Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-homosexualism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Homophobia. There are sources here, but the article is completely and utterly redundant with that article and/or societal attitudes towards homosexuality.--SB | T 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-homosexualism

DicDef. Nothing useful here that can't be handled by a Wiktionary entry, to the limited extent that the term even exists as a distinct word. Article is just an exercise in polemics. Herostratus 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets see what happened here.
  • (cur) (last) 04:51, September 1, 2006 Moriori (Talk | contribs) (Redirect instead of delete)
  • (cur) (last) 04:39, September 1, 2006 Herostratus (Talk | contribs) (AfD)
  • (cur) (last) 04:15, September 1, 2006 Britcom (Talk | contribs) (Stub)
Hmmm. as we can see here the page was first created at 04:15. I wasn't even done editing it when Herostratus surfed in and posted the AfD on it at 04:39. and then it disappeared altogether when Moriori redirected it to "homophobia", a page with many, many questions of neutrality, not to mention that "homophobia" has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-homosexualism. Why would Herostratus and Moriori be so blindingly quick to judge a page that was not even an hour old and was not even finished being created? I have reverted it now and continue to add more to it. I would appreciate it if everyone would lay off the page until I have had a chance to flesh it out.
I took a look at Herostratus' user page, and now I think I know what his problem with this page is, and it has nothing to do with "usefulness". He states on his user page that he is a Unitarian Universalist, a well known pro-homosexual organization. UU is something that I am quite familiar with. So it appears that he may have a bias against the subject matter of the page, rather than concern about the usefulness of the page. The reason I created this page is because "anti-homosexualism" is a plank in the KKK's supremacist philosophy and the Nazi's final solution and deserves its own article. I suspect that Herostratus' is trying to silence the article rather than add to its usefulness. This is a serious subject, and it deserves serious attention. "Homophobia" on the other hand, is not a political philosophy and is a pejorative created and promoted by pro-homosexual activists for use against those that oppose their agenda and therefore has no relationship to this article. Anyone doubting that should read both pages and judge for themselves. --Britcom 11:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suggest you attest to the merits of the article, rather than contesting those of the nominator. Wickethewok 13:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
At the time there was hardly any article to speak of yet as 20 minutes was not enough time for me to finish before the AfD was posted on it . I felt under attack by a drive by deletion. I feel that given the circumstances the reasons stated for the AfD were less than honest. --Britcom 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems sourced and encyclopaedic - although I wouldn't be opposed to a merging, if there's an appropriate target (I have no idea) WilyD 14:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork. I have never heard the term, and I get about 120 google hits for "anti-homosexualism" and less than half that for the unhyphenated version. (Weirdly, when I accidently clicked "maps" when googling anti-homosexualism, it found the Academy Awards.) The fact that the author cites the demonstrably false definition of homophobia as "fear" (Anti-homosexualism is a calculated political philosophy ... It is not associated with a fear of homosexuals), as well as his characterization of the UU church above, leads me to believe that this is an attempt to discredit the very common and well-understood word "homophobia" by introducing a near-neologism. I agree that the Nazi and KKK anti-gay activities deserve mention, which is why we have Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Some detail could be added there. bikeable (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how anything I have placed in the article could be considered POV. It is mostly undisputed history. Anyway I don't own it, you can edit it if you don't like the way it reads.
I did not say "homophobia" is a fear of homosexuals, the homophobia Wikipage says that, and I didn't put it there. I was saying that the terms are distinct from each other.
I have sourced the term back to at least 1957 on the internet. I don't believe that there is another term that describes what the Nazi's policy was with regard to homosexuals and that was many years before 1957. I would not consider it a trivial event either. For example: "The extermination of homosexuals during WWII was as a result of Nazi ______________." What else fits in this blank?
About the UU, I can source what I said if you like. They are not afraid to admit that they have many openly gay leaders and members. I have met some of them.
Anti-homosexualism does not just encompass violence, it also encompasses political opposition, rhetoric, activism and institutional and religious opposition.
I don't think this time frame for AfD is fair. I am new at this and this page is being scrutinized even before it is a day old. Don't you think that the first editor of an article should be given 24 hours, not 24 minutes before someone slaps an AfD on it? --Britcom 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the rapid AfD, but it's common practice to get an early start, partly because it's easiest to find new articles and partly because it'll save the authors a lot of time in the long run. In any case... the word "homophobia" fits in just fine in the sentence you propose; or a variant, like "national homophobic policies" or something perhaps more strongly worded. The first sentence of the homophobia article says, fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals, which overlaps pretty much completely with the definition you posit for "anti-homosexualism". I see that you found a 1957 reference (good work), but I still do not think the term is notable or widely used, even if it is occasionally used. (I find many more google hits for a term I thought I just made up at random, anti-Big Mac. Just because people string words together does not require us to have an encyclopedia article on them.) As for the UUs, of course they are open to gays, but I wouldn't call them a well known pro-homosexual organization. Finally, I suggest again that Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered is an appropriate (and existing) article for some of the detail you have included. bikeable (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks but so far I am not being overwhelmed with logic or reasoning as to why groups are being diagnosed with a mental disorder (Homophobia) rather than simply use the obvious term for their contempt (Anti-homosexualism). --Britcom 13:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Homophobia, <strikeout>at beast</strikeout> - Unsure - there does seem to be a mounting and convincing argument that they are slight difeferences in teh terminology. It is certainly NOT A NEOLOGISM--ZayZayEM 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
ZayZayEM also stated on my user page that; "Homophobia...is a neologism". I think he may have a point. --Britcom 19:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. There are only 316 google hits for "Anti-homosexualism" so it appears to be an original research type of word. Not permitted.--Alabamaboy 16:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I have shown and sourced that the word predates the www and Google. Homophobia is not that old of a word. What word do you suppose they used back in 1957, or is no one old enough to remember that here. Are we engaging in sponging history away here? More sources are coming up.
But homophobia is an accepted word in the dictionary and has 9 million plus google hits. Your word falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. --Alabamaboy 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact, this word is more like a Protologisms but the neologism prohibition still stands.--Alabamaboy 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Look again, I have shown that the two words are not synonyms and I have sourced literary usage in 1957 and 2000. The definitions are totally distinct and without similarity. The word and its meaning are unique. One word refers to philosophy the other to a neurosis. You are just angry because I put a link on "your" page. Grow up.--Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not a neurosis, and no one claims that it is. You may wish that everyone should "simply use the obvious term", but in fact there is a word that everyone does use (homophobia), and there is a word that essentially no one uses (anti-homosexualism). Wikipedia is not here to advocate for which words ought to be used. bikeable (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is based on comparing apples and oranges. I am saying the terms are unrelated, distinct and should be understood that way. "Homophobia" describes an attitude within the mind of the individual. "Anti-homosexualism" is the political targeting of homosexuals for attack or opposition by a political or religious group. According to your logic, "Xenophobia" and "Terrorism" would mean the same thing.--Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I think pushing for an AfD if the article is only 20 minutes old is a little OTT but, assuming that a Redirect covers the same ground, it was only inevitable. Marcus22 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A new article that includes verifiable instances of usage. It's true that the google hits on "antihomosexualism" are in the hundreds, but "antihomosexual" has over 18,000 hits, and there are over 100 wikipedia articles that use the term. From a word-usage perspective, a sound argument could be made that there is a clear distinction between antihomosexualism and homophobia. A sound argument could also be made that there isn't. But since there are verifiable instances of people making the distinction, the article should be in Wikipedia so people can read and learn about it. Flying Jazz 23:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • See below, new opinion from me also. Flying Jazz 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see references and an establishment for the validity of this seperate to homophobia. In many respects, it is technically homophobia that is misnamed. It is worth noting that you can't campaign "for homophobia", but you can campaign "against homosexuality". LinaMishima 02:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • See below, new 'vote' LinaMishima 16:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
An excellent point. --Britcom 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoa There. Yes when I nominated this article it was just a stub, and that happens sometimes. But even so, this is not a keepful article because there ain't no such word, it's a neologism made up by the author to try to tie together the Nazi Party and the Westboro Baptist Church (!) together into some kind of unified movement, which is about the silliest idea I've seen today. Sure the word "anti-homosexualism" is properly formed, but you can add "anti" to most any English word. "I really only like to have sofas in my house, I'm pretty much anti-chair" is a meaningful English sentence which has not doubt been uttered. Does that mean that "anti-chair" is a real English word that should have a dictionary definition or a Wikipedia article? No, and neither is "Anti-homosexualism". The whole unsaid but obvious WP:POINT of the article is: Don't like gays? Well you're a Nazi of a Klanner then. But look. First of all, the Nazis hated lots of people, they weren't primarily an anti-gay organization and neither is the Klan. Second of all, everybody was anti-gay until about 1960 or whenever. Third of all, you'd have include the Catholic Church and the FBI and God knows who else if you want to list anti-gay organizations, if you're going to reach back into the 1940's or whatever. I mean since we're talking about organizations who showed "organized hostility toward or opposition against homosexuals as a group" but not as their primary thrust, you'd have to list practically every social organization and private company that existed, since we're going back into the 40's. Finally, the writer's contention that I'm against this article because I'm a Unitarian is just bizarre; I'm against it in spite of being a Unitarian, a denomination sympathetic to the writer's WP:POINT (hey, my minister is gay), but, here, I'm a Wikipedian first. You can't tie the Nazis, the Westboro Baptist Church, and Islam together with your original research and neologism into some kind of non-existant movement, and you can't hijack Wikipedia for your own ends, no matter how noble. Herostratus 07:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the dispute shouldn't be about personalities, but your contention that the word is "a neologism made up by the author" surprised me when the author of the article cites verifiable usage of the word from 1957 and 1971. WP:POINT is about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Adding an article to the namespace is not disruptive. It is a good-faith attempt to contribute. Your objections seem to be based on WP:NPOV, that the author has written an article with a biased point of view to "make a point." The cure for that is to edit the article to make it NPOV--not to delete the article. http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/chauncey.html is a faculty web-page at Yale by a man who uses the word in describing his field of study. It is unlikely that the word "anti-chair" appears in a similar context. Flying Jazz 12:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Good arguments from Herostratus, unbelievably bad ones from Britcom. This is just making an essay up from legitimate composite parts, like putting baked beans and pulled pork together to make baked-pulled beans and pork.-Kmaguir1 08:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I redirected this because that is what it deserved. But I now change to delete after seeing Britcom say "homophobia" has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-homosexualism. He should read the intro to Homophobia, which says "hatred or disapproval of homosexual people, their lifestyles, sexual behaviors or cultures". Moriori 08:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Herostratus and Moriori (as shown above) are the two responsible for the "drive by" AfD and redirect. The two of them are just trying to defend their attack on the page that I am trying to work on. Moriori violated the AfD rules when he redirected the page to "Homophobia" 12 minutes after the AfD box was posted on the page. In light of their zeal to delete this page, even violating Wikipedia rules to do so, I think their opinions posted here are suspect. Remember, Wikipedia's code of conduct says "Assume good faith". I have no Wikipedia violations, and I have no axe to grind. This is my first page and I have done my best to be neutral with a topic that generates lots of emotions. The examples I chose are the most obvious examples of "Anti-homosexualism" that I can think of. I would love for other Wikiedians to add more or edit what I have written for accuracy. But that does not seem to be the agenda here. The agenda here is to attack me and my edits as worthless or underhanded. If they are so bad, then why not just edit them instead of jumping straight to deletion? Why not discuss it on the talk page? No, that’s not good enough for them they want to get rid of it so no one can read what it says. I thought we were supposed to be neutral here, and not favoring one side of a controversy. It seems to me that the word has a history and now apparently a controversy because some seemingly want to control what you read by forcing a proverbial square peg (political or religious hatred or opposition to homosexuality) into a round hole ("homophobia"). (See how many words I had to use to say what it is without using the one word "Anti-homosexualism".) Apparently we have two schools of thought here. One that says: "Oh the author has an agenda and that's the reason he set up the page." and on the other hand there is: "Oh the author just doesn't understand that we all have decided to change the definition of "Anti-homosexualism" to a word that makes it sound like those who are against homosexuals are suffering from a "phobia", and well, he must not have gotten the memo." Not one of them has addressed the glaring hole in their reasoning. Namely that "Anti-homosexualism" always refers to the ACTIONS of organized groups, and "homophobia" always refers to the MINDSET of individuals. The words are clearly not synonyms. Everybody can understand this when they read it. But some don't seem to want it put into print. That means they think they own Wikipedia. That also means that they think they know better than you what you should be reading. They are trying to slant Wikipedia's content, and by the same token, limit your access to knowledge they don't "approve" of. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Do these people represent a "neutral" viewpoint? It seems that I am getting a better education here than I bargained for, and unfortunately, its all bad. What a black-eye this is for Wikipedia. What a black-eye this is for the Internet. Sickening. --Britcom 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You should take your own advice and assume good faith. I attacked the page? I have a zeal to delete even tho I changed delete to a redirect? My opinion posted here (is) suspect? Instead of giving me a right old bollocking you should be thanking me because my redirect allowed you to make such profound statements as "Anti-homosexualism" always refers to the ACTIONS of organized groups". Yeah right. Moriori 22:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Quote from the AfD box "the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed" Redirecting before the AfD discussion period ends is not allowed. That's all I'll say. The rest is below. --Britcom 10:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand your frustration and I agree with much of what you've written. But frustration isn't a reason to make personal attacks against individuals or against Wikipedia as a whole. You might want to step back a little from the AfD page, keep working to improve the article, and let new folks come to state their opinions. Flying Jazz 13:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You are right of course. --Britcom 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Goldfritha 18:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep
  1. This is a new article only a few days old. It has not had enough time to develop.
  2. The reasons given above are listed as: "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed" on WP's deletion policy. WP:DEL. They don't qualify as valid reasons for deletion of a new article according to the policy.
  3. Quote: "Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." WP:AFD This article was less than an hour old and no discussion was made on the article's talk page either for deletion or redirection.
  4. The article that some have voted to redirect this article to, (Homophobia) has been described as a Neologism WP:NEO (see above) and may not be allowed. Also, its neutrality is currently marked as disputed. Anti-homosexualism has been sourced in the article at least as far back as 1957, and 1971, and 2000 with hundreds of quotations currently on the internet, so it can't be a Neologism. Both articles also clearly identify conflicting differences in their respective definitions. Even if one does not agree, clearly there is a dispute and dispute is enough for keeping the article according to policy. The dispute can also be verified on the homophobia talk page.
  5. "Don't bite the newcomers." WP:BITE. The author is a newcomer to WP and WP policy states that editors should help newcomers develop new pages when possible, not just delete them.
  6. Its a good article compared to many. It has potential.
  7. The subject matter is current, controversial and has been a factor in world events and world history.
  8. The subject matter is likely to be a factor in future events. (the author) --Britcom 10:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:BITE does not pertain; no one has treated you inappropriately, we are simply discussing the suitability of an article. Nor does anyone dispute the importance of the subject matter. And how is it that the disputed term "can't be a neologism" with its hundreds of google hits, but you think homophobia can be, despite 100,000 times as many google references? bikeable (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Undecided On the one hand, it appears to be neologism. On the other hand, being against something is different than being afraid of it. Much of the content in the homophobia entry has nothing to do with fear, and should be instead moved into this artical. Perhaps a rewording of the title might suffice so it's no longer neologism. Mugaliens 15:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Much of the content in the homophobia entry has nothing to do with fear: that's because the common usage of "homophobia" has little to do with fear, despite what you might expect from the suffix -phobia; see extensive discussions of this subject at Talk:Homophobia. I am fearful that this AfD will result in wikipedia's homophobia article being split into two, and putting the extremely well-known term homophobia (10 million google hits) on par with what I still believe to be an uncommon word or neologism anti-homosexualism, with a few hundred google hits at most. bikeable (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Bikeable is right that homophobia is a much more commonly used term than anti-homosexualism. However, the uncommon word was used in the 50s while the common one was coined for its current definition in the 60s. The neologism argument is unsound. The idea of having two or more articles on two or more related but not identical topics should not instill us with fear because there are precedents for this in Wikipedia. For example: Judeophobia, Anti-semitism, Anti-Judaism and Persecution of Jews are four closely related, non-identical topics. With verifiable citations (and still a lot of argument), the differences in meaning and article scope that you'd expect from an encyclopedia get worked out. Flying Jazz 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Note also that Wikipages Linuxism, Raelism, and anti-Turkism all have Google hits in the hundreds, and ineffablilism has only 14 hits on Google. I don't think Wikipedia has a policy about Google hits though. --Britcom 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
There are many forms of Anti-homosexualism that don't include persecution or violence. Protesting by the Westboro Baptist Church for example. --Britcom 15:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
A perfect example of homophobia, according to the Anti-defamation League. "Westboro baptist church" homophobia OR homophobic gets me 28,000 google hits. Using anti-homosexualism instead, I get only a few hits... the very first of which is the wikipedia page for WBC on which you added a link to Anti-homosexualism. The usage is quite clear. bikeable (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
First, anyone who wants to know what persecution is only needs to ask a survivor of Auschwitz or visit the Holocaust page. It is not federally protected speech.
Second, there is a logic problem in comparing the words Homophobia and Anti-homosexualism. Anti-homosexualism is a more general term. Homophobia, as defined, would be correctly classified as a form of Anti-homosexualism; but not all forms of Anti-homosexualism are Homophobia related and some are non-violent. Some forms are moralistic, some are political, and some are traditional. For example, not all forms of Anti-Americanism include persecution or violence against Americans. To use the logic stated above, you would have to say that all "peaceful" Anti-American "protests" are a form persecution. That just doesn't fly. Therefore, the title of the article should not be limited to just "persecution". Anti-homosexualism is the most logical form. --Britcom 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not federally protected speech. …Which assumes that 1. a US POV is entirely acceptable here on wikipedia, and 2. speech that incites hatred is perfectly acceptable. Even if your point is correct, I suspect that the retitling to a more obvious title might be a good idea - campaigns against homosexuality, for example. It should be noted that persecution is not defined by the scale of the act, but the intent. LinaMishima 22:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, the Westboro Baptist Church is a church in the USA, therefore United States law applies to it and The US Constitution protects it, and everyone else in the USA, the right to peaceful demonstration and freedom of speech. I was referring to WBC's anti-homosexual demonstrations as federally protected. I am aware that other nations do not recognize a right to demonstrate. The US Constitution guarantees all of its citizens the right to freedom of speech. Both positive and negative speech is protected. It has been that way for over two hundred years. I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. --Britcom 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And to clarify a minor point of law, wikipedia, along with all non-government websites, classes as a private forum, and so the first ammendment does not apply. LinaMishima 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The above comment seems to imply that I have somehow invoked the First Amendment within Wikipedia; that was certainly not the purpose of my comment. I referenced its protections with regard to WBC's speech, which it has exercised while standing on a public street corner or other public place. The real point of my comment was that anyone standing on a public street corner in the US exercising their Constitutional rights cannot legally be considered engaging in "persecution". While their speech is definitely anti-homosexual, it is also lawful. The discussion or documentation of that subject within Wikipedia is not the same as the (above implied) claiming of any rights within Wikipedia. I don't see how one could make that assumption from what I said. Discussion about others use of the First Amendment should not be construed as attempting to claim a personal right under it in Wikipedia. --Britcom 09:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Regardless of the merits of your other arguments, the en: Wikipedia is written in English, and "anti-homosexualism" is not common English usage. The phrases "homophobia" and "persecution of homosexuals" have clear meanings in common use, which seem to be understood by every other poster here. If you want to redefine common English use, please do it elsewhere first, and when the English-speaking world adopts your usage, we will be able to do so as well. -- The Anome 23:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't speak for "every other poster here." Speak for yourself only. I'm a poster in here and I've never understood that the word "homophobia" has a clear meaning. The section dedicated to etymology and usage at the homophobia article indicates a huge amount of confusion and debate over that term and its usage. "Common usage" is not a requirement for an article in Wikipedia. "Verifiable usage" is. Words and ideas are not like corporations or products which must be very well-known before Wikipedia has an article on them. You are setting a standard that is different from Wikipedia's standard. Flying Jazz 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Update Some new references now appear on the Anti-homosexualism page, including one from an official Israeli government website. --Britcom 09:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator. Obviously this article is very much farther along than when I nominated it. How about removing all the non-Nazi material and renaming it Nazi persecution of homosexuals. That would be a good article (although more sourcing is needed). Otherwise my objection still stands. Also, if there is not an article along the lines of State persecution of homosexuals (which I'd be surprised if there isn't) that would be a useful article. Herostratus 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The article you suggest already exists at History of gay people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.--Alabamaboy 13:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: I am keeping my vote to delete. That said, I wanted to point out to editors that Britcom is attempting to replace the word homophobia with Anti-homosexualism in a number of articles on Wikipedia, such as Ku Klux Klan. I believe this type of POV pushing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Finally, while I understand why some people would want to use Anti-homosexualism over homophobia, this is a debate that--yet again--does not belong at Wikipedia. If Britcom can convince the world at large to accept the term, he/she is welcome to come back here and restart the article. Otherwise, delete it.--Alabamaboy 13:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed I noticed that in the end…LinaMishima 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I should add that Britcom's contributions overwhelmingly suggest he/she is trying to promote the adoption of this word at Wikipedia. See [1].--Alabamaboy 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It's always a good idea to search through Wikipedia and create links to a new article at appropriate places. This is a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia even though I understand it could be regarded as POV-pushing by someone who believes the article should not be included. An AfD shouldn't prevent someone from doing this. I think it is part of Wikipedia's mission to spread knowledge about concepts and their associated words regardless of whether the word is in common use. This is particularly true for a word like antihomosexualism that has existed and been used for decades. My impression is that debates about word choice and word usage occur at Wikipedia all the time in talk pages and AfD discussions, but I agree with Alabamaboy that they usually don't belong in the articles themselves. The "Modern usage" section of the article was POV-pushing when it said one word "should not be confused" with another and I've edited this. Better to provide footnotes to verifiable citations where the usage is discussed and leave it to the reader about what should be said or written. Note: I am keeping my vote to keep. Flying Jazz 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, I changed my mind about this. Flying Jazz 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL, if one scratches the surface of Alabamaboy’s conspiracy theory one will discover that all of the recent links that I have placed on other pages were to wikilink the existing unlinked word "anti-homsexual" to the 'Anti-homosexualism article and not (as he suggests) changing all the Homophobia links, to Anti-homosexualism. I challenge anyone to take a look at my edits and see the truth for themselves, and while they are at it, they should also go and read the vitriol that I have had to put up with from Alabamaboy on "his" Talk:Ku Klux Klan page after I put a link on that page (which he promptly deleted). If that is what Alabamaboy is accusing me of, then I plead guilty! I repeat my above statement of Wikipedia policy; “Don’t Bite the Newcomers” WP:BITE. --Britcom 15:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I've read that page and I do not see vitriol there. You are being unreasonable and uncivil with these challenges and accusations. Being a newcomer does not give you special rights in debates, and when a newcomer is unreasonable and bites, it is perfectly understandable for someone to bite back within reason (although maintaining civility is always the best policy). Your posts above about another editor's religion were way out of line and in many other ways you've been unnecessarily and foolishly confrontational on this page. Stop it. Also, see my most recent comment here. Please respond to it on the talk page. Flying Jazz 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's get back to the discussion about the article and quit antagonizing and the author. --Britcom 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaking disagreement and the occasional mistake from other users for antagonism. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Please_do_not_take_it_personally and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. Flying Jazz 20:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge most of this information into homophobia or Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered and redirect the article accordingly. The discussion here from the creator of the article is enough for me to throw assume good faith to the wind. Notice how assuming good faith is NOT encouraged in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Let's review. Britcom has 'attacked' Herostratus through his religion, claiming that it has a 'pro-homosexual' agenda (note how Britcom uses this AS an attack as if it were a BAD thing. Is it unreasonable that this leads me to question his motives?). What would we do if an editor who made an arguing point based upon the fact that their 'opponent's' Userpage had a "This user is Christian" or "This user is Catholic" userbox on it? Of course, we would begin to assume BAD faith (as we should). Britcom also says that the homophobia article has a 'pro-homosexual' POV push. These are red flags to me, personally, and are enough for me to assume that this article was CREATED as a bad faith POV-fork of homophobia. That being said, there IS some good information here, and rather than being spent in a POV-fork article, it should be placed where it belongs, in one of the two articles I suggested. The forthing at the mouth that continues from editors who claim that homophobia does not include opposition to homosexuality or is limited to a FEAR of homosexuals (even though all common sense regarding the usage of the term in actual language would have us believe otherwise) is rather disconcerting and, in my opinion, damaging to the wiki. CaveatLectorTalk 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment OK but that's not really an argument about the content of the article or the merits of the term though. Armon 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to say keep. The word homophobia has a bad history, and in spite of user:bikeable's continual assertions to the contrary, the coiner of the word has been quoted as intending the "fear" component (which quote can be readily found in a Google search). Diverting the discussion specifically of anti-homosexual bigotry over to a term which we can now see is not simply a contributor coinage affords the possibility of being able to discuss that with a WP:NPOV. The big dispute about homophobia per se is that the word itself is POV-pushing; therefore it is impossible to keep the article stable excepting that the enforcer squad for one POV makes sure that the article doesn't say much about that issue. I personally would move all the discussion of prejudice to anti-homosexualism and have homophobia point back to it as a main article, but keep both articles. Mangoe 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I totally see where you are coming from and the issues with the usage of "homophobia". However, the plain fact is that "homophobia" is used for a great variety of meanings, and "anti-homosexualism" is hardly used at all. It would be nice if we could, as you suggest, "move the discussion of prejudice" to anti-homosexualism, which I agree would make sense based on the apparent etymologies and what the words ought to mean. However, this would be original research. We cannot be prescriptive about what words should or should not mean; we can only report what people use them for. I would recommend the article on Linguistic prescription and I would argue that only a descriptive attitude is WP:NPOV. A true description of usage is that many people use "homophobia" for diverse meanings, and very few use "anti-homosexualism", so we may not move the discussion from the former to the latter. bikeable (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems to me that all your words here do not add up to the actuality of the homophobia article. It is in fact used for POV-pushing as a matter of course, and its content is original research as a matter of course, because while we refer the daylights out of it in order to keep the various POV Patrols from reverting, the synthesis of those references into an article has to go beyond simply referring to an authoritative analysis. Without that, the article cannot be written.
For you to label one usage as "true" is, in the sense you prefer here, original research, for it is surely your sense of the world you are expressing here, and not some dilligently researched monograph on how the word is used. It is not my sense that the situation is so (if you will pardon the oxymoron) cleanly obscured. The article is being held hostage to the POV-pushing that the word suggests, for Wikipedia is not really distinct from the rest of the world in the issue of the supposed meaning for the word.
It isn't really true that people looking for anti-homosexual prejudice need be confounded by two articles. Indeed, were I editor-in-chief I would have the -phobia article point back to the other, prominently, above the text. But what you're saying here is that because a lot of people use the words in a muddled and inconstant fashion, that Wikipedia's discussion of the topic likewise must be muddled and inconstant, because it cannot be allowed to structurally reflect the real distinction between talking about that prejudice and speculating about the causes behind it. So we're to be stuck with an article that is structurally POV-pushing, because it doesn't permit a clear distinction.
Finally, NPOV is dead as a doornail if we are going to commit to a term which is the subject of POV bias in the real world. The suggested "new" term is perhaps uncommon, but is demonstrated to be not unknown, and it is certainly neutral. I say that this is good enough, and that the division between the two articles affords the possibility of real neutrality. The single article does not. Mangoe 21:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate (no seriously, I think this is the problem). Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all knowledge, right? Since knowledge is inherently based upon its perception and uses within society (i.e. there is no 'TRUE' knowledge, only what people percieve that they know) and since homophobia is used primarily within society to refer to a variety of things including 'anti-homosexualism', the Wiki should reflect this knowledge. Anti-choice redirects to Pro-life, and so it should. Even though it is quite arguable that they are two completely different things they are essentially the same thing, it's just that one is used more frequently than the other (Pro-life, that is) so the one used LESS frequently used redirects to the one used MORE frequently used. Why is this debate not turning out the same way? Probably because some people feel a linguistic imperative to associate homophobia with an actual FEAR, even though the common use of the word does not play out this out. Let's take the word hydrophobia as an example. Hydrophobia does not refer to a FEAR of water (yes, it goes to a disambig page, but if Wikipedia wishes to stay consistent, it really shouldn't). It's the medical term for rabies. Should we create a hydrophobia article or redirect the link to aquaphobia because we must insist that hydroPHOBIA MUST refer to a FEAR of water? Certainly not. This article is a POV fork resulting from an insecurity some people have with being called homoPHOBIC if they have a prejudice against homosexuals (for WHATEVER the reason). The fact is that common parlance has used the term in this fashion. Therefore, Wikipedia should reflect that. Not some idea of a 'correct' term or definition based upon its linguistics. No such 'correct' definition exists. As I have said, some of the content of this article IS valuable. But it should be merged and redirected, not kept as a fork. CaveatLectorTalk 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Saying that there is no true knowledge is merely a commitment to yet another POV, and in this context, a bad one. And you've neatly skipped over one of the two central objections: that the assertion of "common parlance" is original research-- namely, it's you presumably appealing to your own experience. I don't have that experience; I have the "it's the pet phrase of one faction and rejected by the other" experience. The homophobia article, most of the time, admits of this, though it is heavily edited to keep that mention to the slightest possible.
Your counterexamples are bad and misrepresent the coinage of homophobia-- which again I must point out is a matter of documented fact; the citation is, at this instant, in the third footnote in Weinberg's very first sentence. He intended it to mean exactly what the naive reader would guess; he states this bluntly and without room for equivocation. The dispute and POV-pushing from that point on are familiar, leading to the current situation in which Weinberg's meaning and a supposedly more general meaning (but which critics would say is contaminated by the original meaning) try to live side by side in the article.
I don't think we must be trapped by this state of confusion into writing something that is similarly confused. The other term may not be widely used, but it is there and it offers an opening for clarity. (The claims that it is a neologism have been demonstrated incorrect, after all.) It's easy enough for someone who is used to using "homophobia" in the more general sense to be directed to the other article. And I think the implication that there's something wrong with Wikipedia somehow influencing readers to stop using homophobia in the general sense is unjustified. Right now you are essentially settling for the position that we need to reinforce the confused usage by respecting it-- well, not rigorously, because the end result certainly isn't rigor, but out of sense of mechanical principle rather than out of sense of superior explanation. Mangoe 05:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The idea that the usuage of homophobia in common parlance is 'confused' is outright linguistically descriptive nonsense (sorry, but it is). Words do not have ESSENTIAL meanings, they only have the meanings that the society they are used in gives them. This is NOT a POV. This is a linguistic and literary FACT. To suppose that there is some sort of 'right' usage of a word and that a COMMON usage of the word is somehow 'wrong' or 'misguided' or 'confused' reeks of a philosophy guided by some sort of cultural superiority complex. The idea that recognizing a word's definition in common parlance is original research is complete bollocks, considering the comparative results from a mere Google search, much less a search through scholarly databases and journals, of homophobia and 'anti-homosexualism'. Also, Weinburg should not enter into a discussion of what homophobia MEANS other than to acknowledge why and how he coined it (NOT to proclaim his coinage as some sort of 'correct' definition of the word. His authority there expired as soon as the word entered common language). The fact of the matter is that there is no superior explanation in creating TWO articles, ONE for 'homophobia' and one for 'anti-homosexulism'. All this does is serve to CONFUSE the readers of the Wiki and advance the POV that these two terms somehow describe two different things (when common parlance has it that they do not). In the end, I am afraid I just have to state my belief that you are just resolutely incorrect when you say that Wikipedia should 'influence readers to stop using homophobia in the general sense'. There are plenty of WP:NOT pages, but one thing that an ENCYCLOPEDIA certainly IS NOT is a dogmatic excercise in pushing particular views of what words mean. It is meant to 'encircle all knowledge'. To split something that is seen as ONE concept within most of the English speaking world into TWO articles is to push the POV that the common use of the word is somehow 'incorrect', and is, to be flatly honest, downright ridiculous. CaveatLectorTalk 06:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You say "FACT"; I say, your evidence for "common parlance" is your own, one-POV-identified community. I find people using homophobia in both ways, and I especially see people using it with the denotation you assert and the connotation of what the etymology implies and the coiner intended. And I find a lot of people avoiding the word, for this very reason. Talking about "most of the English-speaking world" is at best dubious and at worst a refusal to acknowledge sociental divisions that are measured with great accuracy at every election.
Wikipedia cannot avoid being "a dogmatic exercise in pushing particular views of what words mean". The very basis of the conflict here is controlling whether Wikipedia authorizes anti-homosexualism as a name for one phenomenon. Mangoe 12:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I don't think it would be very civil of wikipedia to take a stance that gaybashing is acceptable, either. Which is infact one of the big reasons that people avoid 'homophobia', a desire to not admit that they think homosexuality is wrong. Despite, y'know, the bonobos, and the general failure of 'corrective' courses. LinaMishima 13:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So let's hold on a moment here. You just said that you find people using 'homophobia' in BOTH contexts...so isn't creating an entirely different word in order to split off one of those meanings a POV fork? You also now claim that Wikipedia IS a place that pushes a particular VIEW of what words mean. Doesn't that very idea violate WP:NPOV? I am NOT arguing that 'anti-homosexualism' does not mean 'being against homosexuals' (I mean, to be frank and French, no shit...), what I am saying is that concept is already described by the word 'homophobia', and to say 'No no no, all of you who are using that way are WRONG' by creating a seperate article for the concept is to push a POV. CaveatLectorTalk 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. Thank you, CL. I've never argued that there was only one meaning for "homophobia"; there are many usage, as is true with many words in English. Wikipeda should be reporting on those. Mangoe accuses us of thinking that somehow influencing readers to stop using homophobia in the general sense is unjustified. But this is precisely the point of WP:POV and WP:OR. Clearing up lingustic confusion is not our goal (never mind that the "coiner" of a word has no control over how it is used later!). Reporting accurately on the meanings of words (read: usage, of all stripes, not the meanings we think they should have) is the best we can do. bikeable (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not a POV fork. Yes, Wikipedia is an agency in the control of the meaning of words, and no, this isn't intrinsically a POV issue (although in this case we both recognize, or should, that it is related to one of the POV divisions). If public discourse is dominated by weasel words on the one hand and/or slurs on the other, it's bloody obvious that a supposedly NPOV reference has to avoid popularly understood language. Since the controversy over the article consistently centers on exactly those concerns, it is entirely reasonable to fork the current content into two subjects-- NOT points of view, because they aren't. If your point of view on the subjects is to prevail, it can do so when they are kept distinct. People would approach two articles with distinct POVs, and would argue about each as before. I think the argument in anti-homosexualism would probably relax some because the fact of bigotry and its expressions are more or less a matter of simple historical documentation. Conversely the argument over the phobic origin of antipathy to homosexuality might increase, but it might also improve in quality when it cannot hide behind the more general issue.
The sentence that you, User:Bikeable, quote is not the clearest thing I've ever written, I grant you, but in any case you've parsed it out incorrectly. If I'm accusing you of anything (and can we Wikipedia:Assume good faith?), it is of believing that "there's something wrong with Wikipedia somehow influencing readers to stop using 'homophobia' in the general sense." If we use parlance here which is clearer that popular discourse, and popular discourse evolves to reflect the change, that's not a bad thing. Mangoe 16:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Mangoe, I didn't mean "accuse" in any particularly bad way; sorry. I understood you properly, I think. I agree that wikipedia should help with clarity, of course: we can make sure people understand what a word means (although this is really the function of a dictionary, and wp's purpose goes deeper). However, when a word has multiple meanings in common use, we should not be attempting to reassign one (or more) of those meanings to another word, even for the sake of clarity. For example, "moot" has two nearly opposed meanings ("open to debate" and, more recently, "not worth discussion"). Even if the latter is a confused usage of the former, it's not our place to correct the usage, but only to report on it. I think the is the issue we have here. (Incidentally, we should copy this discussion to Talk:Homophobia after the AfD, as it's an interesting recap of a lot of points regularly brought up there.) bikeable (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
In the case of "moot" the discussion would of necessity have to split, but within a single article. But the issue here is beyond simple definition, which is the entire issue with "moot".
In effect you are advocating that Wikipedia commit to what you claim (and lots of people dispute): that homophobia means anti-homosexualism, and without the connotation of mental disorder as a cause. In practice the article is and is not edited this way, because it tends to reflect the connotation attached to phobias, and because the considerable denunciation of the term as reflecting this connotation is played down as much as can be gotten way with. What we get is an article which tends to assume that fixing homophobia-- which is to say, opposition to homosexuality-- is a matter of psychological treatment or at least conditioning.
That's where the POV-pushing comes in, and why people who object to homosexuality see a biased article. It's a subject of controversy whether the word even has two distinct meanings, or whether its generalized meaning is simply people who believe it is a phobia getting sloppy and political. At any rate, I disagree that people are going to be so confused at going to homophobia and finding themselves directed to another place to read about one aspect of it-- even one which they consider the primary aspect.
Compared to the mess I'm having to deal with in railway signalling, this is a piece of cake. In that subject, American and British practices have evolved so separately that term-for-term substitution often isn't possible (as in the rail siding versus passing loop issue). Earlier in the summer, we had a big battle because the category of "locomotive engineers" had been created-- to tag people who designed locomotives, and not people who operated them (the American meaning). When I tried to change this to a more universally intelligible label, "locomotive designers", there was an uproar from some of the British contingent, who would not give up their term. Eventually, the need for an unambiguous term prevailed, leaving us with the possibility that Wikipedia may lead Brits to switch to American usage, but it's something we'll just have to live with. Mangoe 18:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems as though you feel that the term homophobia in all its uses will always and forever be connected with a psychological condition. But, then again, so is racism in some aspects (being an '-ism'), and that does not even have a 'phobia' attached to it. Should those who object to such a 'negative' term for their beliefs be allowed to create an article entitled 'anti-African-Americanism' because they view an article on 'racism' as biased? This is a very simple issue, Mangoe, and your example actually clarifies what must be done here. What we have here is a group of people who are upset that a word that might be considered disparaging and its common usage (also disparaging) might refer to them. Now, the goal is to split this word into TWO words, and pretend as though the first word does not refer to what it actually refers to in common knowledge. I will say this again, because it bares being said over and over again. Wikipedia is not the place to push for a particular meaning for a word. One side of this debate wishes to acknowledge that a word has multiple meanings in common parlance. Most of the other side of the debate is getting red-faced at the possibility that they are inherently being called this word, screaming 'POV' and trying to create a fork that doesn't even come close to reflecting knowledge and usage. (I would like to make a special note here that not all of those who support this side are homophobic. I tried to say that with 'most' but I realize it might be interpreted that way. It's entirely possible some want to include the fork based on a difference in philosophy regarding WP:NPOV and not because they are homophobes.) One of these sides is POV pushing. It is not the first one. In your example, you would not abide the creation of two seperate catagories to express the same profession because one group was upset by one of the terms. That is ludicrous. NPOV does not mean that the wiki should be modified from what it is meant to encompass (knoweldge and uses) in order that some people might not get offended. CaveatLectorTalk 19:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
No amount of you repeating it is going to get rid of the reality that entries in Wikipedia are going to be used, and more or less correctly as that sort of thing goes, as a normative authority on what the words mean. Therefore it is not possible to assign names to articles and at the same time avoid pushing for particular meanings.
In your abandoment of good faith you've asserted that the rewritten homophobia would not even mention what you claim is the most common meaning of the word. I don't see you you can successfully defend that claim, if only because (in the event you don't prevail) you and a host of others are going to make absolutely sure that the one article refers prominently to the other. And so will I, for that matter. Splitting the issue across two articles is not going to prevent anyone from getting his or her points in, except for the connotation issue which you claim isn't really there anyway, so it wouldn't hurt your POV to have a structure which discouraged it.
It isn't just myself who refused two categories in the locomotive designer incident, but the rest of the community. It went up for a RfM, and my position prevailed. I don't recall whether two (redundant) categories was considered, but I suspect that if it had been proposed someone would have shot it down as a POV fork (which it would have been). Mangoe 21:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
CaveatLector hits the nail on the head when they say that homophobia really is an "ism", only named as such due to the complete awkwardness and lack of clarity in any possible names (homosexualism? Sexualitism? high-kinsey-scoreism?). This is what homophobia is recognised as, not a phobia. Yes, the word sucks, but anti-homosexualism is even more disjointed (anti-race? anti-coloured? anti-women?), and it really is not wikipedia's place to try and promote society to find a new word for something. As I've already hinted at, POV pushing runs both ways in this matter. Homophobia is seen as being "pro-gay", or at least not supportive of the voiced objections to sexuality. And quite frankly, Racism takes a similar, correct (civil, non-attacking stance. Anti-homophobia seems to be a term prefered by those who are seemingly "anti-gay", who would rather avoid the negative consequences of such a title. That's not to say that the current article is not nuetral, it's been well written. Whilst it is wrong to arbitarilly label peple as homophobic, I can see that if this article remains, attempts will occur to change any mentions of someone being 'homophobic', often even those straight out of a reference, over to the far kinder and less inflamatory (and hence more accepting) term of anti-homophobia. To finish, I'll repeat: homophobia is an 'ism', just like racism LinaMishima 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Flying Jazz and Mangoe -it's certainly not a neologism (or at least, it's an older one than homophobia) and given the debate than Mangoe points to regarding homophobia, maybe this should be the main article. Armon 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Struck thru user:Flying Jazz as he/she has changed vote to Weak Redirect. Marcus22 08:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, if it weren't a neologism I'd say redirect to Homophobia. HGB 22:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Redirect I am changing my opinion from Keep to Weak Redirect. The primary (actually, the only) editor who contributed to this article has left Wikipedia without replying to my suggestions for improvements on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, without this editor taking suggestions from the community or even replying to them, I think this article will stagnate in its current form, and in its current form it is too POV to continue in the encyclopedia. For now, the word should redirect to homophobia. I hope a future editor creates a new anti-homosexualism article that is encyclopedic. I copied the article's content to User_talk:Britcom/Anti-homosexualism. My apologies to the administrator if this was the wrong thing for me to do. Flying Jazz 02:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep, seems verified and npov. Seems a debate that the closing admin will have to really look into. ~ct.e 21:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Votes Well I make it 7 for Delete (including Nom.); 5 for Keep (which includes one weak keep and two votes from 'unknown' (red) users); 3 for Redirect (including one weak redirect); 1 Merge; 1 undecided and 1 Rename. Divisive huh? Anyone I've missed or anyone care to change their votes to get a clear consensus? Marcus22 08:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.