Talk:Homophobia/Archive 2

message: I don't really understand why the term activist is POV.  Is the term really different from advocate?  In my dictionary, if someone who publicly support something, then he is just an open supporter.  But if someone constantly push his opinion through news media, then he is an activist.
Every movement needs an activists to push it, or otherwise it will never materialize.  If there is no activist, there will be no improvement in the world.  If there is no human right activists, I guess we are still living in a miserable world. -wshun 05:21, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  About ''activists'' thing (Oct 2003) 

message: [AdamWill 25-Jul, mini-essay on "neologism"...] Another thought - is describing the word as a "neologism" superfluous, perhaps? I've always been an advocate of approaching writing a Wikipedia article as if everything you're writing about happened a thousand years ago and is ancient history, because it seems to me that's the proper style for an encyclopaedia, which is intended to be timeless and authoritative. "Neologism" is an inescapably relative word - *all* words are neologisms looked at from one perspective in time, soon after they are invented. (All the words Shakespeare invented would be neologisms if you lived in 1630, for instance). I sincerely hope this page will be around in some form in another hundred years, at which point homophobia will no longer be a neologism. I think it's probably sufficient simply to say when and by whom the term was coined. Comments? --AW
:[Camembert 25-Jul, well, it is now, it won't be later] I agree in a way, but the link to neologism is probably of interest - in fifty years or so, when the word definitely isn't a neologism any more, we can remove it ;) --Camembert
[Exploding Boy 9-Feb] From the neologism page: When a word or phrase is no longer "new," it is no longer a neologism. Exploding Boy 13:52, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
: From the neologism page: Versions of Neologism  : Stable - Having gained recognizable and probably lasting acceptance. JDR
::Do you claim that "homophobia" has not gained recognizable and lasting acceptance?  I defy you to find one English-speaking adult who doesn't know what it means.
::: That is not what I claim ... it's gained recognizable and lasting acceptance ... that is why it is Stable! JDR
::Also... I hate what you've done with the references on this page.  (1) they're very confusing (a bunch of numbers) and (2) exactly what is wrong with having URLs on a page?  You seem intent on getting rid of them all.  I really suggest you have another look at wikipedia: cite your sources. Exploding Boy 13:57, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
:: It seems that they already like that (ie., OTHER editors citing the sources as they go) .... but I was going to format them ... 
::I changed the end-of-paragraph links to links to a new "Reference" section; I did not change the links in the reference section to just a series of numbers, but anyway they're changed back now.  I think what happens sometimes is edit conflicts screw up the history.  Anyway, no harm done.Exploding Boy 14:54, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
::: oh ... i see what happened ... Exploding, if you do a link ( ie., http://en.wikipedia.org ) and put it in brackets  it turns into this :  ... and that's what happened ... but it's all good now ... Sincerely, JDR
Another thought - is describing the word as a "neologism" superfluous, perhaps? I've always been an advocate of approaching writing a Wikipedia article as if everything you're writing about happened a thousand years ago and is ancient history, because it seems to me that's the proper style for an encyclopaedia, which is intended to be timeless and authoritative. "Neologism" is an inescapably relative word - *all* words are neologisms looked at from one perspective in time, soon after they are invented. (All the words Shakespeare invented would be neologisms if you lived in 1630, for instance). I sincerely hope this page will be around in some form in another hundred years, at which point homophobia will no longer be a neologism. I think it's probably sufficient simply to say when and by whom the term was coined. Comments? --AW
:I agree in a way, but the link to neologism is probably of interest - in fifty years or so, when the word definitely isn't a neologism any more, we can remove it ;) --Camembert
----
I  removed Le Pen from list of homophobes, since this is not documented in wikipedia (although I am inclined to believe it is true). Accusations must be supported. Mikkalai 06:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: neologism (Feb 2004) 

message: Removed from article: 
*"The most basic roots of homophobia lie in the instinct of 
procreation, the most fundamental of instincts. The very thought of a parent that his
 child may become a gay or lesbian and thus will break the biological
 chain of generations makes the person to consider gays and lesbians as a
 source of a potential threat to his family." 
Mikkalai - you apparently re-added March 2, 2004 content that User:Exploding Boy removed (see above). Do you have an sources?on Mar 6, 2004. I sympathize your effort to add an explination for a phobia, by definition an irrational fear, but it seems that a short summary of the general cause, which is known, is in order here.
:Exploding Boy, while I imagine you felt it was more than obvious, you should have included a reason for your removal of the text to talk.
:Mikkalai, however, I'll provide a reason now. It isn't true that gay and lesbian people would or do pass on their genes far less frequently. Consider the intense pressure to be straight and reproduce over the last few hundred years. Gay people pass on their genes all the time, in fact, gay and lesbian teenagers are twice as likely to impregnate someone or be impregnated (http://www.lesbianinformationservice.org/pregnancy.rtf). See: situational sexual behaviour.
:Given that, its hard to imagine that parents would be horrified that their children would not procreate, but seemingly disinterested in their children's sinfully deviant socially unacceptable sexual activities or inclinations. Hyacinth 04:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Procreation as Cause ? (July 2004) 

message: It may be true that "some argue against the use of the term homophobe", but the quote from Jarrod Carter doesn't really support that.  He only argues that he isn't homophobic, not that the term in general shouldn't be used. His starting with "the real homophobes are..." strikes me as a rhetorical device, not an actual claim that people are misusing the word.  --William Pietri 05:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology (July 2004) 

message: Can somebody add this? I want to do it but do not know where. "Homophobia is very widespread and strong in Islamic countries such as Iran and not confined to orthodox Muslims." Andries 18:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source? Hyacinth 21:35, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyacinth, the source is me.:-) All the many Iranians that I meet say the same. Today, people almost wanted to kill me just when I asked them what is wrong with homosexuals. I would agree that my experience need corroboration to get included in the article but I personally can not seriously doubt it. Somali guy too. I also read it in the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant about Morocco. Andries 21:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not doubt you, I have read the same, but I would caution to indite the Islamic world without sources. Also, a good source should be able to provide the counter view, that in some ways, or at some times in some places, Islamic society is less homophobic than the "Christian" US. Hyacinth 22:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevalence of homophobia (Aug 2004)