User talk:Breadmanpaul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Breadmanpaul! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini hablame aqui 06:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] Revert warring warning on Homophobia

Please review WP:3RR, as you've now reverted Homophobia three times in the past twenty-four hours. Rather than continuing to revert, you might have more success by reaching a compromise on the talk page. Fireplace 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't merely reverted until the last time. Rather I have continued to expand, providing more and more justification for what I have added to the Homophobia article. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be neutral. Yet, adding citations, which support the information, which is common knowledge in the first place, hasn't been considered adequate. breadmanpaul 02:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Your additions are being added to the wrong section - try adding to the section regarding criticism of the term. Even at that, NARTH comments do not merit more than a sentence or two due to WP:UNDUE. Further, note that Conservapedia is not a reliable source per WP:RS. You should be aware that WP:3RR also includes partial reversions and edit warring. You would be wiser to discuss your edits on the discussion page before making them in the article space. --Strothra 03:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The top of the article discusses uses and meanings of "homophobia." The fact that "homophobia" is used as an ad hominem attack is common knowledge and belongs at the top of the article with other common uses of the word. Not including it at the top with the other uses shows bias and POV. Additionally, the fact that its misuse (identifying anyone who opposes homosexuality as being necessarily motivated by fear) is a misnomer should also be at the top of the article, again, with the discussion of other uses of the word. Not including the fact that homophobia is often used as a misnomer at the top of the article violates neutrality, accuracy, and completeness. breadmanpaul 05:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The people and organizations cited are mental health professionals -- psychiatrists and psychologists -- working specifically in the field of homosexuality. They are experts and by Wikipedia standards, reliable sources. Experts disagree. Remember, this is a controversial topic. You should expect disagreement, even among experts. Disagreement (especially on a controversial topic) doesn't make either side wrong. Excluding facts, which disagree with your POV, violates the principles of Wikipedia. breadmanpaul 05:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't believe I'm being critical of the term. Rather, I'm simply trying to include additional common uses of the word at the top of the article, so that the article is accurate, neutral (and at least closer to being complete -- can any article be entirely complete?). To me, including the PC uses of the word at the top and the NPC uses elsewhere seems biased -- violating neutrality. breadmanpaul 05:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

My additions to this article have been removed due to their containing weasel words. But I've noticed that the article is rife with weasel words.

  • From first paragraph: ... sexual behavior, or cultures, and is GENERALLY used to insinuate....
  • From second paragraph: SOME believe any usage of homophobia is....
  • From section 1.1: The word homophobia was RARELY used early....
  • From section 1.1: A POSSIBLE etymological precursor was homoerotophobia....
  • From section 1.2: ... been proposed as alternatives that are MORE morphologically parallel....
  • From section 1.2: SOME recent psychological literature suggested the term....
  • From section 1.2: The term homophobia is OFTEN used collectively with other....

And that's just the first few. So, let's be consistent. Either remove ALL the text, which contains weasel words, or stop deleting my additions because I used the words "often" and "some."