia)

Who's involved?

User:Mangoe, User:Rbj, User:Yonmei, User:CaveatLector and User:Haiduc, User:MPS with other editors sometimes joining.

What's going on?

There are two sides, basically. One claims that placing a paragraph in the introduction talking about the viewpoint of the 'critics of the term (homophobia)' amounts to a POV disclaimer for those who feel uncomfortable being identified as homophobes. The other believes that leaving out the disclaimer and/or placing a mention of the word's use to sometimes refer to opponents of the LGBT rights movement amounts to an 'LGBTQ POV' swing. This is very condensed, and I'd like to ask the mediator if he/she/hir would skim the latest discussions on the talk page.

What would you like to change about that?

The debate is going nowhere. The two sides seem to have reached an impasse. As you can see, this has gone on for some time, and has gotten to the point where I, personally, am overly frustrated with the fact that all editors (including me) seem to be talking in circles.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Please conduct the mediation on the article's talk page.

[edit] Mediator response

To begin the case, I wish to ask all individual parties their opinion in this matter. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

Well, for a start we could use webster's defination to define the term. If anyone can find a reputible source to state what "critics of the term" sya, link to it here, and I will try to write a netural explaination.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Yonmei

1. Given the controversy around homophobia and homosexuality, this page should take as a given the broadly accepted fact within the scientific/medical field that homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation: and that (whatever the cause of a person's sexual orientation) sexual orientation is not chosen.

2. It follows from (1) that the appropriate model for the introductory 'graphs of the Homophobia article is the corresponding Racism article: which would describe without any detail or POV pushing how the word "homophobia" is used, with reference to dictionary definitions: fear and hatred of, and prejudice against, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals

3. The introductory 'graphs should also briefly acknowledge, as the Racism article does, that the term homophobic, when used to describe someone who supports homophobia, has become a pejorative term, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always controversial.

4. And that's all the introductory 'graphs should contain. (I'm aware that I have argued for and put forward slightly different versions of the introductory 'graphs, but having had some time to think without editing, 1,2, and 3 are what I think would be the best: modelled strongly on the Racism article.)

5. I think that the rest of the article needs a major rewrite, to include (for example) the homophobic prejudice that leads to supporting denial of certain civil rights specifically to LGBT people, and an outline at least of how some people feel that their prejudice against LGBT people ought not to be described as homophobia because it comes from a "moral disapproval", or a judgement based on religious belief. It might be best if those of us involved in the dispute could agree on sections that we want in this page and divide them between ourselves for writing.

Yonmei 10:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: Well, this article / this Talk page certainly shouldn't have had to become a place where we discuss the normal range of human sexual orientation. It should be a place where we discuss the word homophobia and how it is used. This entire argument has been started and fuelled by people who vehemently do not want their POV to be identified as homophobic. But since these people are participating in this argument, we are necessarily having that argument: though I agree that we shouldn't have to. We should simply be documenting how homophobia is used, and its range of meaning, rather than fighting people who believe that their beliefs should not be called homophobic.Yonmei 20:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CaveatLector

It's rather obvious that this case is one of the most difficult on the mediation board, and I'd like to take a moment to thank Selmo for taking it. I believe that Wikipedia should remain morally neutral on all matters. I personally believe that the innate nature of homosexuality alone does not remove moral implications from it (plenty of things that are innate have moral implications). There are much better arguments to use if I wanted to prove that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. I'll be up front and say that I also believe that moral implications against homosexuality are, by definition, homophobic (this is using the dictionary definition, as well). However, I do not believe that this article should say that there are or are not moral implications to homosexuality. I think it the article on Homosexuality should report that there people who think there are moral implications, but that isn't even the place of this article. This article deals specifically with anti-LGBTQ prejudice. The body of the article should mostly contain the history of homophobia (that is, anti-gay/LGBTQ discrimination). It should also mention that some 'critics' of homosexuals are offended by the term and do not think that it applies to them. However, it should not advocate whether they are wrong or right. In the article for spade, we call spades 'spades'. If enough 'spades' got together and started protesting that they don't like being called 'spades' for one reason or the other, I would advocate for including a paragraph within the article that talked about these spades who disliked being called spades. However, that paragraph should not argue anything. It should merely present the information on these spades who don't like being called spades and allow the reader to draw his/her/hir own conclusions. This article should not suggest that homosexuality is morally 'right' or morally 'wrong'. It should only present the facts and history on homophobia, and allow the reader to draw the conclusions they will. As it stands now, the article includes within its introduction a sentence that acts as a sort of disclaimer for those who hold anti-LGBTQ beliefs, but do not wish to be called homophobic. It is THIS placement that is POV, not the placement WITHIN the article. CaveatLector^Talk 15:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rbj

as per WP:LEAD#Length: "two or three paragraphs" - Two short paragraphs of two sentences each, is a very appropriate length for the intro.

as per WP:WPINAD: "an article can and should always begin with a good definition or a clear description of the topic" - Homophobia should begin with the dictionary definition (as the first sentence) from a widely used and easily confirmed (hopefully online) dictionary. For there to be any interpreted definition in the first sentence, that would reflect someone's POV and there would be immediate fights about whose POV it would be. If the initial definition comes right out of the dictionary, no single side can complain that there is a POV slant to it. That is also probably why there should be the word "unreasoning" or "irrational" should be in the first sentence. (That weakens the normative use of the word to apply to rational and reasoning people who disapprove of homosexuals or oppose political/social goals of gay activism. Mangoe wanted it in there, he/she is actually right about it, but in an obviously failed effort to compromise with the other side, I had not pushed to put it in.) But no side should get to decide on the initial (clinical) definition. That's sentence #1.

as per WP:LEAD#Suggestions: "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." - I assert here that the clinical (dictionary) definition is not how the word is most often used. And I further assert that, by definition, if it is not the conventional, orthodox dictionary definition, that use even if more often is colloquial. Indeed, User:Yonmei has on multiple occasions used the word "homophobic" to describe or evaluate an opposing argument which, to my mind, proves the point that this non-dictionary use of the word is the most common use. That means that such use must have at least a mention in the intro. But, for the sake of accuracy, the intro must not merely mention this colloquial use without some qualification that the use is colloquial. Further, I assert that it is obvious that the use of "homophobia" and particularly "homophobic" is disparaging or pejorative. When someone calls another "homophobic", it is silly to think that it is a compliment or a term of endearment. It is an insult. Now if this disparaging use of "homophobic" or "homophobia" that is not the dictionary definition verbatim is included without qualification in the intro, that has the effect of defining (to the reader) that this disparaging and colloquial use is the normative definition. That is a POV problem and an accuracy problem.

as per WP:LEAD#Writing_about_concepts: "Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism." - One way to qualify that colloquial and pejorative use of the word is to simply say that some people (notably the targets of pejorative use) don't agree with that use. They reject the label. We don't have to (or want to) say that these critics are correct in their rejection of that use of the word, only that they do. This must also be put in the intro if the colloqial and disparaging usage is put in the intro otherwise the intro clearly leans to the POV of those who use such language to characterize their opposition. r b-j 16:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside opinion by User:DanB DanD

I really think the great bulk of this controversy would quickly evaporate if all parties simply made a commitment to using only academic sources. The reference list is largely taken from the web and the popular press - naturally what it offers is mostly just competing opinions rather than an academic consensus.

DanB†DanD 02:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd make that commitment. Even stronger: I'd press for a commitment to only using academic sources where the authors get a minimum of [x] hits in Google Scholar (ie, where they have a verifiable publishing history in peer-reviewed journals). Yonmei 07:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made that commitment. Yonmei 08:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I object to this proposal. The page is about the term 'homophobia' and its usage in all common contexts, of which peer-reviewed scientific discourse is only one. The term 'homophobia' is "widely recognized as negative and disparaging" [1]. Just as with "pro-life" vs "anti-choice" and "pro-abortion" vs "pro-choice", this debate over the use and meaning of the term 'homophobia' is yet another example of the frequent "tug over war over language used in framing debate over controversial topics" [2]. The controversial nature of the term should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article and not relegated to a subsection of the page. SOURCES: [1] "Homophobia: On the Cultural History of an Idea." Daniel Wickberg. Critical Inquiry, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 42-57 (First page available for free at <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-1896(200023)27%3A1%3C42%3AHOTCHO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H>). [2] 'bryan' commenting at <http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001599>, whom I cite simply because I think he said it well. DropZone 06:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems strange that you object to using academic sources by saying the article ought to discuss the popular use of the term - but then you reference an academic source which discusses the popular use of the term!

I don't object to using academic sources; rather, I object to DanB's proposal that the article use only academic sources. DropZone 05:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd be on your side: but practically speaking, I think all editors making that committment - only academic sources, only peer-reviewed (Google Scholar sourced) journals - is the only way out of this conflict we're in. Yonmei 00:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

not all Google Scholar sourced references are peer reviewed. i know first hand that some of my own technical papers (that have deliberately not been journal submitted so i would be free to release on the web without copyright vio) can be found on Google Scholar and have never been peer reviewed in the sense a paper is reviewed for a journal before publication. r b-j 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The general policy of wikipedia is to use secondary academic sources wherever possible, and to avoid such things as comments at blogs as being unencyclopedic. Do you think that policy should be changed? If so, the change will involve many more articles than this one. DanB†DanD 06:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If we pruned back the article to simply academics talking about usage/history of the word, I think there would be vituperative objections against such a "homophobic" redaction. Yet I think that is where we would end up. Mangoe 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you expect this of your fellow wikipedia editors. Speaking for yourself rather than for others, are you able to make a commitment to using academic sources? DanB†DanD 22:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I now have been called a bigot by Yonmei, so it does not seem I had to wait long to see my expectations fulfilled. Mangoe 03:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You've been called a bigot for using academic sources? DanB†DanD 07:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No. In the tangled mess that is the Talk: Homophobia page, I'm completely unclear what statement of mine Mangoe is referring to that s/he thinks is about him/her, but: no. (AFAIK, Mangoe has as yet used no academic sources, so...) Yonmei 07:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, actually I've been referring to the Herek article (though I've had little time to make any response). But so far that article seems clearly on my side of the discussion. Mangoe 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DanB's proposal personally. Webster's definition of homophobia is as follows:[1]

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

-- Selmo ^(talk) 23:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mangoe

I forebore to add a section here partly out of lack of time, and partly out of a desire to not bury us in more words than necessary. However, having gone through the academics some, I think it's time to review where we are. When I first looked at this article, there was a dispute over whether the "fear" element existed at all. So at that point we dug up Weinberg himself. Now, after much pain, we have not only political and religious participants in the debate, but even researchers in the field-- gay-friendly researchers, I might add-- calling the connotations of the word into question. We do not need more documentation of the controversy surrounding the word's connotations to justify admission of that fact up front. Please consider the changes I have made this morning and see if theycan be polished up a bit. Mangoe 13:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provocative and disruptive comments

I've repeatedly asked Rbj to quit the personal attacks on me, which are disruptive and provocative. I've asked on Talk:Homophobia and I've asked on Rbj's Talk page: ze's refused to change zer behaviour and claimed there is nothing wrong with what ze's been doing. I thought ze'd stopped despite that, but just now ze started up again. I would like Rbj either to stop the personal attacks (and, ideally, the personal anecdotes) or else to stop editing the Talk page. His attitude isn't helping. Yonmei 21:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC) I repeat my request to the mediator: please do something about this.Yonmei 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

following is what is a personal attack (going to my talk page and threatening to get me banned). begin quote:

R-B-J: Please stop. Please, please stop. Your personal attacks on me (and lengthy personal anecdotes about yourself) are just adding a further level confusion to an already impossibly complicated Talk page. If you want to make the argument that a person can oppose equal civil rights for LGBT people for non-homophobic reasons, then for the Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, make that argument: cite sources of people opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people and giving reasons that you consider to be not-homophobic. But stop attacking me for saying things you disagree with. Of course I may disagree with you that these reasons are not-homophobic, and I will cite sources (I agree with DanBDan that we should stick to academic sources, by the way) for thinking so. But if you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Homophobia, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Yonmei 08:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-posting comment from Talk page, in response to the comment by you posted at 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC):

Why are you engaging in games rather than discussion, r b-j? If your sole objective was to "set me up", and you have no intention of answering a repeated and serious question with direct bearing on the subject under discussion, it makes it look rather as if you are engaging in personal attack and not in trying to improve the Homophobia page. Please stop it: it's disruptive and annoying.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Homophobia. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Yonmei 21:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yonmei asserts that i make a personal attack, but does not show a personal attack. i am attacking her argument(s) because she ignores the points made by others (as if they never made it) and keeps repeating, over and over and over again, the same failed argument. r b-j 23:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article dispute or user dispute?

Is all this "who struck John" really relevant to mediation on the article? Perhaps the personal dispute between users should be mediated separately from the substantive disagreement about the article.
DanB†DanD 17:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: both R-b-j's personal attacks on me, and his complaining about my identifying his personal attacks as such, should be reserved to his and my Talk pages, and not broadcast on to either the Talk:Homophobia page or this page. Can we ask the mediator to sort this out? The Talk:Homophobia page is long enough already without R-b-j relentlessly adding personal issues to it.

Yonmei 01:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

it isn't. it shouldn't be here at all. but one thing that i learned from both the Kerry and Dukakis campaigns is that ignoring a false charge does not make it go away. every time Yonmei gets backed into a corner (she insists that the article state, without qualification, that opponents of any gay rights political agenda are necessarily homophobic, and this has been swept aside multiple times) rather than simply deal with the topic at hand, what homophobia is, means, and how it is used, she then charges me with personal attack. and i will not let that slide. falsehoods, repeatedly asserted without refutation, have a way of evolving from falsehood, to plausible notion, eventually to gospel truth. Yonmei does this in two different cases. she continues to assert that i personally attack her when i point out, without varnish, what is wrong with her argument. and she is trying to get the meaning of homophobia, as stated in Wikipedia, to evolve from what it is, to what she thinks it should mean. r b-j 17:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Yonmei's persistent desire to identify dissent as bigotry has inevitably led to those of us on the other side of the dispute about how the article is written to be labelled (directly or by implication) bigots as well. I don't have enough time to retort, and I don't think it is purposeful anyway. But it seems to me that the personal attacks have their origin in the need to define the objectors to the word in tendentious terms. The insinuation is that the only reason to object to usage of the word is to defend oneself from entirely justified condemnation. If one looks at the Hanek article (at least as far as I have gotten) he sees some preference for heterosexism as a more general term, and while it is also clearly pejorative it does clearly avoid the particular point that has been complained about with regard to the present word. Therefore I don't think the accusation that Yonmei wants to write into the article is entirely accurate anyway.

But there's also the problem that the question is, in the end, whether or not Wikipedia should participate in the moral condemnation towards the "heterosexist" opposition that Yonmei quite obviously feels and intends. I don't have any real hope of capturing some sort of societal consensus on this, because there isn't any. But it's obvious to me that in the discussion of a controversial term an honest portrayal is impossible without backing out of the controversy. The issue isn't just that "homophobia" is considered pejorative, but that its connotations make reasonable consideration of the matter impossible. What seems to have happened is that Yonmei's insistence on sticking those objectors with a condemnation has been transferred to condemning us as objectors. It's all part of the same fabric, and it shows why the version that Yonmei prefers is biased. Mangoe 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

sigh.... DanB†DanD 19:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, this is an article dispute that has taken interpersonal jabs as each side continues to object to the others' edits... Those who object to Yonmei's version are accused of being homophobic, such as Yonmei's statement that The problem is, the "critics of the term" object to having their negative views of homosexuality described as "homophobic", and object to participating in discussion why their negative views of homosexuality are homophobic. Instead, the "critics of the term" shout loudly that when people "label them as homophobic" they're trying to shut down discussion. In fact, it is the "critics of the term" who are trying (and succeeding) in shutting down discussion - because (it would appear) they do not want to have their beliefs about homosexuality, LGBT people, and equal civil rights for LGBT people, defined as homophobic on Wikipedia. So, is there a solution to this? Beyond banning homophobes from editing Homophobia, I really can't think of one then each side accuses the other of playing games, making it personal, etc etc etc. I really don't mind this article being locked forever, but my real suggestion is that we differentiate between the word, homophobia (word), and anti-gay prejudice. MPS 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

the solution is attribution and inclusion. one side gets to say that such-and-such is homophobic. but, unless it is semantically identical to the dictionary definition (and not a dictionary from some religious anti-gay website nor a dictionary from a gay-rights website), the other side gets to say they don't think it really is homophobic. the WP article does not say who is right or justified. it just says what the two sides say.

i think it's pretty synonymous between "homophobia" and "anti-gay prejudice", so differentiating doesn't really gain us much in terms of settling the controversy. most persons who already think that "homophobia" is misapplied to some thing will likely also object when "anti-gay prejudice" is applied to the same thing. also, the problem with banning homophobes from editing Homophobia is one of who gets to identify who's a homophobe and the problem of circular reasoning (at least for the person so identified). and these so-called homophobes are gonna say that a bunch of gay-rights activists are writing a Wikipedia article unilaterally defining their opposition without an opportunity to dissent or at least register an objection. r b-j 00:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selmo's Response

The core of this dispute appears to be about the definition of the term "homophobia". As I already suggested, Websters is a good, well respected scholar source. I suggest we go with this because it appears to be fairly netural.

The body of the article should discuss all areas of Homophobia, such as history of the word, as CaveatLector suggested, but it should also discuss what critics of the term say. To ease conflict, I suggest we should cite what churches, hate groups etc. have to say to about being labled "homophobic", and advoid original research.

Finally, about the personal attacks. Yonmei, r--b-j was only pointing out some flaws in your argument. The spirit of WP:NPA states Comment on content, not on the contributor. While you may be offended, debates on Wikipedia is, indeed content. Your citation was:

there is just no lifting the blinds on Yonmei. Yonmei gets to define what it means to be homophobic. Yonmei gets to canonize his/her definition of "homophobic" in a world-wide public resource such as Wikipedia. Yonmei gets to exclude any dissenting opinion of that definition when presenting it in this world-wide public resource. and Yonmei sees absolutely no problem with that and naturally cannot understand why someone opposes it. (actually Yonmei does understand, people oppose it because they are homophobic. don't believe it? check the definition.)

All R-b-j was doing was pointing out that Wikipedia can't publish original research, and criticizing your behaviour - not you as a person - for suggesting to do so. Sure, he could be a little more poliete, but we all need to stay cool when editing gets hot. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind for future reference, Selmo, because if that was what r-b-j was trying to do, he only succeeded in completely undercutting his meaning by being so rude. I'm certain your analysis is the correct one, because as you weren't the subject of his personal attacks, you are doubtless better able to analyse the actual content than I: the best I could do was respond politely when he was rude. However, I thank you very much for translating what r-b-j was trying to say to me into a comprehensible form: I get it, and I agree: all statements on Wikipedia pages should be sourced, and if only r-b-j had been able to just say that, minus the personal remarks, he'd have found I agreed with him about that, at least. I'll take a lesson from that for the future - the angrier and more loquacious I get on a Talk page, the less likely I am to convey my meaning, just like R-b-j. Yonmei 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone want to go to Medcom? WikieZach| talk 22:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

After review of Arbitration Policies: [2][3]; I have found that "any content that is disputed" must be excluded. Yet I find this to be a very strange defintion of a Point of view. Homophobia is the belief that gays, lesbians, etc. are lower than them, and this issue is coming into dispute (and the actual edit entry). I would like to bring this to conclusion, because I will sumbit this to the Mediation Committee within the next 72 hours/3 days. This issue is very confusing, and I need clarification. WikieZach| talk 01:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that. It seems to cover a range of meaning, from any kind of disapproval of homosexuality to very specifically the notion that the repugnance people express towards homosexuality is mentally disordered. If this repugnance is grounded in "valid" moral condemnation, however, then it is arguably rational-- or at least some of it may be. Mangoe 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, move to medcom. -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will everyone accept a medcom case? WikieZach| talk 02:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Pejorative"

Hi mediators. Can one of you weigh in on the "pejorative" question? DanB†DanD 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've cut it out, as at this stage the article conveys that it is pejorative well enough without having to spell it out. I've expanded the "critics" subsection with academics and done the 2nd graf differently to refer to the common element in the various objections. Mangoe 13:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recess

To all parties, I will take a small recess from this case (I am handling about six) for about two days. This will also give me time to review all evidence and push for a resolution by the end of this week. Sorry for the delay. 13:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)