Talk:Hoplophobia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Trasel's revert

Opening a new section for discussion of Trasel's recent revert[1]. As discussed just above, the article shows a disproportionate balance between the political usage and the medical usage. When looking at reliable sourcing, the weight of the political usage is the most common. The edit which Trasel reverted was properly sourced, and served to match the balance seen in the sourcing. Rather than entering an edit war, lets discuss this please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"When looking at reliable sourcing, the weight of the political usage is the most common." That's clearly not the case, but I agree that both uses should be mentioned. Maybe article could be a brief definition - fear of weapons - in the lead, followed by one paragraph each summarizing the two usages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The weight is measured this way: Count the uses of "hoplophobia" in newspaper articles[2], there quite a few, at least 20, and they all are used in context of the politics of guns. Contrast that with our search for medical usage, and we have found only two very brief mentions in books. Plainly per this count, the political usages outnumber the medical usages of the term. We have a duty per Wikipedia policy to have the article match the weight of the sources, and the sources lean heavily towards the political usage. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Counting Google hits isn't enough. The quality of those sources has to be considered as well, and lewrockwell.com probably won't make the cut. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the quality, or better put, the "reliability" per WP:RS is required. Still, when I look at the Google search links return I see many mainstream published newspapers (mixed in with some lessor quality sources). Ignoring the blogs, I am still counting about twenty solidly reliable sources in that listing, well know newspapers with good reputations. And these twenty all use the term hoplophobia in political context, and I see none that use it in a truly medical context. Instead what we are seeing is reporting and editorial opinion along the lines that people who oppose gun rights are sick in the head, or similar words. This is fundamentally a form of politically framing opponents as holding their opinions because they are mentally ill, as opposed to the possibility of them being rationally opposed to unregulated gun violence. This article should neutrally reflect this issue in accordance with the weight we see it represented in the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I'm trying to find better sources for the coinage of the word. The current sources are a book by Cooper and a link to Jeff Cooper's Commentaries. Cooper says he's pretty sure he invented the terms hoplophobia and ghost-ring here but also concedes that he forgot where some things started. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it was coined much earlier as a clinical term, though Cooper could conceivably be credited with popularizing its use and applying it to gun control advocates. Gobonobo ^{T C} 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be very greatly surprised. Given the enthusiasm of Cooper and those who agree with him, if there had actually been such a term, it would have been resurrected and embraced. All the hoplophiles I know certainly credit him with its coinage. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Who coined the word hoplophile? The fact that there is a twisted redirect of two words with polar opposite meanings seems improper. Trasel[3] should explain. It seems more balanced to view the political smear terms gun fetish and hoplophobia as two extremes of political framing tactics of the opponents in the American politics of guns. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoplophile is an obvious inversion of hoplophobe, and was probably coined half an hour after the first non-hoplophile encountered the term "hoplophobia". The redirect is a relic of the former mention of the term "hoplophilia" in this article. The text about the term was removed when it was acknowledged that nobody even pretends to believe that hoplophilia is a genuinely extant paraphilia; whereas as you can see, some folks insist that hoplophobia is an actual clinically-useful term. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"...some folks insist that hoplophobia is an actual clinically-useful term." That's not unreasonable, since hoplophobia does appear in medical dictionaries. Or maybe they're hoplophobiaphilies. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that 'some folks' see it as clinically useful. Though when I look at the sources I see that it is "unusual" per pg 107 of the Ninan + Dunlop book. The problem here is that 'some folks' see it politically expedient to diagnose their political opponents as mentally ill in order to advance their politics. That political usage, which is unlike the truly medical usage, is not uncommon. Per WP:NPOV we must distinguish between the genuinely medical which is unusual, and the more common political-pseudo-medical. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is you refuse to see it as anything but political, in spite of the sources, including medical dictionaries. Both senses are used, both need to be addressed, as they are now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation?

We probably should verify the assertion of pronunciation, "(pronounced /ˌhɒplɵˈfoʊbiə/)". It appears to be WP:OR, is there some sourcing on this? SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

npov tag discussion

An AnonIP has put a NPOV dispute tag. Opening this new section for the necessary discussion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article's in the most balanced shape it's seen in years, I'd love to see the anonymous tagger's reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no rationale given for the NPOV tag and no specific concerns have been raised here, I'll go ahead and take down the tag for the time being. Gobonobo ^{T C} 04:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

One sided article

For me, the quote "mental disturbance characterised by irrational aversion to weapons" says it all. Surely any aversion or fear of firearms is the most rational thing in the world and anyone who is not afflicted by this 'phobia' is an unhinged nutter! While this quote may be factual (in the sense that it was actually said by someone, although its content remains dubious), the article is hardly balanced without some sort of counter-balance to this loony statement. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fear of inanimate objects is not rational Finch590 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

False description of and grossly misconstrued meaning

"The meaning and usage ascribed by Cooper falls outside of the medical definitions of true specific phobias. For example, specific phobias require that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment." 10:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear from reading the 'List of phobias' that functional impairment is NOT a requirement for something to be a phobia. E.g. In the Equinophobia article, fear of horses is fully accepted as clinical phobia, and yet it's trivial for most anyone in modern society to just avoid horses, there is no functional impairment of note. Clearly this isn't the full picture. Most people who are afraid of guns are also clearly aware of being afraid of guns, there is often an open admission that they are afraid of guns. 196.209.236.68 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"This responder should know that ***the term "specific" refers to a diagnosis combined with patient recognition, while phobias in general do NOT require a person to be aware of their own psychological condition. At best, it's a misleading attempt by the responder to diffuse the issue, and redirect any attempt at a reasonable agreement of the previously well-established concept of "the fear of arms i.e. when any artificially-contrived instrument creates an imbalance of one person over another, but, by sheer nature of their equalizing nature, can simultaneously render a well-armed 190-lb "weakling" commensurate in strength to an equally-armed 300-lb sumo wrestler -- provided he or she is minimally yet widely trained. I'll leave the absurdity of this line of thinking as an exercise for the reader. 10:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is incorrect. An actual reading of the DSM-IV shows that awareness is one of the criteria for phobias. StopYourBull (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

- Er, I'm a newbie at W formatting. Please help me put things in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.179.233 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Holophobia - fear of the total

As I am looking through google books, the most common appearance of holophobia is the line break when it is part of the word alco-holophobia. But after that, it is used in reference to post-moderist "fear of the total" in reference to Foucault/Eagleton and not anything to do with guns. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not surprising, since Holophobia is an entirely different word than Hoplophobia. Details matter. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

would have helped if i spelled it correctly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

an invented pejorative?

Unfortunately, most of the links cited in this article are dead, but I don't see (or remember) any sources which support the assertion that "Hoplophobia is an invented pejorative to describe fear of guns." In fact, the next paragraph in the article states "Cooper employed the term as an alternative to other slang terms..." Furthermore, even if one source claims that it is a pejorative, it is not appropriate for the article to state that as fact--only to state that "some claim the term is pejorative..." or "source X considers the term a pejorative" (as long as a RS supports the statement, of course). --Hamitr (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Cooper himself admitted from the beginning that this was a term to be used by gun advocates as a more formal-sounding way of denigrating their opponents; it is no less pejorative than the other two terms to which he offered it as an alternative, and to pretend otherwise is to buy into his pseudo-scientific agenda. There has never been a scintilla of evidence that the term is accepted as legitimate by the mental-health community; instead, we get a new etymologically-nonsensical variant defining it not just as "fear of guns" but "fear of armed citizens": apparently an effort to further besmirch anybody who does not go for the agenda of the hoplophiles. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I knew Jeff. His term was NOT "pejorative." Whatever idiot who made that false accusation needs to be BANNED from editing Wikipedia. Reference removed.06:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: The word has become firmly lodged into mainstream usage. 50% of Americans own firearms, and 9 out 10 know exactly what it means. Just Google "irrational fear of weapons" and ALL the responses are about "hoplophobia." 06:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.160.6 (talk)

"Hoplophobia," as described here, is a pejorative term and was coined as such by Jeff Cooper.

As it is described here, hoplophobia is not a legitimate phobia but simply a political slur. The entry in Wiktionary for hoplophobia labels it as a pejorative, and the usage examples are all clearly meant to cast aspersions on those who do not agree with each example author's point of view, as is Jeff Cooper's usage. To try to conflate the meaning of a true firearms phobia (I'm sure they exist somewhere for some poor souls) with what has been described in this entry is reprehensible and is a dishonest use of Wikipedia to prop up a political viewpoint, nothing more. The section entitled "Popular Use of the Term" is simply a description of hoplophobia being coined and used as a pejorative. In all honesty, it is no different than calling someone a "gun grabber," or, conversely, a "gun freak," as it explains nothing and has no scientific evidence to back it. If this were truly a description of a valid mental illness, accepted by the APA, with accompanying clinical description and valid scientific evidence for the illness, then I would be happy with that. As it stands, this entry in Wikipedia is wrong; it is meant to legitimize falsely nothing more than political rhetoric, and should indicate as much. StopYourBull — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopYourBull (talk • contribs) 18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the quote from Jeff Cooper, from his Commentaries v5 #7:

"I coined the term "hoplophobia" in 1962 in response to a perceived need for a word to describe a mental aberration consisting of an unreasoning terror of gadgetry, specifically, weapons. The most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user. This is not a reasoned position, but when you point this out to a hoplophobe he is not impressed because his is an unreasonable position. To convince a man that he is not making sense is not to change his viewpoint but rather to make an enemy. Thus hoplophobia is a useful word, but as with all words, it should be used correctly."

It seems pretty clear that he meant the term to cajole and provoke anger, not as any type of description of a real illness. He also has made an unfounded and unproven assumption that so-called "hoplophobes" are afraid of guns as possessing a will of their own, and not afraid of what these guns can do in the hands of someone intent on doing violence to others.

I should also note that Jeff Cooper Commentaries v5 #7 appears as references 3, 8, and 10, and all links are broken. There should be only one active reference. This should be repaired. Further, the quote, "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts' but these slang terms do not [explain this behavior]..." is nowhere to be found in the Cooper reference provided in the article. If someone can provide a proper reference for this, please add it to the list and cite it accordingly, otherwise this quote should be removed.StopYourBull (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the "We read of 'gun grabbers' and 'anti-gun nuts'..." quote comes from To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth (at least according to this page). --Hamitr (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I updated and consolidated some of the references. And regarding your comment about "not as any type of description of a real illness," I don't think the article, as it currently stands, portrays it as such. --Hamitr (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that it doesn't, it's because of recent changes. For too long, we have tolerated the pretense that the term is anything other than a hammer to slam one's foes with, a trick more closely analogous to the Cold War era Soviet custom of declaring Ukrainian dissidents "insane" and locking them up in Russian-run "asylums" than with anything resembling honest discussion of societal or constitutional issues. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Orangemike, you obviously have very strong feelings about this, but you should know as well as anyone about WP:NOR and WP:RS. If/when you find a reliable source claiming it is a pejorative, then we can add that to the article. But I really don't see what this article has to do with Russians and Ukrainian dissidents. --Hamitr (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? You apparently didn't follow the Wikilink I provided. It's the old trick of re-defining a legitimate political diffeence as insanity (or at least neurosis). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It was already right there in our sources and in the article "the term was created to mock", and although content that is sourced in the body of the article generally doesnt need to be sourced when being summarized in the lede, the ref has been added in the lede as well.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with you all, for the most part, that this is certainly a more honest treatment of the term than it was a week ago. I think we have achieved a great deal by honestly checking all of the facts. Now, I would suggest that we should delete the entry and move it to either the WP entry for "Jeff Cooper," or the entry for "Gun culture" (right next to the subsection on "Gun Nut"). My reasoning is thus: it appears that this article is just a stub; it is clear that "hoplophobia" is not a medical definition as used in the article; the crux and bulk of the article deals with gun culture, broadly, and Jeff Cooper specifically; and the Wiktionary entry is far more succinct and just as complete as the article. So that everyone's efforts are not lost, moving it to one (or both) of the two pages I indicated would preserve that work for any interested person's reference.StopYourBull (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to lean in this direction as well. the article is seeming to fail WP:NEO. there are a few primary source uses of the terminology when I have been searching, but no third party analytical coverage / analysis of the term other than in association with Cooper. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen arguments at articles on the other more PC phobia terms where they say that it doesn't matter whether or not it is a real phobia. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

what you have seen at the other pages is "changing the name of the article from X-phobia to anti-X sentiments fails WP:COMMONNAME because even if it isnt a medical "phobia", X-phobia is the term widely used in reliable sources about the subject."

those other discussions dont really apply here at all because the issue here is that there is not really any significant third party coverage of such a subject under any name or terminology. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No I wasn't talking about about what you just described. I was reflecting on the debate on whether or not something has to be a real phobia to be called an xxxxphobia. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It is only a true phobia if enough leftists say so. Just like it's automatically a pejorative if the word was coined by someone to use against leftists and obviously the person who coined it meant only to "cajole and provoke anger", and not facilitate debate. Cuz people can be irrationally afraid of bees, snakes, birds, enclosed spaces, heights, cats, dogs, bad breath, etc. etc. etc., there's even the fear of projectiles and of being shot (ballistophobia), but heaven forbid anyone suggest that it's even possible for someone to be irrationally afraid of guns. Try telling a baggage clerk in some especially hoplophobia-prone area, like New York City, that you're checking in your disassembled legally-registered gun with your luggage and see how often they're taken aback, treat the luggage with kid gloves, and look at you with a paranoid eye from then on, and tell me they're not irrationally afraid of guns. And tell Dr. Eimer there's no such thing, too, while you're at it. -- Glynth (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of guns or sane gun owners; I'm afraid of gun owners like the Lanza family. (And I quit owning guns and killing other living creatures once I reached the age of puberty.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious here that you're denigrating gun ownership/owners as childish or brutish or savage or something (scaaaary!), so even if we take you at your word that you're not afraid of guns themselves, I can't really blame someone else for thinking that you are, deep down, irrationally afraid of guns, putting far more weight in that than in the completely healthy fear of violence on your person in a more general sense, especially given that most anti-gun folk belong to a certain persuasion which never bats an eye when someone who's not remotely afraid of homosexuals/homosexuality is called a "homophobe". Anyway, even if I grant that you, yourself, aren't irrationally afraid of guns in any manner, what you personally are afraid of is irrelevant. Hoplophobes exist whether or not you are one. -- Glynth (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Guns, as I've said repeatedly, are much more efficient ways of adminstering violence than, say, knives or nunchakus. I thus fear violent nuts with guns more than I fear violent nuts with halberds or violent nuts with morningstars, even though it is the truncheon in the hands of a "deputized" company thug or the shashka in the hands of a Cossack cavalryman which has often been used to keep my kind in our places. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

None of that explains away your obvious disdain for - shall we say prejudice against - guns and gun ownership. And if you're upset about tyrants keeping you "in your place", you should be very much pro-2nd Amendment, if you understand it at all. -- Glynth (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you're being unfair to Orange Mike, Glynth. If you look below, under the section "Erroneous Misdirection," you will see that Orange Mike has also indicated that he doesn't think that "hoplophilia" is anything but a slight. You were being rather condemning of anyone trying to maintain some sort of balance for Wikipedia as "leftists" and as trying to promote only one view of an issue. Orange Mike simply responded truthfully to the accusation you made without resorting to any name calling or finger pointing. I would also like to point out that I see homophobia as being a useful term that is not necessarily meant to cajole or provoke anger. A person who shows hatred towards homosexuals is usually termed a homophobe as a descriptive term that seems to have some sort of general usage as do "racist," or "sexist." Homophobia also describes fear or dislike of a human or humans; hoplophobia describes fear or dislike of an inanimate object: big deal. I have seen absolutely no scientific evidence for hoplophobia being a medical condition; I don't know if I could say the same for homophobia, as I have known homosexuals who have been brutally beaten by strangers who must have feared or hated them for being homosexual, as that was what the aggressors professed as they were carrying out the beatings.

I would suggest that, if you think "homophobia" is not a valid term or is just meant to cajole or provoke anger, then you should discuss that at the Wikipedia Homophobia Talk page. You may be correct.StopYourBull (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Unfair" in what POSSIBLE sense? How he personally feels about guns is irrelevant, and he might as well have posted that "owning a gun is for people who need to compensate for something, if you know what I mean", with what he said. None of you have addressed a single point I made. Hoplophobia is VERY real.

As for the homophobia page, I've been there more than here, already. The self-appointed page protectors there don't care about reason. They like the double standard. As was completely predictable given Wikipedia's well-known systemic bias. Which makes your claim that you guys just want "balance" downright laughable. In fact, someone there just pushed the same logical fallacy that YOU just did: "[person with feelings vs inanimate object,] big deal". Asinine. -- Glynth (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

no they dont if the word is made up and not in actual use by anyone, and there really isnt any sourcing to show that it is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"no they dont" what? No, they don't exist? Because you say so? Come off it. There's a far higher chance that you are one and you're in denial about it than that these people that I've personally had experience with and have been documented by people such as Dr. Eimer don't exist. -- Glynth (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Eimer hasn't documented anything; the plural of anecdote is not data. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Typical kneejerk Wikipedian reaction. Reach for the buzzword: "anecdote". Never mind whether the term is applicable - it's a way to instantly cut off discussion by abusing the site's "rules". Sure, he's a psychologist. Sure, you only need one case of something in order for it to be proven that that something simply exists (we're not talking about "data" saying how common it is or anything of that nature!). Forget all that, cuz if you can get enough editors to agree, then it's "wikiality"! -- Glynth (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That's right. It's all just a leftist plot to stop you promoting The Truth. Everyone else is stupid, or wrong, or just should not be allowed to take part. Even wikiality is a leftist plot promoted by that known leftist, Comrade Colbert. You are working yourself into a lather, Glynth. I'm starting to to think you may be an examplar of a hoplophile (as is Dr. Elmer). And that's hard data.StopYourBull (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the straw man. Those are ever so convenient to save you from answering any points others might bring up, aren't they? Now, did you have anything useful to say? (I'd just like to note here for other editors that if any of you expect me to assume good faith from the guy who earlier bashed guns and gun ownership and who now joins complaints about anecdotes while hypocritically claiming it's "hard data" that I and the psychologist he dislikes are "hoplophiles", then you need to take a long hard look at yourself.) -- Glynth (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't sweat this stuff. Relax and enjoy the season. Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy New Year to you and your family, Glynth.StopYourBull (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

So I actually hadn't read this (stupid me) and read on WP:Introduction [I think I did that right] "Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better—for example, spelling, grammar, rewriting for readability, adding content, or removing non-constructive edits." Ok so I did. I got this from Orangemike: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Hoplophobia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC). Ok so I went to his page and he states "I am a Wikipedia administrator" So then I am thinking I screwed up. But wait WP says WP:BITE Dont bite the newcomers. Well I certainly feel & felt bitten. So then I read that admins are to assume good faith empahsis mine WP:DSAN. So IMHO neither of which has happened. I wouldn't say I am being bullied WP:BULLY but definitely an attempt to push a newbie (oh and I am) around. Ok so if this isn't where I should air my grievance can someone please point me in the right direction? I guess after reading what I got and the standards I am a tad offended at this point. And if this looks really bad on the page after I post if someone wants to help me clean it up - Please do [and tell me how to hyperlink stuff] Jeff-mn (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You may be in the wrong place, it depends upon what your intentions and expected results of your comment are.

This page is to discuss how reliably published sources can best be used to improve this article. If your intent is to give fuller explanation to your BOLD edits and join in creating a consensus of how to improve the article, you are in the right place.

If you are wishing to discuss the appropriateness of User:OrangeMike's actions outside of the specific context of improving this article, you are in the wrong place. The first place to discuss OrangeMikes actions would be to open a discussion on User talk:OrangeMike request a clarification. The next step might be to go to the WP:ANI and request outside opinions, but I am not sure you would like what you would hear. You may wish to take a look at the second bolded headline at WP:BOLD "Don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted."-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous Misdirection

I did a search for Hoplophilia -- the opposite of hoplophobia -- being a mental disorder in which one loves or adores weapons, and was directed here.

Hoplophilia needs its own page and it is NOT the same at hoplophobia. Eyes down, human. (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you got any evidence from reliable sources that "hoplophilia" is ever used except as a jokey counterpart to "hoplophobia"? Because nobody so far has ever found any sign that it is a recognized paraphilia. The term "hoplophilia" is insufficiently notable for its own article; since the word was probably coined half-a-minute after the term "hoplophobia" was first seen by a literate non-hoplophile, it was decided to redirect it here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur. The term "paraphilia" describes sexual arousal to objects. I know MANY firearms enthusiasts, and to date, I've never heard of a single one of them who ever had any sort of sexual arousal toward a firearm. To suggest otherwise by any use of the term "hoplophilia" IS pejorative, and unfairly demeans a whole lot of very good people! 06:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.160.6 (talk)

Now I wouldn't go that far, 97.112. The reactions of some gun enthusiasts, both at gun shows and in political debates, certainly seem to many of the rest of us to suggest some kind of hinky Freudian identification of "long powerful object which shoots lead", with another "long symbolically powerful object which shoots..." err... other substances. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

"Is that a gun in your pocket or are you ... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoplophilia is not hoplophobia

Hoplophilia redirects to this article but it's something entirely different. Hoplophilia is sexual stimulation or arousal caused by physical or close contact with a firearm. 173.49.142.213 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that "hoplophilia" exists other than as an obvious politicized counter-pejorative, probably coined half-a-second after the first non-hoplophile encountered the new nonceword "hoplophobia". --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

there is no evidence that it actually exists in reliably published sources at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Correcting quotes and NOR

It is unclear why User:Orangemike reverted my edits, other than a vague NPOV boilerplate he spammed to my talk page. To be clear; this edit is necessary to correct several errors that have crept into the article. First, several of the passages are intended to be exact quotes. At some point edits were made that altered "weapons", "firearms", and "guns". Although these edits may have been meant as clarification, they made the quotes incorrect. These edits restore the quotes to what is in the source material. Additionally, the article claimed hoplophobia was a neologism, but the source material cited did not support this claim. In the absence of any reliable source, the assertion of being a neologism is original research which is not permitted. - Hoplon (talk)

Ah, User:Orangemike I just noted your edit comment which I will quote "Cooper cheerfully admits it's a neologism, one he coined; your other edits seem intended to create a false impression that this is a real thing, rather than a rhetorical trope". Given that comment I think I see where you are coming from. The primary intent of my edits was to make the quotes match the source material; several places the words "gun", "firearm", or "weapon" had been edited in a way which made them no longer match the source material. My objection to neologism (a newly coined word which has not entered the language) is primarily that the cited material does not claim it is a neologism. Accepting that Cooper coined the word over forty years ago in 1962, how many years have to pass before it is no longer considered "newly" coined? (Rhetorical question, it would be WP:NOR for me pick some number of years as a cut-off, which leads me back to wanting a WP:RS). I think that leaves only the medical status section as a possibly objectionable edit. I'd be happy to revert that part, it just seems to read clearer to me to state the affirmative sources before the negative sources, instead of the negative sources before the affirmative sources. - Hoplon (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Actual quotes must match the source material: we're totally agreed on that. When we are NOT actually quoting, though, the use of the term seems in practice limited to actual guns. The neologism part is in part due to the fact that the word has not entered the language in everyday use, but remains the jargon of Cooper and those in more or less agreement with him. My rule of thumb is that any word coined after 1950 AND not in everyday use is probably to be classed as a neologism. The medical sources I feel should be ranked by relevance to the topic, and the one which ignores "hoplophobia" is generally the most authoritative in this field.--Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a partial revert to remove the edits I think you object to. The remaining edits are solely to make the article match the quoted references. In the original Cooper quotes I read he used the word "weapon", even if he was talking about guns. Regarding "neologism", it isn't really something I want to edit-battle over. Naturally I would prefer to find a WP:RS instead of relying on your (or my) "rule of thumb". The year 1950 seems arbitrary, and would you push that forward one year every year that passed? (i.e. in 12 years would it no longer be a Neologism?). Does it refer primarily to guns, yes I would agree with that, but I can find examples of it used in the context of knives. - Hoplon (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)