Talk:Hoplophobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] early discussion

Not hopliphobia? Where'd the o come from? If I had a classical Greek dictionary and enough free time, why I'd get it down and coin a dozen -phobias in as many minutes, and justify every one... Wetman 10:02, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

Hey, who needs a dictionary: Pseudepigraphiphobia An unreasoning fear of literary hoaxes and forgeries.Wetman 10:05, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This isn't (yet) a word featured in any standard dictionary, but since it was coined by Jeff Cooper in 1962 (see http://members.wserv.com/~crimson/hoplo.htm for Jeff's explanation of the origin of the word) it has become fairly common amongst the shooting and gun rights community, to the extent that it is sometimes now used by other groups/writers - see for instance its inclusion in this phobia-cure website:http://www.phobia-fear-release.com/phobia-h.html. Googling it produces 21,000 hits from a variety of sources, which suggests its significant enough for inclusion in wikipedia. ~~Ian, 19.01.06

While I'm no expert, I assumed the 'o' that seems to concern Wetman comes from 'hoplos' (singular) or 'hoplō' (plural), as in φόβος των όπλων, "fear of weapons."--Wlong1958 15:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article. Sam 17:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fear of 'weapons' is too narrow. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspis "το όπλο - to Hoplo (n) : first meaning was: TOOL, INSTRUMENT; later meaning was the tool of war = weapon" With all due respect to Col. Cooper, I suggest 'fear of instrumentalities.' Doug Huffman 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious NPOV problems

This article presents psychiatric claims published by: JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP: "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership" ... and the content of the article clearly advances a discernable ideology consistent with a pattern of advocacy. This is not appropriate. dr.ef.tymac 16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be easy to find differing viewpoints with citations to balance this research. Have restored cited reference. Yaf 01:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the portion you restored was not that it was not cited, the problem was that it purported to present psychiatric research from a source that clearly does not represent a reliable (let alone neutral) source for such research. Requiring a counterbalance to refute inherently unreliable sources does not seem consistent with WP policy.
As far as the 'advocacy' slant of the rest of the article, that too is an issue, but a separate one. dr.ef.tymac 02:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any problem at all with entry as currently presented either from a neutrality and/or NPOV issue. It is clearly mentioned that the word was coined as satire, not as a true psychiatric diagnosis. IMO, it represents a jab at certain political groups who, at least for public consumption, label all deviation from their personally acceptable political/social positions as some form of mental illness. As such, the page is for informational purposes only and fills that function in an excellent manner. Therefore, the warning boxes should be removed. Kamatu 03:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It is clearly mentioned that the word was coined as satire ... if that is the case, and this article is strictly intended to depict a satirical viewpoint of a political commentator, then the psychatric analysis by Sarah Thompson, M.D. published in "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership" is not only unsubstantiated and unreviewed scientific research that happens to be POV, it is also irrelevant to this article, and should be removed entirely. This also applies to the correlation of this "satirical disorder" to the anthropological principle of animism (which correlation, incidentally, does not appear to be supported by a cite).
So I am all in favor of removing the neutrality tags from the article, along with the anthropological and psychatric analysis as well, since those are both irrelevant to an article about political satire. The article text should also be tweaked to clearly indicate it is strictly a characterization of a political viewpoint. Acceptable? dr.ef.tymac 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a real phobia

For the pruposes of verifiability, the second quote may be considered reliable, since it provides psychiatric refs (for IMO a quite trivial statement that a fear is not necessarily a phobia). BTW, the quote is distorted. I am fixing it and removing tags. `'mikka 17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks much better. I agree with you, there was some distortion. To further complement your fixes, I just took the direct quote basically verbatim from the cited source, so now there is no ambiguity or potential for distortion. Also, there was no need for psychatric or anthropologic analysis in this article anyway, but that too has been fixed by our combined updates. Thanks for addressing these issues and removing the tags. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The -phobia/-phobe suffix is more frequently used to refer to dislikes in nonclinical settings than it is used to refer to real phobias. Mentioning here that it is not a clinical phobia is nothing more than pedantic. The Francophobia article has a much softer take on this:
Some people may consider the term "Francophobia" a misnomer as "phobia" comes from "fear."
So, I removed the paragraph. —BozoTheScary 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I re-added the paragraph, since you removed cited and relevant content based on your (apparently) subjective standards which are: 1) not substantiated; 2) inconsistent with the work of multiple contributors toward neutralizing and clarifying the content of this entry (as represented in discussion); and 3) inconsistent with WP:NPOV, which states in relevant part, content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias *all significant views* .... dr.ef.tymac 18:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand any of your points, but refuting them is unimportant. You clearly have a concern about this article that transcends the edit that I've made, judging by your comments above. Nonetheless, I cannot leave in a heavy-handed quote and reference stating that this is not a clinical phobia, when it would be something of a reach to assume so. That is clearly POV with intent to discredit those who use this term. So, I'll try a new edit that hopefully addresses your concerns and mine. —BozoTheScary 02:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


That is clearly POV with intent to discredit those who use this term ... The most important point I wish to make to you: I consider this remark by you to be entirely inappropriate.
You have:
  • 1) impugned my motives;
  • 2) made a statement about my intent, having not demonstrated even the slightest knowledge of me, my background, or any specific substantiation for this invidious claim;
  • 3) done all of the above even despite admitting you do not understand *any* of my points;
  • 4) entirely removed a source that was subject to review, discussion, compromise and mutual evaluation by more than one contributor to this article;
  • 5) single-handedly substituted your own content that does not even appear to support the assertion it purports to forward, let alone demonstrate why that assertion is relevant to this article to begin with.
Your remark seems dramatically inconsistent with WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Moreover, your unilateral reconfiguration of the entire article without even addressing the legitimate concerns of another contributor also seems out of sync with WP:CONSENSUS.
Nevertheless, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are sincerely trying to help improve the article, and not simply here to remove all viewpoints that you personally disfavor, in violation of WP:POINT.
Proposal: I am going to tag this article because I do not support your recent overhaul. Also, I am going to request that every material claim about the nature of this term be supported directly from a cite.
I am also proposing that you refrain from accusations against other contributors, unless you are willing to: 1) demonstrate you even understand what the person is talking about; 2) substantiate your claims with specifics; and 3) demonstrate your ability to acknowledge viewpoints from multiple sides of all issues relevant to this article. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bozo The Scary overhaul of article content

You clearly have a concern about this article that transcends the edit that I've made

FACT: I was fine with the article until you unilaterally removed content that: 1) had been reviewed by multiple contributors; and 2) reflected a reasonable compromise to improve neutrality after detailed discussion. Go see my edit summary that says: thanks! for addressing the issues and for helping to improve the article. ... an article that has now been substantially "un-improved".

Some gun advocates attempt to define the term clinically

FACT: You inserted this into the article despite: 1) it violates WP:WEASEL; 2) talks about "gun advocates" exclusively (which is unbalanced); 3) is not supported by any reliable source and seems to be your own personal musings; and 4) you've yet to demonstrate why this is even relevant in this article.

Mentioning here that it is not a clinical phobia is nothing more than pedantic.

FACT: The content you removed was a direct reference to the subject matter of this article. This article is about a term coined by an named individual, both of which were included in the quote Moreover, you removed a direct verbatim quote taken from a source that I personally didn't even introduce to this article. The cite was added in support of the very viewpoint that you wrongly accused me of trying to discredit!

You took out a verbatim quote, and replaced it with (apparently) your own personal musings on "phobias in general" ... even if your musings were compelling enough to warrant a WP article, the place to put such musings would be in Phobia, not here. dr.ef.tymac 14:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is still not clear what you want out of the article other than the quote, but you do seem to be very excited about it. I am willing to work with you, if you are willing to try. I've made some more changes putting back in the quote under a "Criticism" section. If you really have an issue with how I'm editing this, contact an administrator and sic them on me. Don't burn the article and don't revert me without attempting to address the change that I made. —BozoTheScary 17:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
How about this? How about we revert back to before my first edit on this article and put the second paragraph under a "Criticism" section? That way, everything is back the way that you liked it, and the quote deriding Cooper's use of the term is under a section that supports it having some POV. Will that work for you? That will work for me. —BozoTheScary 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It is still not clear what you want out of the article other than the quote
The quote itself is one issue, but the primary problem was all the new and uncited "stuff". Don't put stuff in the article if you cant substantiate it with a cite. No excitement, no frills, very simple principle.
How about we revert back to before my first edit on this article and put the second paragraph under a "Criticism" section .. a section that supports it having some POV
Criticism sections are generally disfavored and I don't see much use for it here. The quote directly references both the term and the individual who coined the term, and gives a general audience some context of its practical application. How is that even criticism? It comes right out of a gun advocacy publication!
Here's something I will support. I will tag the article appropriately. I don't have any problem with any contributor individually. Just stick to the article subject itself, pretty please? General musings on phobias simply don't belong in here. dr.ef.tymac 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
all the new and uncited "stuff"
The "stuff" you refer to was nothing more than a NPOV way of saying what your quote said. Why does the source support the POV quote, but doesn't support a factual description of the context of the definition?
How is "paraphrasing" a source ever going to be better than simply quoting the source itself? Stick to the content in cited sources, pretty please.
no frills
How does that cumbersome POV paragraph quote qualify as "no frills", yet my simple statement that the word does not refer to a clinical phobia does not?
Frills and excitement seem to always pop up in this article when people "paraphrase" the sources. Stick to the content in cited sources, pretty please.
Criticism sections are generally disfavored
If you want a POV statement made about the article subject, you put it in "Criticism" or you remove it. I tried removing it, you objected. Are you trying to argue that the quote was not a POV way of conveying context about the term? If not, why use the quote instead of simply defining the context and including the ref?
What I'm trying to propose (not argue, because this is the first I've seen you actually address specific ponts) is: Stick to the content in cited sources, pretty please.
How is that even criticism?
If it provides context, convey the cold context, not the quote. The quote has side to it that expresses a negative point of view of the coiner of the term. This article should document the term, it's implications, and it's context. It should not be used as mechanism for revenge against Cooper for coining the term, regardless of his intent.
I don't see the "revenge" you speak of, but I've no problem with cited content, as long as it is credible (not using unscientific sources to support scientific claims), and relevant to the article itself. Stick to the content in cited sources, pretty please.
It does not matter that the person quoted shared Cooper's viewpoint on gun control. The tone is clearly insulting to him personally and has no place in this article outside of a "Criticism" section, no matter how "disfavored" such sections might be.
So you're implying you don't care about that particular WP guideline? If so, which ones do matter to you? Stick to the content in cited sources, pretty please.
General musings on phobias simply don't belong in here.
What part of what I wrote is a musing on phobias? Did you even read it? I specified that the term was not a recognized phobia according to the DSM IV. I wikified "DSM IV" as a ref and I included no other refs because what I was describing was an absense of refs. Specifically, "You won't find it in a clinical document!" How am I to ref that it wasn't found in a clinical document?
If you can't find a ref for it then how do you even know it is correct? How can a neutral reader independently evaluate the credibility of the source? Stick to the content in cited sources, pretty please.
I also specified that the suffix was used in the colloquial sense, not in the clinical sense. How is that not relevant? Is it only not relevant because it doesn't make Cooper look like a jackass? Why did you object to the Thompson reference only to retract your objection after you added a quote from that article that disparaged Cooper's use of the term? What policy does that fit under?
Why did I retract my objection? It's pretty simple, the content of the article had finally matched what was said in the source that was being cited! Stick to the content in cited sources, pretty please.
Overall
Are you unable to respond to changes in articles without taking them personally? I have still yet to understand your steady stream of accusations. When I first came to this article, I read the talk page and there appeared to be some contention about the Thompson reference and I noticed in the article history that you added that quote after the last talk entry by another user. How does that qualifies as consensus? I didn't see any mention of you adding that new quote. I didn't see you put it up for discussion. Anyway, the quote appeared to be POV and wasn't explicitly reference in the talk, so I removed it per WP:NPOV. And you have proceeded to be nothing but belligerent and insulting ever since.
I have contacted an administrator to examine the merits of your accusations. I sincerely want to know if I have violated all of the policies that accuse me of. —BozoTheScary 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to Bozo in very simple terms

Are you unable to respond to changes in articles without taking them personally?

Yes, in fact nothing you've said do I take personally. Even your totally inappropriate remark about my "intent" was unsubstantiated speculation as far as I can see. Nothing to take personally because you didn't seem to back it up with anything directly attributable to me.

I have still yet to understand your steady stream of accusations

Where have I accused you of anything? I've suggested certain aspects of the text itself that, at first blush, seem inconsistent with published guidelines and policy. If I am incorrect, please just address the matter clearly. If you can demonstrate my concerns can be addressed I will happily recant.

you added that quote after the last talk entry by another user. How does that qualifies as consensus?

Very simple. The article was relying on that citation for substantiation, long before I ever got here. Multiple other contributors left it in. YOU removed it. YOU single-handedly deemed the source inappropriate for all uses. Even my own objections to the source were based on the fact that it is not a journal of clinical psychology, and thus it is not a reliable source for psychiatric claims.

And you have proceeded to be nothing but belligerent and insulting ever since.

Please, quote the text where I have insulted you. If I have, and you can back it up, I will happily: 1) apologize for the insult; 2) make sure not to do it again; and 3) learn what you are talking about through practical example instead of conjecture. Consider though, you may simply be taking something the wrong way.

[edit] An attempt to move forward

I see you've reverted again. To your credit, you seem to now be sticking to the content of cited sources. I've no problem with that, however I do believe the amount of content needs to be reduced a bit. I also believe that the source cited is not a reliable source for psychiatric research ... nevertheless, to demonstrate good faith, and a desire to avoid edit warring, I'm going to post my proposed modification here on the discussion page.

   "... not all anti-gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms ... (some) 
   suffer from gun phobia, an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms ... 
   But with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term "hoplophobia" to 
   describe anti-gun people, most ... do not have true phobias ... most anti-gun folks 
   will never admit (to excessive and irrational fear)."

Rationale for removal of portions of the quote:

The quote took a lot of text from the original source. It could stand to be pared down a bit. Also, some portions of the quote presented "scientific-sounding" causal claims, but those claims were not substantiated by cites to studies, clinical trials, or any kind of peer-reviewed scientific research. Consequently, I removed the "causal" claims and left in all other parts of the quote.

How's that. dr.ef.tymac 01:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to address your many responses to me from the previous section, but as I said in my very first post here, I don't get the impression that that would be productive. If you'd like me to, nonetheless, just let me know.
Thank you for your counterproposal. I hope that you will not regret it. I really would like to move forward on this. I really do have a concern and I can respect that you do, too. If I came across as flip before it was not intentional. I sincerely am having difficulty understanding what you want out of this article and I am hoping that I can achieve that understanding.
Regarding this section, I'm actually more inclined to agree with your very first impression of this reference from back in April. She's a physician, not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. After several rereadings of this paragraph, I am understanding that she is indeed making a psychological judgment of anti-gun folk. She is not saying that hoplophobia is not a real phobia. She is saying that anti-gun folk are not phobic because they do not realize the unreasonableness of their fears, and that that realization is integral to a clinical diagnosis of a phobia. Read this section again:
...most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly,
a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive
or unreasonable, something most anti-gun folks will never admit.
So, cutting out the last sentence changes the meaning of the quote to something the author did not appear to intend, in my opinion. (I see that you did include the last sentence in your snippet above. However, the last sentence was missing from the edit before my first.) However, leaving it in is a psychological judgment by a non-psychologist.
The only criteria that makes sense to me for using any of this quote would be if there were some elaboration on the term as a rhetorical tool, cause that's what this strikes me as, rhetoric in the voice of clinical expertise, perhaps even whimsically so.
For me, boiled down: Using the quote without the last sentence is POV against Cooper. Using the quote with the last sentence is POV against gun control advocates. And she's not a psychological expert, so no value there. Even if she were, the reference is a work of political rhetoric not a medical article.
I look forward to your thoughts on this. —BozoTheScary 01:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Before adding any more thoughts, you've stated some difficulty understanding my concerns. To simplify this as much as possible, here are some simple yes/no questions for you:
  • 1) Do you consider POV appropriate for this article only if it puts Cooper's term in a light favorable to Cooper's views?
No. The complication here is that the term itself is a POV term, so to define it, you have to describe Cooper's intent without smirking. Given that, criticism of the term and of Cooper is appropriate in a section appropriately labelled. In such a section, POV quotes and sourced NPOV criticisms of Cooper, gun advocates, Dr. Thompson, etc. are appropriate.
Pretend that we were writing the article about the term "gun nut". The article would have to unreservedly describe negative stereotypes of "gun nuts" and varying definitions and context of usage. Since the term is POV, the content would have to illustrate that POV without engaging in POV itself. Similarly, caveats, complaints, criticism, etc. of the term and it's usage would have to be segregated from the article. The term "gun nut" is not defined by those who object being smeared with it. It is defined by those with a POV against gun advocates.
Given that there is not "gun nut" article, perhaps there either should be, or this article should be AfD'ed as a neologism. I can't really see this article surviving an AfD challenge. —BozoTheScary 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here's one possible area of misunderstanding between us. You say the term is inherently POV. I tend to think the matter is not so clear cut for the following reasons:
A) * the intent of the person who coins a term may not coincide with its evolution and actual usage;
B) * some may consider the term to be entirely legitimate. Even if I'm not one of them, WP is not about my personal opinions;
C) * according to cited sources, "hoplophobe" is suggested as a substitute for "gun nut" ... thus I don't see how it automatically inherits the disparaging tone of the word it was intended to replace ... the same could be said in contrasting "homophobe" with "fag basher";
D) * I think it is possible to discuss the usage of the term without appearing to endorse (or repudiate) the legitimacy of the term itself, or the person who coined it. Unless there is a reliable source that unambiguously says it is widely considered offensive, WP readers can decide for themselves what is "inherently offensive".
A term or concept that expresses a point of view does not make it illegitimate. You seem to be confusing a real world point of view with POV bias in an article being expressed for or against the topic or something associated with the topic. Just because POV is bad on the Wikipedia does not mean that describing a term as POV means that term is "bad".—BozoTheScary 12:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
No, (IMO) it's not a matter of confusing, it's a matter of I don't see unambiguous support for your conclusion. Do you have any substantiation (besides personal opinion) that the term is unambiguously pejorative? I don't just mean considered by some to be impoletic (e.g., such as calling a stingy black person "niggardly") ... I mean unambiguously offensive (e.g., such as a non-black calling a black person the "N-word"). Even the most offensive terms can have non-pejorative connotations (such as a black person calling another black person nigga). dr.ef.tymac 15:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 2) Do you consider POV appropriate as long as it is balanced (meaning it represents all "sides" appropriate to the topic) and substantiated (meaning consistent with WP attribution guidelines)?
No. I think that this article confuses the issue because you must describe the POV of the topic without inserting a bias in the description. The article should describe the opinions, motivations, and usage of those who use the term without deliberately trying to disparage them. Given that the term is a POV term, it is entirely appropriate to create a section that refutes the term and may include POV quotes that take issue with it or its users. —BozoTheScary 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Another point that seems to depend on the "inherent POV" of the term. This is puzzling because if the term truly is inherently "bad" (as opposed to just easily misused or abused or misleading) then it seems you are automatically "disparaging" those who use it. This seems to be "taking sides". I may not like the term, but I don't see a reason to assume those who use it are always acting in bad faith or ill-will.
See my point above. The references cited in the article make it clear that the term was coined as a perjorative against people with a certain point of view.—BozoTheScary 12:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
See my point above. I don't see specific support for your claim in the cited sources, nor do I agree, that even if there were such support, that automatically makes the term unambiguously pejorative in all cases. Do you dispute that terms can have different meaning depending on context? Do you dispute that terms can have connotations independent of the original intent of their coinage? dr.ef.tymac 15:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 3) Do you consider that this article relates to a controversial topic?
Yes. The subject of this article is a deliberately controversial term. It appears to have been coined to create controversy. —BozoTheScary 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I reiterate the point about 'intent' of coining the term versus cultural 'evolution and use' of the term. In prior times, the term gay principally just meant "happy".
And the evolution of the meaning of this word is demonstrated in which source? —BozoTheScary 12:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are talking about the word "gay" ... that was simply offered as a counter-example to demonstrate the (should be obvious) fact that words can and do evolve in terms of both connotation and denotation, and meaning depends on context. You can find this out simply by reading the intro paragraph in gay. If that's not good enough for you, try the 1637 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, or here, or just try Google. dr.ef.tymac 15:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 4) Do you consider it important to adhere to the content of cited sources as closely as possible for every material claim made in this article?
Yes, where it comes from an important source. No, where the content is cherry-picked to change the meaning of the author or where the content of the cited source is cumbersomely verbose or where the same idea is expressed across a multitude of sources. —BozoTheScary 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, if you feel I was attempting to "cherry pick" or misrepresent a source, let me state right now that I consider such to be entirely inappropriate. I agree with you 100%. I do however, also feel it is important not to blindly accept everything from a source if substantiated claims are mixed in with dubious ones (such as scientific research mixed in with political commentary, when such research has no substantiation from clinical studies). Sometimes it's easier to just excise the flaws than to reject the entire source on the grounds of WP:RS. dr.ef.tymac 04:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
How would you describe trimming the following quote "Smurfs aren't small. They're tiny," into "Smurfs aren't small"? That is what happened with the Thompson quote. You trimmed the quote to reverse her intent.—BozoTheScary 12:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to re-read the header under which you are posting, honorable (sir/madam)? Attempt to move forward ... you are re-hashing a dead matter: I already told you misrepresentation was not my intent, expressed agreement in principle, and even demonstrated good faith by supporting expansion of the quote (remember my counter-proposal)? I also told you my concern was simply to make sure unsubstantiated psychiatric claims were not put in this article.
Do you understand? Do you see the current version of the article with the full paragraph-long excerpt that you put in yourself, unchanged by me or anyone else? Do you see anyone asking for the truncated version of the quote to be put back in there? Did you ever stop to think that reasonable people can have different opinions of "intent"? I have my opinion. You clearly have yours. The only difference seems to be I acknowledge that different people can see things differently, and you seem to insist that people who disagree with your interpretations of "intent" must be just plain wrong, or worse -- even invoking the Smurfs to drive your point home on moot issues, no less.
How is any of that going to lead to compromise on the wording in this article? dr.ef.tymac 15:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 5) Do you consider it important to justify modifications to this article with support from WP policies and guidelines when requested to do so?
I take issue with the assumptions underlying this question. —BozoTheScary 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There were no assumptions underlying this or any other question. The very reason I asked you for simple "yes/no" answers was to get away from the apparent misunderstandings and emotional invective that seem to be influencing this discussion. I do not know you. I've never worked with you on an article before (that I'm aware of). You might have answered no and then given a clear and brilliant justification for it. The best way I know to clear up fundamental differences in perspective is to simply assume nothing and ask yes no questions. That is the only motivation for these questions.
Having said that, can I take your (apparently indignant) response as a resounding and unqualified yes? Again, all I am looking for is clarification. Hence yes or no. Your responses were helpful and direct, and gave me additional insights into your working style. That's all I'm asking for. dr.ef.tymac 23:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I notice you still haven't answered any questions here under (5). dr.ef.tymac 15:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
These are simple questions and I'm hoping for just a "yes" or a "no". If you wish to rephrase a question so as to render a "yes or no" answer more feasible, please feel free to do so. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 02:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Apparent sticking points

As far as I can tell, these are the primary disagreements:

BozoTheScary seems to contend that:

  • 1.1) "Hoplophobia" is an intentionally offensive term (from the intent of its originator);
  • 1.2) the term is always pejorative solely on the basis of 1.1 above;
  • 1.3) one person can discern "intent" sufficiently to warrant restructuring the article

dr.ef.tymac asserts:

  • 2.1) the intent of the originator is not entirely unambiguous based on a reading of the sources;
  • 2.2) in this instance, such intent is a matter best determined by the readers of WP, (who can review the sources for themselves and make up their own minds) and not individual WP contributors like Bozo or dr.ef.tymac;
  • 2.3) 1.1) above has yet to be substantiated by reference to the cited sources;
  • 2.3.1) the use of "hoplophobe" as a replacement term for "anti-gun nut" does not automatically substantiate 1.1);
  • 2.4) even if 1.1) were correct, that is not a sufficient basis to prove 1.2);
  • 2.5) the connotations, and denotation associated with a word depend on other factors besides (the apparent) intent of origination; these include: context, the relationship of the speaker to the hearer(s), cultural norms and other factors;
  • 2.6) there are obvious examples of common English words to support 2.5);
  • 2.7) Because of the above, 2.1 et seq., a "Criticism" section should not be used and the article should just stick to quoting sources. A "Usage of the term" section, or a "Commentary" section, however would be appropriate.

This is my good-faith interpretation of the situation, others may feel free to correct or clarify. Because of these sticking points, I believe the article should remain tagged for neutrality problems, and that the current revision of the article is deficient. dr.ef.tymac 15:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed addition for more balance

The following should also be added to the article:

   Marla Kennedy, executive director of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, 
   called use of the word a "desperate attempt" to "(make) everyone think ... we're fearful 
   of (guns) when the truth is we just want to protect people."((cite to deseretnews))

Also, this quote and the one about "phobias" should be put under a section: "Commentary on the use of this term".

So far, the article does not appear to include a single quote or viewpoint attributable to those who are not on the side of gun advocacy. Unless someone wants to forward a compelling rationale to the contrary, this seems clearly unbalanced. dr.ef.tymac 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap! We agree on something! Yes, this is precisely what I had in mind. I sincerely appreciate your willingness to help me work out the right way to section off commentary about this term. While I think that it is important that an opposing view be present, especially since this is an invention of rhetoric, I do not think that the core article should be used to disparage Cooper or the term.
Let me know if I missed your point. —BozoTheScary 02:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
That is, I think that there should be a distinct section that should explicitly include disparagement of Cooper and the term. Just to be clear. —BozoTheScary 02:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this touches on a source of misunderstanding here. I do not understand your (apparent) rationale that commentary on a term coined by a named individual somehow represents a disparagement of the individual himself. I think this particular matter could use some clarification. dr.ef.tymac 02:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The original quote, as pared-down for the article, appeared to be an ironic insult of Cooper, "with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper" followed by a simple contradiction of Cooper's definition. Even if the full quote didn't equate to agreement with Cooper's definition, a simple contradictory quote with the ironic insult doesn't belong in the part of the article that defines the term and its context. Even taking out the frequently loaded "with all due respect" phrase and just leaving "most anti-gun people do not have true phobias" (again pretending that that were her true intent) doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the article unless you want to quote some insightful reason why she felt that way or she is some kind of authority on the subject of phobias.
Her full quote, which supports his usage of the term really doesn't belong in this article either. It's cheap partisan humor and doesn't further the understanding of the subject. I'd rather the whole thing gone, but I was under the impression that you really wanted it here for some reason. I figured that if it had to be here, it should at least include the part where she foils her own assertion and disclosed her real intent. —BozoTheScary 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
As I said from the beginning, my primary concern is that whatever goes in the article be substantiated and credible. As you have already discovered, I myself forwarded some potential problems with the underlying cite. Other contributors to this article disagreed with me, so consensus appeared to support its retention in the article. If you want to take it out entirely, I am not fundamentally opposed to it, but then: 1) what do you propose to replace it with, so that those that supported it don't come back and complain; and 2) you should make it clear that you intend to remove the cite, despite the apparent consensus to leave it in. If I were you I'd make a separate discussion thread clearly indicating your intent and rationale for removal. dr.ef.tymac 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: Also, please consider that some see a difference between the words: "criticism" (which can mean entirely unfavorable views) and "commentary" (which can mean analysis that can be either favorable, unfavorable, or impartial). Just in case this was another potential source of misunderstanding. dr.ef.tymac 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I really do think that an article like this that doesn't have a lot of popular cultural awareness and yet is deliberately offensive really needs to have room for the arguments of those who take exception with its usage or its proponents, but that the term not be defined by quotes from its detractors, even quotes from gun advocates who disagree with it.
Some might find it offensive, some might consider it accurate. I think you and I may have significantly different personal views about this kind of article. I really don't give a rat's ass if most people find the term offensive, or if most people find it useful. What I do give a rat's ass about is whether all significant and citable viewpoints are fairly and accurately represented in the article, and that there is balance . This is why I think a "commentary" section (and not a "criticism" section) is appropriate. This is an example of what I mean: Sandra_day_o'connor#Critique. Notice the "critique" section includes both criticism and praise. It doesn't partition "pro" separately from "con". It doesn't appear to "take sides" ... it just cites sources and repeats like a parrot what other people have said. dr.ef.tymac 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of policy, shouldn't this article be deleted per WP:NEO, or at least moved to the Wiktionary? —BozoTheScary 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to propose this article for deletion, you are free to do so, but there are already cites supporting that this term can be attributed to a named individual, and there are newspaper articles devoted to it, and it relates to a well-known and controversial issue. Consequently, this does not seem to present an unambiguously obvious violation of WP:NEO. That's just my first impression, but others might see it differently. As long as the article is here, however, it should be conformant to policy. dr.ef.tymac 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What should be in the article?

I think that the article is weaker without mentioning that it's a pejorative, but Dreftymac disagrees and I accept Dreftymac's assertion that the sources will suffice. I do think that there are sources that substantiate this, but not to Dreftymac's satisfaction and so it goes.

If you have support for the "pejorative" viewpoint (e.g., that the term is always pejorative, or usually, or intended to be or however you want to qualify it) you are free to point out the specific wording of the specific source that substantiates that viewpoint. I've yet to see you indicate that specific wording at all. Do that first. Not untill then does the issue of anyone's "satisfaction" even come into play.
It does, however, seem to be a stretch to assume "always pejorative" necessarily follows from "intended to be". That's not a problem of substantiation, but rather a problem of consistent logical reasoning based on sound deductive inference. dr.ef.tymac 07:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that the article should not refer to the term as pejorative until a ref is offered in the discussion and is agreed upon that specifically uses that word. Is this issue now settled? —BozoTheScary 15:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree that the Thompson quote contributes anything to the article, but if Dreftymac wants to keep the Thompson quote in the article in the main section, I am fine with that as long as the final sentence of the particular paragraph in question is part of the quote.

Does that suit Dreftymac? —BozoTheScary 23:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Take it out if you want. I'm not the one who added the cite in the first place, I've already indicated flaws with it on this very talk page -- so it's not a question of "Dreftymac wants". Since other contributors added it, and expressed a desire to keep it in, I deferred to the apparent consensus to keep it in. If those other contributors come back to complain, they can look at this thread and see that you overruled them.
One might question the stability of "revolving-door editorial review" in which one day cites are in, next day they're out, in again, out again ... but so it goes. dr.ef.tymac 07:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you've addressed the first half of my sentence. Assuming that the quote stays in, are you able to agree to an excerpt that includes the sentence that I mentioned? —BozoTheScary 15:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with continuing the "post proposals to the discussion page, and then discuss them" strategy. Anywhere we can avoid "assuming" anything, and just stick to specific wording, seems bound to be orders of magnitude more productive. dr.ef.tymac 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether of pejorative origins or not, I think there is some merit to this term in clinical fashion, like many specific phobias. I have actually encountered a patient in a psychological setting that would be truly described as "hoplophobic." He was a middle aged man who had little concern about gun politics, and even mentioned he did not care if people owned guns or not, but was TERRIFIED by the mere site of them. When a policemen would walk by, he would have to look away, and ask "is he gone yet?" He did not dislike police, but he could not get over the sidearm. During treatment, we even had a photo of a gun, but he'd cover his eyes. "Put it away. Put it away!" It's easy to make fun, but that's just how phobias work. Legitimus 00:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all of the sources that I was able to locate were in direct reference to Cooper's use and all of Cooper's uses were in a context of political rhetoric. That was why I was inclined towards making this article a section in Cooper's article. I am pleased to see from your contribution and that of Hoplon that the term has a life beyond Cooper. I am close to someone who whose PTSD flashbacks are triggered by the appearance or sound of mundane items, so my sincere sympathies are with the patient you described. –BozoTheScary 03:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Is the text "(Cooper)" a legitimate ref? Can you just assert that the guy said this and put his last name in the ref? —BozoTheScary 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This ref might support the "gun grabbers" quote. Will that work? —BozoTheScary 00:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The text "(Cooper)" [fn3] is just an abbreviated reference to the same source indicated in [fn2], using the author's last name as shorthand. (See e.g., Wikipedia:Harvard referencing for a similar convention). dr.ef.tymac 06:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. What happens when there's another Cooper ref? —BozoTheScary 15:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguate it with title, year, isbn or any of various other means. The convention is obviously useful only when the context is not ambiguous. dr.ef.tymac 17:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is "This statement by Cooper can be compared to animism, an anthropological term for attributing life to inanimate objects" a legitimate ref? Is the quote that precedes this ref from the animism article? Where does it come from? —BozoTheScary 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you review the article history, you will discover that the mention of "animism" was added by anonymous IP here. The current mention is not a reference, but rather a note. I changed it to a note because it did not have a citation to support it, and used "mass attribution" (Hoplophobia is deemed to be a cultural side effect of ...) and thus did not belong in the body of the article. I could have deleted it outright, but I was giving whoever added it the benefit of the doubt. A "note" is not used for substantiation, but can be compared to a "see also" link. This is why it says "can be compared to" and not "is deemed to be". dr.ef.tymac 06:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
How about putting it in a separate notes section or just putting animism in a "See also" and letting the reader determine whether or not there is a comparison? Including it among the refs imparts a higher certainty, despite your laudable change of verbiage. —BozoTheScary 15:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The use of a single "Notes and references" section is consistent with WP style recommendations and a recognized convention used in multiple places (See e.g., Wikipedia:Footnotes, Gymnopédie#Notes_and_references, you can also Google for hundreds of examples) also note:
   Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the 
   main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point 
   in greater detail.

   Footnotes are also often used to cite references that are relevant to a text.

   (from Wikipedia:Footnotes, emphasis not in original).
If you can support your recommendation with cites to relevant WP policy or guidelines, I, for one, would be more than happy to consider them. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 17:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this ref may support the "instruments possess a will" quote. Will that work? (All the other refs that I ran across referenced this article or were forums or blogs.) —BozoTheScary 00:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominate for Article for deletion?

This article really appears to amount to not much more than a dictionary definition of the word. And, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. SaltyBoatr 18:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And when I check the article attributions given in the notes and references section all I see are links to websites. PerWP:V#Sources_of_questionable_reliability, these websites are not suitable for use as attribution in this encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr 18:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Further, when I do a book search[1] on Google I find only four books that even use this word. Hardly notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. This web search [2] indicates that the word is 'made up' and is part of a 'POV push', clearly this does not belong as an article in Wikipedia. A Google 'scholar' search[3] describes this as a freshly coined term by Col. Jeff Cooper[4]. Yet, Jeff Cooper's books all appear to be published by a vanity press. As such, they are not to be used on Wikipedia per the standards of WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Paladin Press is not a vanity press, only a smallish, special-interest press. Paladin's books are generally well respected in their intended audiences. As for Cooper himself, he was very well respected among the shooting community, although a bit dogmatic at times. His impact on the shooting community, though, is clearly not an issue. Yaf 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Jeff Cooper Books certainly qualifies as a vanity press. SaltyBoatr 20:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
After Paladin lost their First Amendment (i.e., Hit Man) case, and was largely devoured by legal fees, they had to cut back on printing many titles, Jeff's included. Jeff picked up the printing at that time of his earlier popular titles they had carried. A "vanity press" that continued printing his popular books after Paladin got in financial trouble is not the typical vanity press, but is rather a work-a-round to continue to make money for books for which there is a considerable market. The fact that a book was first published by a publisher, who then sold the publishing right back to the author, is a rather common occurence, at least for popular titles, and is not the typical vanity press. Such published books clearly meet WP rules on quoting published books. There is no "vanity press" at issue here. Yaf 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The difference between Jeff Cooper Books and vanity press is that the latter exists to publish books which are not likely to sell. In Cooper's case, JCB was a way to produce books, which sold well, and save the costs of the middleman. His name and logo were marketing points (the same as those of sports figures, bands, etc.), which also appeared on $2500 firearms, $150 flashlights, $80 knives, logowear and other items. Critic-at-Arms 07:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It might be easier to consider the merit of the Thompson quote than the merit of her publisher. It appears to me that she is, in essence, either making a psychiatric diagnosis of "most anti-gun people" or she is making a rhetorical jab using clinical definitions. Are either of these contributory to the article? Is a mass diagnosis usable? Is rhetoric usable? I don't know. Does someone have a better reason for keeping the content of this quote? —BozoTheScary 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It does relate to a relatively prominent political and social issue, at least in the United States. Moreover, your very glib summary of the attribution for this article omits the newspaper coverage (which is not yet cited as a reference because the relevant wording has not yet been put into the article).

Regarding your already-well-trodden point about "not a dictionary", homophobia, Nosophobia, Neophobia, Coulrophobia, and Ailurophobia all stand as potential deletion candidates under that rationale. Some of those don't even have cites at all.

Don't get me wrong, I can see a legitimate viewpoint behind wanting to AfD this article, it is a viewpoint that I do not even necessarily oppose. The question is, are we going to promote consistency within WP. Contributors should take care that their rationale is stable, well-considered, and universal before proposing deletions, because inconsistent and capricious treatment of articles (IMO) really hurts the credibility of the whole project.

Having said that, I think your one good point is the issue about agenda behind the creation of this "word". As elaborated previously in this discussion, however, the purpose behind the creation of a word, and the meaning as derived from context and usage are not necessarily always the same.

Just some random considerations, I'm sure you can make up your own mind about whether and how to proceed. Best wishes. dr.ef.tymac 18:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Drefymac, aside from the disrespect of the term, I don't understand how you can use the term "glib" to refer to SaltyBoatr's assertion that the sources have "a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" when you yourself referred to one source as "a source that clearly does not represent a reliable (let alone neutral) source". What is the criteria for determining the "reputation" of a source per the WP policy?
I respectfully request that you strike out this paragraph, since it indeed indicates that you do not understand my point at all, and it introduces new assertions that I do not endorse, and never did. (see below, as well as this JPFO thread I already started). dr.ef.tymac 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the "newspaper coverage", the most recent usage is a contemporary letter to the editor regarding the Va. Tech Massacre (that invokes Cooper to use the term) and a 2003 article that referred to "hoplophobia" as a "made-up word" (again invoking Cooper). Since this term is still very tied to Cooper, should it be merged in the article on him?
The idea for merging is not a bad idea. That would nicely address concerns of any who would oppose deletion of this particular article. dr.ef.tymac 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your rationale regarding the other articles either. Are you saying that because there are other articles that deserve deletion for the same reasons, this one should not be deleted for consistency's sake? Or just that consistency should weigh heavily in this decision? Do you have a policy link for that? —BozoTheScary 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I will address this on your user talk page, clearing this additional mis-understanding is better done there. dr.ef.tymac 02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

....

Respectfully, Bozo, I think this is an example of you mis-interpreting my statements based on more mis-understanding ( a situation I thought might happen, and even attempted to prevent by saying "Don't get me wrong" ).
Therefore, I will explain :
  • "glib": referred to this *specific statement by SaltyBoatr* -> when I check the article attributions given in the notes and references section all I see are links to websites ... that remark, (although doubtless "correct" in a superficial sense, did not seem to acknowledge the fact of newspaper coverage [i.e., go see the "External Links" section of this article]);
  • regarding my prior statements: "it purported to present psychiatric research from a source that clearly does not represent a reliable (let alone neutral) source for such research" (emphasis not in original). If you take a little time and re-read carefully, you will notice the reference to psychiatric research ... a viewpoint I've repeated several times now;
  • you could have used my prior statements as an additional clue that I was not applying "glib" to the entirety of SaltyBoatr's analysis (much of which, quite frankly, I happen to agree with) instead of using them to puzzle over non-existent inconsistencies in my own analysis;
BOTTOM LINE: you applied the word "glib" beyond the scope of my original critique. In the process you presented interpretations that I niether agree with, nor endorse. I will respond to your other issues on your talk page. dr.ef.tymac 02:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion but found a note on my userpage asking for more voices to join the discussion and analysis of the page. Once pared down to those topics which are reliably sourced, I am not seeing anything in the article which reaches substantially past the point of a dictionary definition. This page shows the meaning, probable origins and usage of a neologism. It does that well, but that's lexical content, not encyclopedic content. This page is also getting into trouble with WP:NOR since we are apparently the first ones drafting an analysis of the term. The page cites several people and sources who used the term but none that are primarily about the condition. Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is a tertiary source. We synopsize the writings of others on a particular topic. Until someone has written a specific paper or text on the topic of "hoplophobia" (either as a medical condition or political position), we really have nothing to work from.

In my opinion, the current contents should be merged into the existing definition at Wiktionary:hoplophobia and this page replaced with a soft redirect using {{wi}}. 12.168.68.11 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JPFO cite

This item has now been contested by at least three separate contributors under three separate rationales:

Since the burden of evidence rests with those who wish to retain content in WP articles, anyone who wishes to keep the cite and associated quote in the article should step forward now and explain why it should not be deleted from this article, including specific evidence to support its inclusion. dr.ef.tymac 20:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)