Talk:Hoplophobia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

JPFO cite

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

• User:Dreftymac ;; unsubstantiated psychiatric claims;
• User:BozoTheScary ;; adds no value to the article;
• User:SaltyBoatr ;; no evidence of a reliable publication process.

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)

Re: "revert series of POV edits by anonymous editor using loaded language"

Oh, so you believe a reporter's narrowminded anti-gun POV holds more weight than a psychologist's peer-reviewed paper on the psychology of the term. That's nice. However, that's invalid criteria for a revert, as the makes the article more POV, not less. Reverts reversed. 02:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.245.140 (talk)

Edits involving the peer-reviewed paper of the qualified psycholgist has been restored. I removed the text you found offensive, even though it's from the cited reference.02:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And to clarify, my use of the following term is specifically designed to differentiate, as does the psychologist, the difference between hoplophobes and those who simply oppose guns: "By comparison, the anti-gun person who believes that malicious shootings by ordinary gun owners are likely to occur holds their opinion for different reasons." I'm sure some anti-gun folks are hoplophobes, but most are not. This isn't a pro-gun vs anti-gun issue, so please don't make it one. It's a psychological term! Keep it simple, but keep it accurate. The news article was not accurate, and contradicted the linked opinion of a qualified psychologist. 03:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a psychological term, it's a pseudo-psychological term made up by a gun advocate to mock his opposition as neurotics. I'm not afraid of guns; I have used them, even hunted with them. I am, however, afraid of a substantial minority of gun advocates, and in particular of the people who are the loudest about their "right" to any weapons they can get their hands on (like the local gunshop owner who wore Nazi uniforms to Gencon until they passed a rule against it). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Collapsing comment, talk page not a forum

Psychology itself is a "pseudo" Science. More art than exact results... All of the phobias in the DSM were the result of someone, thoughful or not, observing behaviour based on percieved irrational fears. Doesn't take a PHD to understand that to be so afraid of an extreme minority, that you would be willing to reject the efficacy of your own natural human right of self denfense , is clearly a defect, not only of character but of mental processing. The thought that a few lone Nazi freaks at any given gun show are somehow going be such a danger as to cause national havoc and therefore "guns should be illegal for everyone", is an error of judgement about as bad as thinking that an object itself is imbued with malice.

Do Crazy drivers justify making cars illegal...? Should we outlaw fertilizer? What about bleach and ammonia? Hoplophobia is a real condition as far as I'm concerned. Resistance to acknowledging such irrationality most certainly comes from the folks who are ideologically opposed to the People retaining even symbolic power against the State. There should be another term for that phobia ... The fear of (a free) Man. Too bad there already is a term in use currently describing something else ("Homophobia") which could be used more accurately to describe fear of man in general.

Check out these wiki entries, where you can see the Psycho-philosophic heritage of such fears:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fear_of_Freedom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudo-Marxism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm

quote request

Quote provided, as requested.12:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but you misunderstood. The quote you provided from the Sarah Thompson paper is readily available on numerous pro-gun blogs. The missing quote is from page 410 of the American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. We should verify if 'hoplophobia' is a term actually used by the APA as is implied by the footnote. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be able to help with this; I have a hard copy of the DSM IV TR. Now, the ref says 1994, so I think that's the older version (DSM IV) before the text revision in 2000(DSM IV TR). In the 2000 edition, page 410 is "Mood Disorder Not Otherwise Specified." I don't think that's what was intended. Could the poster specify the section they are referring to?

Just to get a jump on things though, I suspect the reference is to "Specific Phobia." The DSM does not name each specific phobia as they are simply too numerous to do so, and it is also besides the point. They do have 5 sub-types (p. 445): Animal, Natural Environment, Blood/Injection/Injury, Situational, and Other. Hoplophobia would be Other. The big point I think the poster is trying to make is Criteria C: "The person recognizes the fear as excessive or unreasonable." Therefore it would be improper, in the realm of medicine at least, to call a person of anti-gun political leanings hoplophobic unless they admit (even if only in private) that their own fear is unreasonable.

When a patient has an unreasonable fear and poor insight, this is usually an indication for Delusional disorder instead.Legitimus (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The speculation about Criteria C, without specific mention of hoplophobia in the APA manual, involves too much WP:SYN for use in a Wikipedia article. Also, holding anti-gun leanings are not necessarily political at all, they could just as easily be public, familial or personal safety concerns (all of which could be genuine and/or phobic). In the mean time, I am removing that APA ref as it is not clear at all that the APA uses the term 'hoplophobia'. If someone can show a specific quote from page 410 which uses the word 'hoplophobia' we can reinsert later. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I should reemphasize one point I made: The APA never names ANY specific phobias in the DSM.Legitimus (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Philip Ninan book

There is a citation to page 107 of a book by Philip Nina. That book appears extremely obscure, and I request a quote from that book in order to confirm the citation. Thanks. I notice that the mainstream reference for diagnosis of mental disorders, the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders doesn't mention Hoplophobia. Therefore the clinical nature of this diagnosis deserves to be verified. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The DSM does not contain a direction mention of word, but it does not need to. It does not contain direct mention of many recognized phobias either. All such phobias are collectively covered under the diagnosis Specific phobia. There are simple too many, and naming them all defeats the purpose of the diagnosis, which is defined as "marked and persistent fear of clearly discernible, circumscribed objects or situations." A weapon is, of course, an object.Legitimus (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Legitimus is correct, the DSM does not contain an all inclusive, definitive, and exhaustive list of all phobias. If it did it would be pushing 2000 pages long. The DSM contains categories and sub-categories of phobias and mentions a few of the more common ones. Lack of mention in the DSM does not mean the term is not valid. Altoids boxes (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The citation for the Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Anxiety Disorders by Dunlop and Ninan is valid and is on page 107 in table 7-1. The book can be found at Barnes and Noble or at Amazon. At the time of publishing:

Boadie W. Dunlop, MD is Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, GA.

Philip T. Ninan, MD is Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Director of the Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GeorgiaAltoids boxes (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Clinical?

Trasel has a couple times[5][6] now inserted the word "clinical", yet I see no sourcing that hoplophobia is a clinical condition. Could Trasel, or another editor, point to reliable third party sourcing that discusses clinical hoplophobia? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain, this is something of a trick question. Among clinical manuals such as the DSM, you will not find acrophobia or coulrophobia either, yet they are widely recognized by most people simply because they are more common. Clinical practice generally avoids using these names and simply called them "specific phobias," because some are extremely specific and downright bizarre to outside observers. I've seen specific phobias of saltine crackers, the full moon, bagpipes, the sound of metal touching teeth, the tactile sensation of sandpaper. It's highly impractical to give Greek names to them all, and just as inappropriate to say there is no such thing just because this specific word is not used in nationally published material.Legitimus (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I hear you. I can't help but noticing that the acrophobia and the coulrophobia articles don't use the word clinical like this article does. I guess that to be 'clinical' the phobia needs to be seen in a clinical setting. So, rephrasing my question: Is there any third party sourcing that hoplophobia has been treated in a clinical setting? Or, is this simply a guess by Trasel? In the mean time, the use of the word clinical to describe this word seems WP:OR. When I look at the sparse third party sourcing about hoplophbia I see it is almost always used as a political term not a clinical term. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it could be worded differently to separate the two. For example "True clinical specific phobias about weapons are uncommon, and are not consistent with Cooper's usage, as actual specific phobias require the person to realize their own fear is unreasonable."Legitimus (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That is an improvement, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I still believe that the article should make it clear that Cooper was not a mental health professional or expert, and let the reader decide whether his coinage of a pseudo-psychiatric term should be treated as anything other than the old ploy of pretending your opponents are neurotic or crazy. I am not going to edit war over it, but invite anybody who has removed this information to explain why it should not be in the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 10:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemike here, perhaps we can work out some compromise wording. The issue is that Jeff Cooper created a pseudo-word, attempting to frame his opponents as if they were afflicted with a mental condition. That raises the NPOV bar for us editors, requiring us to be especially clear that Cooper was not qualified to diagnose a mental condition. Indeed it is reasonable to guess that Cooper may even have been deliberately obfuscating what he knew to be in the political realm to be a 'mental case' in order to advance his politics. Mental conditions at that time had a much greater negative stigma than today, and Cooper probably was aware of that. In short, to comply with WP:NPOV, we must be exceedingly clear that Cooper was not qualified to make a medical judgment, but proceeded to do so anyway. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a phrase that is neutral and that I presume will acceptable to all the current editors. Perhaps we should also mention that he had a Master's degree in History. Trasel (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got an honors degree in history myself; don't perceive the relevance to mental health issues (despite the long tradition of historians without qualification "diagnosing" historical figures with everything from Marfan's to clinical depression). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Dysphemism Issue

A well-intentioned user made an edit, adding Hoplophobia to the Dysphemism category. Doing so without a reference violates the WP:OR (original research) policy. Sorry, but unless you can provide a reference to a verifiable third party source that mentions that Hoplophobia is a Dysphemism, then you cannot add it to that category. Without a proper reference, then that categorization is just your opinion.Trasel (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The guideline to apply here is WP:CAT, not [[WP:OR]. On its face, it does seem obvious that Jeff Cooper was attempting to disparage his political opponents when he coined this word. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Trasel, where in WP:CAT are we required to show references? The guidelines for categorization is different than for WP:OR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are referencing the wrong policy page. The issues here are WP:OR and WP:RS. It is implicit that the Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia: Original research policies apply to ALL content and editing practices in Wikipedia, and that includes categorization criteria. Please stop reverting this, or it will go to arbitration. Trasel (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You disagree with the plurality here. Looking at the edit history of this there seems to be three editors[7][8][9] that view this categorization as appropriate. I am guessing that the IP editor was you, so it appears that only you oppose. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't play sock puppet games. That IP-address tag was not my edit. But that is irrelevant. What is at issue here is properly REFERENCED RELIABLE SOURCES, not cabal politics. Again, unless you can provide a reference to a verifiable third party source that mentions that Hoplophobia is a Dysphemism, then you cannot add it to that category.Trasel (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think the categorization is inappropriate without a reliable source supporting it. --Hamitr (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoplophobia seems to be a rather obvious dysphemism. Especially considering the manner in which the term is used. When gun rights advocates refer to gun control advocates as hoplophobes, it is a disparagement. The term implies neurosis and is not meant to cast the gun control people in a nicer light. I suppose we can at least agree that hoplophobia is used pejoratively. This could also be categorized under category:pejoratives, but I thought dysphemism to be more precise. Gobonobo ^{T C} 04:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not inherently dysphemistic. As I have stated before, it can be used in a true clinical sense to name a specific phobia. Truth be told, I heard this term in clinical settings long before I had any idea who Jeff Cooper was (not before he used it, just that I had not heard of him). I'm not much for politics and only watch this article because of it's relation to psychology.Legitimus (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This "phobia" was coined in a political framework not a medical framework. It served to politically frame Cooper's opponents as being "sick in the head" and not rational. There is essentially zero reliable sourcing that hoplophobia is a WP:Notable medical term. All the sourcing I have seen uses the term politically. This encyclopedia is obligated to neutrally convey what we read in reliable sourcing, which is that Cooper coined the term politically, and the term has been used for decades exclusively in political contexts. To that end we must not advance Cooper's POV push that this term is genuinely medical, but rather we must convey fundamentally political nature of the term. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's starting to look like you're on the wrong side of this argument. If you're really keen about it, and if it won't be a waste of my time, I'll order Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Anxiety Disorders from the library. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also we should check more than just a sentence fragment quote from Segan. What is the context of that Joseph Segan quote? What else is written in the paragraph, what is the chapter name, etc.. Does the Josheph Segan quote mention hoplophobia in significant coverage, as would be required to meet WP:Notability standards? Or it just a trivial mention, being trivial under the Notability guideline? We must verify that the Segan reference meets the notability standard, and the sentence fragment you just provided is insufficient to answer that question. Thanks in advance for helping. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, Segens book is a dictionary of medical terms, not an essay or dissertation. Altoids boxes (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I have a copy of it. Altoids boxes (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, here is an online friend's scan of page 107 of Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Anxiety Disorders http://picasaweb.google.com/odinseye.public/Reference#5432729172147030898 and here is his scan of page 307 from Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine http://picasaweb.google.com/odinseye.public/Reference#5431881978738782914 Altoids boxes (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, those should be helpful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Altoids! That is really helpful. It reveals what I suspected. So far at least, there are only two identified reliable sources showing the use of 'hoplophobia' in a medical context. Both (as seen in your scans) make only the tiniest mention of the word. This is in contrast to numerous newspaper articles which describe hoplophobia as a term used in the political debate surrounding gun politics. Considering that Jeff Cooper is sourced as using the term "as a tongue-in-cheek neurosis...to mock those who think guns have free will", we must not further the illusion to suggest that this is a significant medical phobia in the medical literature. This article should report on the debate, not join in the debate by falsely advancing the POV premise that opponents of gun rights are mentally ill. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That is categorically a false dilemma. Accepting that it is a real term or at least a real concept in medical literature in no way legitimizes Cooper's incorrect usage that people who disagree with him are crazy. By not mentioning at least how the term is an incorrect usage of "phobia", we do an disservice to readers of this article. We at least need to explain what a real phobia is.Legitimus (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you. Except, after the latest Trasel revert[10], the article leads as if this term primarily describes a medical term, and follows secondarily with the political term. Checking sources, that is backwards weight from what we see. By far, the primary usage is political in the reliable sources. I am not comfortable, and advise that we be very cautious when "explaining what a real phobia is" in this article because it risks WP:SYN and it gives an undue weight to the medical usage of the word. The bulk of the article weight should be covering the political usages. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, the point of the Dr Thompson paper is basically what you are aiming at - that the term is a valid one for such a phobia, providing the victim recognizes they have an unreasonable fear, but the way Cooper used it was not in keeping with a definition of a phobia. Altoids boxes (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I can clarify some more. I was talking with a bona fide expert in phobias and his opinion is that if someone has an actual fear of let's say Post-Its, that fear is indeed a phobia. It is an example of what the phobia category the DSM calls "specific phobias". Specific phobias are broken down into furth categories. The fear of Post-Its would fall into the sub-category of "other". Creating a name for this phobia is perfectly acceptable. There is no name for Post-Its in Greek or Latin, so appending "Post-It" onto-phobia would be completely valid. Post-Itphobia may not be found in many/any medical references, but that does not make the term any less valid. Those pointing at the DSM and saying "it isn't in the DSM, therefore it is not real" are mistaken if for no other reason, because the DSM does not contain an all inclusive, definitive, list of phobias -- in fact it barely lists any. The DSM gives encompassing categories and sub-categories of phobias. IAW the DSM, it is only a phobia if the sufferer recognizes that their fear is unreasonable (though many professionals disagree with this caveat). Dr Thompson's quote which was previously included points out that it is a valid term for a phobia, but the way Col Copper applied it went beyond the scope of a phobia. Altoids boxes (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I grant you that "hoplo" plus "phobia" has a logical meaning, at least hypothetically. But, I think it is presently a settled matter here that the Thompson paper, famous on the gun blogs, has not been shown to have been published in a reliable source. Therefore I disagree with your "term is a valid one" premise. Show me some mainstream medical journal describing the diagnosis, or treatment of hopolphobia please, none have yet been identified. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The points I am making are 1) the term does not need to be listed in a medical journal to be valid. If it accurately describes a precise specific phobia, and meets the DSM criteria of "specific phobia", then the term is medically valid. Wikipediaphobia would be a perfectly valid medical term so long as the requirements of a "specific phobia" as spelled out in the DSM are met (namely, that there is an unreasonable fear or anxiety and that the person suffering from it realizes it is unreasonable) and it indicates specifically what the phobia is focused on (Wikipedia). 2) The paper by Dr Thompson, though published in a periodical from and copyrighted by a vehement gun rights organization, actually takes issue with Col Cooper's non-medical usage of the term syaing he is incorrect in the way he used the term. She is criticizing him, not necessarily agreeing with him, and she is actually supporting the DSM criteria for "specific phobias". The JFPO is a valid organization formed under Wisconsin law and which has been around for 20 years, is small (about 5000 members), but has published numerous articles, videos, and even submitted AMICUS CURIAE briefs to the US Supreme Court (not the easiest thing in the world to accomplish). While I disagree with many of their views, I think that they are definitely a valid source for articles published in their periodical. Because Dr Thompson is showing what would be the correct usage of the term vs how Col Cooper used it and because the JPFO is a legitimate source, I recommend putting Thompson's quote back in. Altoids boxes (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please examine your proposal in context of the policy WP:NOR. I think that it crosses the line of being a form of editorial synthesis. Try to write an article about Wikipediaphobia, and it wouldn't fly. Similar logic here, there is very little (near zero) about a medical condition in the literature about fear of guns. That hypothetically there could be such a medical condition isn't good enough per WP:NOR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tried making the same reasoning and it seems to fall on deaf ears. I could care less about gun politics, I just came here to put some science in. But why bother if I'm going to be wikilawyered to death by a single user; I'm taking this off my watchlist. This is one of the fatal flaws of wikipedia and it's exactly why experts abandon this site and why so many people distrust it.Legitimus (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You detail a very common problem with Wikipedia. Altoids boxes (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to do what you are describing. I have shown that at least two valid medical references refer to and define the term. I have explained why the DSM does not have the term. I have explained that Dr Thompson's paper refutes the way Col Cooper used the term. I have explained that while the JPFO is an organization with an agenda, they are a valid source for a document that appeared in their periodical and to which they hold the copyright. You are unlikely to find anything specific regarding the diagnosis and treatment of hoplophobia becase the diagnosis and treatment would be the same as with just about any of what the DSM calls "specific phobias", be it fear of hats, fear of computers, or fear of Post-Its -- none of them require devoting a specific section to them. If there were a book which contained an exhaustive, all-inclusive list of all the things in the world that people can have phobias about, it would be longer than the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is why the DSM does not even try to provide such a list. Altoids boxes (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]Sorry, when I hold up the JPFO to the policy standards I see in WP:RS, I see that they fail the very important measures of "third-party" and "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" because they are a highly partisan advocacy group with a reputation of advocating for their political cause, not an independent source. Because of that failure to policy, I strongly disagree that the JPFO is "a valid source" in this instance. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statement indicates you are confusing RS and NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.80.10 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I am confusing the two. Regardless, the question is whether JPFO meets the policy standard of "third-party" and "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Plainly, they do not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't they? Because they have an agenda and are extremists? That does not speak to their reliability, it speaks to their neutrality. They appear to be sufficiently reliable to be able to file amicus curiae briefs to the US Supreme Court. Did JPFO write the article? No. Dr Thompson wrote the article. JPFO published it. And the quoted section from Dr Thompson's article on hoplophobia appears to apply the same standards as the APA DSM IV regarding what is and is not a phobia, adding veracity to her statement. Not only that, but it DISAGREES WITH COL COOPER and instead supports the premise that he did not use the term in a medical manner, he used it in a disparaging political manner. Therefore, it appears to meet the WP:RS requirements. I think you are letting politics cloud your judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.80.10 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they appear to be sufficiently intelligent to advocate for their political cause in the form of an amicus brief to the SCOTUS, but so what? Answering your first question: 1) They are not a "third party". They are self declared partisans. 2) They have a reputation of advocacy for their political cause and do not have a reputation for "fact checking and accuracy". Therefore, they do not meet WP:RS policy standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

section break

From Segan's Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine, page 307:

• Hopelessness PSYCHOLOGY Bleak expectations, usually about oneself or one's future. See Depression
• hoplophobia PSYCHOLOGY Fear of firearms. See Phobia
• hopped up DRUG SLANG A popular phrase for being influenced by drugs.

If these requests for quotations come to be seen as some sort of dilatory exercise, that will only undermine your position. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I appreciate your help. The quote says "See Phobia", could you also please take a look and see what the book says about fear of firearms in the Phobia section? SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'll let you take a turn. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to that book, sorry, if I did I would look it up. We should restore the quotation request tag which you removed[11] pending finding someone with the book and the will to provide the confirming quote. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You might find interlibrary loan helpful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, the Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine says "See Phobia" on all the phobias listed in the book. It does so because "Phobia" is the general category and specifically named phobias are precise sub-types. Altoids boxes (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

POI, WP:Notability is an article topic guideline, not a source guideline. For source guidelines, see WP:RS.Legitimus (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the difference between guidelines and policies, and agree with you. I guess I am not expressing my concern clearly. My concern is: If when we look at reliable sourcing we see only trivial coverage of Hoplophobia as a medical condition, and instead we see substantial coverage of Hoblophobia as a political term. Therefore, the balance of the article should give similar focus to the political meaning. I think that this balance concept is covered in WP:OR which is a policy here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Geez, Salty, take a chill pill. Jeff Cooper didn't invent the phobia, he just coined a term for it. The fear of guns and the related fear of the sound of gun shots is well-documented in medical literature. See, for example: http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/phobias.html and http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1987-18924-001&CFID=6192717&CFTOKEN=79209568 and http://www.springerlink.com/content/x0060053m471vj78/ and http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a757626246&db=all and http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=28B810F50D6CF1B07B0BB53657979171.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=5851640 and http://healthycopingblog.com/2009/06/01/hoplophobia-is-a-real-problem/ and http://cjs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/18/1-2/183.pdf and http://www.mycleansky.com/swineflu/who_report/ITH2009Chapter10.pdf and Kaplan, Harold M. and Sadock, Benjamin J. 1990. Pocket Handbook of Clinical Psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. P. 20., and Brenner, Charles. 1973. An Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis (rev. ed.). Anchor Books. Pp. 91-93; Lefton, Lester A. 1994. Psychology (5th edition). Allyn & Bacon. Pp. 432-433., and Talbott, John A., Robert E. Hales and Stuart C. Yudofsky, eds. 1988. Textbook of Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Press. P.137. and American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. P. 410. Need I go on??? Trasel (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, throwing a bunch of unrelated citations does not help anything. The only specific mention of 'hoplophobia' in the citations you just made is the one in the webblog "healthcopingblog". Blogs don't qualify as reliable sources here. Also, I am requesting a quote from the "Dunlop and Ninan" book for confirmation, which I don't think has ever been provided on this talk page. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation of what, exactly? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The extent to which that book uses the term 'hoplophobia' in a medical context. Presently I see merely five relevant words in that book, and nothing else. The problem here is that the use of that footnote in the introduction of this article creates an impression that there is significant medical use in the sourcing. The introduction of the article should not create a false impression that we are primarily describing a medical condition here, unless we can see that medical reliable sourcing treats this as a medical condition. As you see in the newspaper articles referenced below, the term 'hoplophobia' is described rather as a "tongue-in-cheek neruosis", not a medical condition. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"...we see substantial coverage of Hoblophobia as a political term." Could someone post the citations to that coverage? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to these newspaper articles[12], one quote from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "Hoplophobia is a tongue-in-cheek neurosis "discovered" in 1962 by firearms instructor Jeff Cooper to mock those who think guns have free will." SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Our article should, with due weight, summarize what the reliable sources say. I look forward to seeing the quotations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thompson paper cite?

With all due respect to those who've been working on this, the paper by Thompson is sourced to the website of a hardcore pro-gun fringe group, and I've tagged it as not coming from a reliable source. Has this paper actually been published anywhere that qualifies as a RS? Otherwise, it seems to me to fail RS and NPOV tests to an extent that something actually published in, say, American Rifleman, would not. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have an email in to Doctor Thompson for a better cite Altoids boxes (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Received several emails from sources familiar with the Thompson paper. JPFO is the correct cite for Dr Thompson's paper. The paper was first published in a JPFO periodical called "The Bill of Rights Sentinal" and JPFO holds the copyright for the paper. Like information on many issues, the source is not a NPOV, but that alone should not make it invalid. It should be noted that in that paper, Dr Thompson was disagreeing with Col Cooper's application of the term. Recommend putting Dr Thompson's quote back in. Altoids boxes (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you get us the actual cite for the initial appearance of the paper? Linking to the website of a reprint of a strongly-non-NPOV organization is not ideal sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality", Fall 2000 Issue of the Bill of Rights Sentinel, pages 7-12, published by JPFO, Hartford WI (copyright holder). Reprints available from JPFO. Webpage http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm Altoids boxes (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Obviously not an impartial, reliable source, to put it mildly. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So you feel that Dr Thompson's point that Jeff Cooper was not using the term in a medical manner, but rather in a political manner is somehow incorrect? Altoids boxes (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)