User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2006

Category issues

Hey, sorry to see there are so many difficulties with the Category:Historical pederastic relationships CfD. I was going to make a few arguments in favor of the category on the CfD page, but couldn't even read most of what was written without getting pissed off - the whole conversation resembles too many arguments I've had regarding gay rights issues, with people plugging their ears and closing their eyes and saying "LA LA LA" just loud enough so they can't quite hear what anyone else is saying, all while reasserting the same old biased, unjustified (and unjustifiable) nonsense. Anyway, I also wanted to let you know that I'd support (and help, if you need it) you creating a new category set to avoid accusations of POV, original research, or whatever the nonsense of the day is. -Seth Mahoney 04:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Now this is uncalled for. I let Haiduc's latest accusation of my being "homophobic" go without comment, since I think it's clear that it's wrong, but I think piling on is nothing other than name-calling of the worst kind. I am not, as Haiduc accused me of, blind to homosexuality in Chinese history; I've written on the subject as well where there is strong evidence of it (see Dong Xian, Emperor Ai of Han, and Emperor Wu of Han, for example), but what Haiduc was engaging in was "OK, I can't win this debate; therefore, I'm going to call whoever opposes me homophobic." Take a look at what I've written at Talk:Gaozu of Han; nothing homophobic about it, just pointing out how weak the case was. If Haiduc disagree with my reasoning, fine, but calling me homophobic was itself a violation of the WP:NPA rule. --Nlu 04:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Please be aware that a request for arbitration is about to be filed. --Nlu 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My dear friend, I think that you mis-understand what is going on here.
Number one, this is a tempest in a teapot.
Number two, there is no satisfaction to be had, by anyone here, other than from the process of trying to get along with each other despite our differences. Running to "daddy" will not help. You are very invested in a certain view of history, but it is not the only one, and I venture to say you are way out of the mainstream.
I have no idea whatsoever what it is you are hoping to "arbitrate" since I thought we were getting along well enough despite our differences. Let's not solidify our emotions too much, my polyglot friend, there is No Exit that way. Huis clos. Perhaps we can share a cup of tea some day and have a good laugh over all this, eh? Haiduc 11:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

In light of your accusations, a new WP:RfAr is about to be filed. --Nlu (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I admire a principled stance. Haiduc 12:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks re: Pederasty categories

Spasibo (sorry bout the poor Latinization) for the heads up! -Seth Mahoney 02:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

CfD?

I am moving this here because I do not wish to have any coverage of this subject on my talk page, where I won't be able to help seeing it again. Rhollenton 02:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem like a serious user. Would you mind saying why there should not be a category for deities that represented the pederastic topos? Is that not analogous to grouping them by ocupations, say, "war gods", "love gods", etc? Haiduc 02:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hasn't the debate moved on? The problem with the first pair of these categories to be nominated is that most of the articles are about individuals, not relationships. I haven't voted on the more recently nominated categories. Rhollenton 02:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I have. I'll strike through vote on the historical one, but I should have voted on the modern one, which is effectively an accusation of criminal activity. Rhollenton 02:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that. But the "moderns" there now are hardly that, and the criminality was by no means universal. The Greeks? The Arabs? The Japanese? Was it church law they broke? This is all very complex. And later, in the 20th century, what if the boys were above the age of consent? They broke sodomy laws then. Why should we not report that? Please do not jump to conclusions. Haiduc 02:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. I could live with that, unless they outed themselves. Haiduc 03:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

fair use of LA Times photo

Because this picture is obviously copyrighted by the LA Times. They own all rights to it. It's not fair use to use one of their pictures without first getting their permission. It's not enough just to attribute the photo to them and say that they have the copyright.... You can dispute this, of course, but if you do, and revert the picture to the article, I'll just list this picture for deletion in the appropriate Wiki section for disputed pictures and about 3 weeks from now it will be deleted. Hayford Peirce 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

PS -- I don't like this any more than you do. I own several paintings and drawings by well-known artists that I would like to put into the articles about them. But I cannot do so because even though these artists are dead, and I physically own the paintings, their estates own the rights to the images of the paintings....

I just don't know precisely what "fair usage" means -- and I think it can be argued about forever. There's a lot of Wiki back-and-forth about it, and there are hundreds of pictures in a proposed deletion section in which people chip in their own opinions. It seems pretty clear, however, that if a newspaper or magazine runs a picture of someone, that paper (or the photographer, or both) *owns* that particular picture. I can take a picture of the dome at Yosemite, for instance, and although I don't own any rights to the dome, I own the rights to that particular picture. Even if I *give* you, Haiduc, a copy of that picture, you do not then have the right to publish that picture anywhere -- without my express permission. Look at all the Ansel Adams pictures of Yosemite that are still being sold for big bucks. His estate owns the rights to those pictures. And there's a 1923 picture of Yankee Stadium that someone wants to put into the Babe Ruth article -- but the New York Times owns the copyright (or at least has licensed it) and is advertising that picture for sale in the newspaper almost on a daily basis. So we've got to be *very* careful about taking pix from newspapers. I myself just added a photograph of a 1925 British cartoon to the article about the American tennis player Ray Casey under what apparently in England is called "fair dealing" -- but even so I'm not 100% sure at all as to whether this will be allowed to stay there.... Hayford Peirce 18:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you keep the photograph on pederasty. There is no requirement that you would

need to obtain their permission to use it. Using the above rationale nearly every single image using fair use would need to be deleted. See fair use. Current Wikipedia practices are to keep images as fair use if A) they are copyrighted and B) they have informative value, of course unless the owner requests it be removed. Fair usage law is quite ambiguous and the type of person qualified to dictate what is and what is not would be a Judge.

Harmodius and Aristogeiton

In a relatively short article I didn't think adding a complete modern poem, which is not really to the point of the article, was justified. Adam 04:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Tuo benvenuto

Thx. :-)
Have at look in Commons, then:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Homosexuality
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_%28non-Western%29
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_%28pre-modern%29

I uploaded as many pix as I could.
Have a look and tell me what do you think. I noticed you had uploaded several of them but I did not know how to contact you. Nice you found it.

Please take note: I don't normally contribute to en:wikipedia, but to it-wikipedia. Today I waa here just to add a couple pictures I had uploaded. You find me here: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:G.dallorto and here are the pages I contributed to date: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:G.dallorto/Sandbox#Interventi_conclusi: Love & peace :-) Giovanni Dall'Orto [answere here http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:G.dallorto]

LGBT portal in it.wikipedia

Have a look here. :-) http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Progetto_omosessualità --G.dallorto 01:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (please answer HERE --> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:G.dallorto

Homosexuality

Wow, I made a huge mistake on that page. I was monitoring a vandal, and I reverted a change that was made a long time ago, which resulted in the mess that you saw. Thanks for correcting it, and just know that I didn't mean to change anything. Avengerx 17:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Age disparity in sexual relationships

Nice work on this article. I'd appreciate your keeping an eye on ephebophilia and pedophilia as well for attempts by pedophiles to legitimize their behavior. Cheers, -Naif 05:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

re: CfD on Pederastic Lovers

OK, per your request I put down my other work and went back over the current CfD on "Pederastic Lovers" and the previous CfD on "Historical pederastic relationships", and here's what I think. You have a point. Several of the Deletes at "Historical pederastic relationships" did reference the name specifically, and if you leave them out you have a fairly close ratio of Keeps to Deletes, if not a majority. However, It looks like you recruited like-minded people to comment in that CfD, which is Bad Form. I can't know which Keeps are from those people as opposed to disinterested people, but I have to discount at least some of the Keeps, leaving us where we were: deleted for substantive rather than purely nomenclatural reasons. So I'm not changing my vote.

Now, may I make a few observations? I think that some of what I say may help you to clear up some of your apparent frustration over these discussions.

There is a sort of meta-issue involved her, what is sometimes called the "Elephant in the room" if you are familiar with that idiom, and I think that colors the comments both of you and at least some of the people with you are contending, such that the arguments -- by both sides -- are influenced by an emotional pressure which can lead to logic being used as a weapon to advance a pre-selected position rather than as a tool for finding truth, as it should be.

I can't speak for other people of course, but I think that it is probably true that some of the people involved in these discussion are perhaps thinking some of these things and are too polite to say it, so allow me to spell it out.

• Most educated people realize that Classical attitudes toward pederasty are different than current attitudes. So what. That doesn't mean Classical pederasts weren't exploiters and criminals. They were. Not perhaps under then-existing mores and laws, but in light of the more advanced understanding of pschology and human development vouchsafed to us in modern times. I mean, the Mongols used to sometimes kill every inhabitant of a city. That was not a lifestyle choice. It was a crime then, and it's a crime now. Even if they were too benighted to realize it. Slavery, cannibalism, whatever... same thing. Also, I lack your sources and erudition about this subject, but I would tend to heavily discount many sources as likely coming from, or being permitted to be diseminated by, the exploiting classes, or persons who have been co-opted by the exploiting classes. And even if you can get someone to say "Yeah I was sexually exploited by the Emperor, but that got me into a cushy life at court, so I'm happy" or "Yeah I was sexually exploited, but I've never known anything different so it's OK by me now" doesn't make it right.
• Your occasional conflating of sex with minors with normal homosexuality (e.g., sometimes ascribing your opponents' motivations to homophobia) is, in my opinion, very misleading, noxious, and harmful to the homosexual community. I have ignorant fundamentalist relatives who assume that naturally ALL homosexuals are of course predatory pedophiles also. Largely for this reason they are reluctant to allow homosexuals in their homes or to be around them at all. This causes serious problems in many families. For God's sake the last thing anyone needs is someone like you to reinforce these false notions.
• Finally, let me explain something to you. You can bring me up on charges under WP:ATTACK if you want to, but I think I'm doing you a favor, because this might help you to understand why you cannot seem to make headway on this issue. In the CfD for "Historical pederastic relationships, you wrote

"...a forty year old German can take his fifteen year old boyfriend to the beach, and a thirtyfive year old Italian can go camping and make love to his fourteen year old boyfriend, and a Montrealais too can date a fourteen year old boy, all in full legality and without any fear of the sex gestapo that haunts those trapped, mentally and physically, in more benighted places..."

I don't know whether any of that is true (I know for certain that the part about Germany is disengenuous at best, and legalities aside I doubt that many Italian and Montrealais parents would be blasé about such a situation), but that doesn't matter.

The point is, you're just not going to win many friends with statements like that. I think most people here would ascribe a statment like that to someone who has lost his moral compass.

And to again restate an earlier point, if you had written "...a thirtyfive year old Italian can go camping and make love to his fourteen year old girlfriend", that would be just as noxious as the version you posted. This is not about homosexuality per se, or not much about it. So please leave homophobia out if it.'

And to people who are parents, statements like that are a huge red flag. It's hard enough raising a teen these days; a statement like that is going to arouse an almost primal simian emotional reaction, which is not conducive to reasoned discussion.

Also, statements like that, along with the high quantity of your writings on the subject make your "Just what are you implying about me?" remarks sound kind of disengenuous, don't you think. You do understand that people might infer that your interest in the subject is not necessarily purely academic.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm sort of amazed (and kind of sorry for you) that you haven't picked up on this yet in life. I mean, I'm just trying to explain to you why you are getting the reaction that you are. It must be frustrating, I'm sure, so perhaps this will help. Also, as a friendly tip, if this is a general topic of conversation for you in everyday life, you might find that choosing other topics will result in greatly improved relationships with neighbors and aquaintances, especially those who have children.

Yr humble and obedient servant, Herostratus 21:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Other user pages:

• User talk:Haiduc/sandbox
• User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2004
• User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2005
• User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2006

Something I feel is overdue: a barnstar!

When I first ran across your contributions, I felt as though one day there would be a barnstar to honor you, and I've found one! Hence...

		The LGBT Barnstar
		For outstanding contributions to LGBT-related articles, I, Chuchunezumi, award Haiduc this barnstar. Chuchunezumi 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I award you for your calmness and level-headedness when editing and discussing controversial articles. D-Rock 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been wandering around some talk and user talk pages and have seen some eloquent (and perhaps verbose) dissertations by you on what would be considered by many (at least in the crowds I hang out in) very controversial topics. You are regularly articulate, but more importantly, non-confrontational. Your words are well chosen. Bravo. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I award this Barnstar to Haiduc for his great efforts in cleaning up Societal attitudes towards homosexuality.

Batman

Interpretations works for me. Dyslexic agnostic 17:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Is not between the two of us, you are making batman uncool, man. You seem to know how long can an article be, if you provide proof that the batman article could be big enough to have more relevant issues, maybe it might be worth to have the batgay thing at the bottom as a spin of issue. Other option is to make the section grow and make a whole article about batgay. but again, it is not about batman it's about the CCA people and comedians

---

al cesar lo que es del cesar

finalmente lo escupiste, debo enternder q me estas diciendo q eres homosexual? entonses si te estarias abanderando de lo primero que sugeri. serias de los que les encanta ver un poco de si mismo en cosas q no lo tienen. robin, wilma y la tipa de charlie brown. visualisas la fantasia de robin (que mencione previamente) no como el little bro de batman, sino deseando ser la bitch de batman y sus fisico... cada quien su gusto, nada d malo, supongo. seria tu eleccion personal, respetable (hablo hipoteticamente bajo el supesto q te mal entendi, y bajo el supuesto de que puedes borrar este mensaje si te incomoda) x q quieres discutir esto entre los dos?? esto no es asunto de dos, sino de todos los editores a los que les importe el asunto. no ce si te fijaste alguien puso el articulo y lo volvio a quitar. Si te gusta puner a batman como un marica quizas ni siquiera seas un fan, para que te molestas.

ah y si, asi como no hay arte del mundo donde no haya homosexualidad, supongo q lo que dijiste de los mayas como sodomizadores puede ser cierto. Y si, mi grito de la independencia es c. t. madre, mexico; pero se q si no fuera mexico seria, españa; como para uds si no fuese españa (q x cierto uds. son 50% españoles, t recuerdo) serian los aztecas, y si fuesen aztecas seria la abusiva aristocracia... y si vives en cualquier punto de la nacion le mientas la madre a pri, o a USA... asi q al cesar lo q es del cesar. Tal vez esto sea incongruente con lo que escribi en mi pagina, no soy una computadora. Ninguana persona es la misma 2 veces.

x cierto, no me espantas con lo de denunciarme, he sobrevivido cosas peores. soy un poco grosero en las pags d discusion pero estoy respaldado x acciones 100% logicas segun un estilo enciclopedico coherente y ameno, x eso nunca me ha pasado nada, no borre info, la puse donde corresponde, cualquier editor oficial t va decir eso--T for Trouble-maker 23:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

duuuuuuuuuude!!

huaaaa-ay!, amigo mio. has estado leyendo al heroe equivocado! lee the authority (el comic, no me refiero al CCA), ahi hay un batman mas a tu gusto. Y no es pedofilico q x cierto, la ACC no hacia a batman homosexual, lo hacia pedofilico, lo cual es grotesco y c puede describir asi abiertamente, x q la pedofilia nunca sera aceptada. Ademas bajo el supuesto de q batman sea pedofilico u homosexual... yo no le corte los huevos, sino el escritor q no lo saca del closet. como te digo, ya no les faltan abanderados de la causa en ficcion, aceptalo, batman, como bob kane, DC, Julie Schwarts, Denny o´neil, burton, dini, timm, mcduffie, sprang, adam west (quien era un degenerado mujeriego d lo peor al igual que wart y gorshin), michael keaton, george cloney, o jeff matzuda; lo conciben no es gay, ni pedofilico. El unico que lo considera asi es el enfermiso Wertham que quizas sea un coreligionario tuyo reprimido (desde luego digo eso x q no negaste mis hipotesis sobre tu respetable orientacion, cualquiera q sea,... q no me causa curiosidad tampoco, es asunto tuyo y del señor (ambos, sñores jaja))--T for Trouble-maker 23:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

re: Dec 15 CFD

Hi - I haven't spent the time to close out any CFD discussions today, but it looks to me like Category:Pederastic deities is currently 6-5 keep (which would be a "no consensus - keep") and Category:Pederastic lovers is currently 8-8, i.e. another "no consensus - keep". K1Bond007 has relisted at least one category lately to help gather an actual consensus. This seems like a reasonable idea to me. Basing any action regarding these categories on the preferences of 16 wikipedians seems specious (perhaps even laughably far from "consensus"). Regarding double jeopardy - categories and articles that have been deleted become "speedy delete" candidates, but the reverse is not true (keep votes do not imply "keep forever", but it's considered at least rude to renominate without some passage of time). If I had to guess, I'd guess these categories will keep getting nominated for deletion until they end up deleted. Is there some particular reason you want them as categories rather than as a list article? The same content could be included in list form quite easily, and the ability to include references in a list seems like a major advantage in this case (just a thought). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do we even bother with categories? A very good question. It's one I frequently wrestle with. Categories are more automatic than lists - a user adds [[category:x]] to an article and it magically appears in the category listing. The tradeoff is the category listing is automatically generated, with no ability to control anything (other than the sort order), non-existent articles can't be included, any information other than membership cannot be included, historical membership is virtually impossible to determine (from looking at a category you can't tell what used to be in the category), presentation order is alphabetical (by article name or supplied sort key). For anything that isn't really, really obvious I think categories aren't an appropriate tool - yet, most users seem to love them. I think treating category membership as a "database tag", specifically as a mechanism to include information content not otherwise mentioned in an article, is not an appropriate use. I believe your categories, in particular, warrant some discussion within the article. A linked reference to pederasty or list of pederastic relationships enables the same navigational convenience, but without using the bluntness of a category. I've argued unsuccessfully with other users about categories in completely different contexts - but have lately resigned myself to whatever the current crop of CFD voters has to say. BTW - the only votes at CFD that are ever discounted are obvious sockpuppet votes (which rarely happens at CFD). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Haiduc, As Rick knows, I've been spending a bit of time trying to get an understanding of how categories are used and mis-used. Just recently I have been thinking a bit about lists vs. categories and wondering when lists make more sense. I have been thinking of trying to codify situations when lists are more appropriate. Certain categories have jumped out at me as being prime candidates for lists. The best example I can think of is Category:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Some criteria for lists being more suitable that I've come up with are:

1. There will be as much or more utility to having a list as having a category. Typically this is when the members of the category are set and not likely to change (there will be no more signers of the Declaration of Independence).
2. There is no natural hierarchy to the category (the signers are not part of a larger category about signers of documents, nor is there subcategories of document signers).
3. Most of the members of the list do not have articles writen about them.
4. The topic is fairly obscure (but whether something is obscure may be controversial).
5. If there is no compelling reason to make something a category instead of a list, it is probably more suited as a list. All things being equal, lists offer more linking and annotation options, and articles tend to get overcategorized.

I would like your opinion about this (and Rick's). What Rick seems to be suggesting is that having a list instead of an category will be less controversial. I am a little doubtful that having something as a list instead of a category will make it much less controversial. The only way the list would be less controversial if it wasn't connected to all of the articles on the list. But why would anyone bother to make a list and not link it to all the articles? So all that is gained is that reference has moved from the bottom of the page to somewhere else, and the list will eventually be found by people who find it objectionable. Also, I find this troubling as a criteria for listifying things. I'd hate to see all the controversial categories in WP listified. I think stating this as the SOLE reason for listifying something is a very bad precedent.

If, as the editors of this encyclopedia we cannot separate scholorship from emotional reactions to difficult subjects we are in big trouble. The creation of a category about pederasty does not condone or condemn it if it is NPOV. If the titling of the category cannot be made NPOV; and the articles cannot be made NPOV; then, and only then would there be good reason for its removal. -- Samuel Wantman 07:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sam, we have engaged two discussions here.

• The easier one is the category/list question. I liked Rick's argument that a list can be annotated and be much more informative. Categorization is easy, but in the case of topics as rife with controversy as this one, it may be a mistake, as categorization may simply be seen as a kind of "spamming," or vandalism. So, regardless of what happens, I will treat this topic in list format after vacation (unless someone else beats me to it).
• The more complicated discussion is protecting contentious subjects from censorship. It may well be that it is structurally impossible to protect them in category form, because their counterintuitive nature will automatically evoke a negative gut reaction from a majority of users, while only a minority will know enough to try to resist. (That brings up a problem I have with the system, which is that if you call something a debate, then it needs to be a debate. That means it needs to be moderated, and emotional outbursts need to be filtered out of the final result.)
• Thus, lists seem the better medium. But, even in list format, this topic will always be vulnerable to attack, and will require work and attention to keep it from being submereged by dogmatic attitudes. But at least in this format claims can be referenced, and entries annotated and defended.
• Regarding your criteria, for #1, whether or not the membership of a group is changeable does not seem to be a useful criterion. I would rather say that categories should be reserved for situations where there is no room for discussion (presidents of France) as opposed to debatable ones (French chefs). I agree with all your other points.
• In the greater scheme of things, I think your words are well chosen, we are "in big trouble." Trouble is the stage on which all this is being played out, and the intellectual freedom that exists here is very fragile and very vulnerable. I would even say that we should expect major reversals if ever a major dogmatic player decides to mount a systematic attack. This experiment is a perfect example of a "TAZ" and, though we are neutral, how could we not be affected by the culture wars raging around us? Haiduc 16:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

First, I understand you (Haiduc) may not read this until after your vacation. Responding to Samuel's point, I suspect lists are more appropriate for many controversial topics not because lists would be any less controversial but because of the ability to provide more context with lists both in the list itself and at references to the list. I notice (for example) that Apollo is categorized in Category:Pederastic deities and although there is a section Apollo#Homosexual relationships there is no link from this section to the general topic. The category provides this link, but it is so far removed from the context that the motivation for this category membership is not exactly obvious. Also, unlike most categories, this category includes an introductory paragraph that reads like the beginning of an article. Perhaps another criteria to add to Samuel's list might be:

6. If the topic is not likely to be discussed in the lead paragraph of the articles that would be in the category or requires a contextual reference, it is probably more suited as a list.

In practice, I suspect this might mean controversial or sensitive topics should generally be treated in lists but I don't think this means we'd be suppressing or avoiding controversy. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Pedophilia/"Pederasty"

In countries where the legal age for homosexual sex is different than for the heterosexual, and so higher than the average age of consent worldwide, 16 years: I agree, that's unfair, is just pure discrimination. But a middle-aged man having sex with a boy who is under-age is no different than a middle-aged man having sex with a girl who is under-age. It's paedophilia. I'm not going to say it's any better just because it's the homosexual equivalent of "normal" pedophilia. It's still a middle-aged man having sex with a child.

Historical arguments are baseless: Humanity's done and allowed a LOT of stupid things, and stupidly not allowed many other things. That's just how it goes. Today we know better than to allow children to be molested by adults.

I'm quite appalled that you are in favour of sexual abuse of children and from your edits and very pro-active stance, maybe even a practicer of this. Let me guess, you're a member of the "Childlove movement"?--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am a bit confused. Are we talking at cross purposes? You say that where the ages of consent are unequal - with the same-sex age barrier higher than the one for opposite-sex relationships, it is an unfair burden on the males. And you are probably right. But are you implying by contrast that my position is the legalization of relations with underage boys where the ages of consent are equal?! Where did you ever come up with that one?! I think you misread me (which is not difficult, as I have waded into somewhat contentious topics).
  First, even if I did hold bizzare views, as long as my edits were up to encyclopaedic standards, what difference would that make? But my views are perhaps even more conservative than yours. Not only do I think that men and youths should not enter into sexual relationships where it is against the law and the ages of consent are equal, I also think they should not enter into such relationships where the age of consent for same-sex relations is higher. They should not break the law, period. So what exactly is the problem that has you so excited? Haiduc 21:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments and arguments on the Pederasty/Pederasty in the modern world articles make it look like you hold a view that there is nothing wrong with this type of paedophilia at all...

"pederasty is not a crime anywhere except in a few countries with very high ages of consent." -You, Talk:Pederasty_in_the_modern_world, 11 December 2005 (UTC) - When as you have acknowledged elsewhere Pederasty includes males as young as 12..

You removed Pederasty from Category:Pedophilia claiming "irrelevant category"[1] - When this by definition includes boys as young as 12 which is obviously blatant pedophilia..

Plus you've made a lot of pederasty-promoting categories (some of which have been deleted) and from your contributions (I looked through quite a lot to check things, 500-a-page) you're obviously very interested in the subject and images related to it... It really does look very suspicious.

I'd think the same if you were promoting middle-aged men having sex with 12 year old girls too - it's just as bad. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that you are automatically assuming that pederasty necessarily refers to child molestation, but the most cursory reading of modern work on the topic will reveal that to be an unwarranted prejudice. Yes, there can be overlap between the categories, and yes, pederastic practices legal in one place could be illegal in another, but neither illegality nor child abuse are of the essence of the argument. You could make exactly the same claims for marriage, especially child marriage, but you don't see anyone running around screaming "pedophilia, pedophilia" when a 15 y/o Indian bride is married off to an adult husband. And a good thing too, it would be ethnocentric (and false). And what would you think of adding the category "pedophilia" to the marriage article?
As for my motives, if it suits you, please feel free to imagine me as a polymorphously perverse cannibalistic ogre. But do not mistake reporting for promoting, and let's not flog an authoritarian agenda here, lest we end up like those dogs that lick the hand that beats them. Haiduc 22:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Cross-cultural comparisons don't hold here b/c the culture in question is still un-industrialized, and people basically can't leave the place they grew up in. Sure it's uncool that the guy marries a fifteen year old, but guess what, he's strictly bound into a social system so he can't just go run off to San Francisco... you, however, can live anywhere you want in the world, and this freedom gives you a bigger responsibility. Just my 0.02. - 210.172.1.177 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Illness

It says at the top of your page that you are ill. I hope that it's nothing serious, that you recover soon, and that it's not interfereing too much with your travel plans. Yes I got your reply, I will digest it and respond in good time, thanks, be well. Herostratus 19:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Pederasty ITMW

Haiduc, I agree with your comments wholeheartedly. To the extent that you feel my comments on the article's talk page have been personal rather than related to the article, feel free to tell me so. I welcome the feedback. I don't know if we're ever going to see eye to eye on what is and isn't POV on that article. I've gotten the sense from you that you are opposed to content that depicts pederasty as a criminal or as a harmful (to the adolescent) activity - ECPAT, relabelling and cutting the Justin Berry section, etc. As long as I feel like your POV is determining your editing to that article, you and I are probably going to continue to disagree over the content of the article. But yes, I hope we can both keep it professional, and I'll do my best to hold up my end of that bargain. Thanks. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comments to me don't match your work on the page, at least not to my eyes. Your original article and your work on my edits has consistently leaned towards positive portrayals of pederasty, including deleting or altering parts that would paint pederasty in a negative light. For example, taking out the sentence about the Internet and relabelling the Justin Berry section as "child prostitution" (he wasn't a prostitute, and he was seduced by pederasts over the Internet) diminished that paragraph's relevance to the main topic.

Neutrality can mean balance between opposing views or, even better, an avoidance of anything beyond the simple facts. An article on PITMW could just define the term, discuss its legal status around the world, mention major proponents (individuals and groups) and opponents, and discuss the psychiatry community's view of pederasty. It would be a lot shorter than what is there now, but it would eliminate both pro- and anti-pederasty points of view from the article. Failing that, I'm striving for balance in the article between those two viewpoints. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Achilles

I actually wasn't thinking of Achilles' assault on Troilus when I wrote that comment, but of the portrayal of Patroclus in The Myrmidons, which we know of only from mentions in the Symposia of Xenophon and Plato. Both works mention that Aeschylus portrayed Patroclus as the "beloved" (ἐρόμενος) and Achilles as the "lover" (ἐράστης); Plato, of course, disagrees, pointing out that in Homer Patroclus is the elder. It's clear that by the fifth century the Athenians, at least, were keen to put the Achilles/Patroclus relationship in a context they understood, just as people today tend to want them to be either non-sexual "war buddies" or an adult romantic couple similar to gay couples of today. Homer is vague enough to allow everyone his or her own interpretation, and those interpretations have been many and varied ever since Homer. It's probably no more accurate to say they were "really" a pederastic couple than it is to say they were "really" just close friends with no romantic or sexual aspect to their relationship at all.

I suppose the inclusion of Achilles in Category:Pederastic deities depends on your definition of both "pederasty" and "deity". I tend to think of "deity" and "god" as synonyms (and Webster's agrees with me, for what it's worth), but it's entirely possible that scholars of Greek religion draw a distinction I'm unaware of. As for "pederasty", the category itself defines the relationship in terms of "falling in love". I don't think that the love of Achilles for Patroclus is arguable (although, as I mentioned, the ages of the two were debated by Plato's time).

I'm not very familiar with the story of Achilles and Troilus or its sources, and the Achilles page states that he "fell in love" with Troilus' beauty. If this is an accurate description of the story, I suppose that it could be included as a pederastic desire — although given Troilus' rejection and subsequent murder on the altar of Apollo I don't think it's fair to describe it as a pederastic relationship of the sort that the 5th century Athenians idealized. It certainly doesn't seem like love to me, which is what the category says the relationships were about.

I realize that I'm quibbling with words here. It just seems to me that of the two possible ἐρόμενοι, neither is as clear-cut an example as, say, Zeus and Ganymede. That doesn't necessarily mean that Achilles must be excluded from the category, just that his inclusion is more problematic. I think I'll stay out of the debate on the Achilles page from now on, since the subject is so muddy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles with disputes

I'm not sure I see any dispute at Peter Lamborn Wilson. But if you'd like to have a discussion at the talk page then that'd be swell. -Cheers, -Will Beback 22:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Kiss by Briseis Painter

You're welcome. I created a commons:Category:Greek pederasty to store these king of images. Jastrow 07:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

BUDweiser

Please excuse me for replying so late: I do not use my account very often on Wikipedia. This account's name is not exactly the same as on the French Wikipedia, because I have lost my pasword and had to recreate an account.

I am not used to writing in English, so I will be short. In fact, this conjecture about "bud" is not mine. I found it on this website, which you probably already know : http://www.androphile.org/preview/Museum/Exhibitions/budweiser_beer/budweiser_beer-Anheuser-Busch.html

By the way, you do a remarkable work on the English articles about pederasty. I wish I had more time to contribute in English. I use the occasion to add some thoughts here. I think that Jules Verne's and Satie's names should be removed from the list of artists with pederastic inclinations. I do not have time to find my sources again. I have read that Satie had not learnt Greek, and that he may not have known what the gymnopedias exactly were (it is true nevertheless that there are no known relationships between him and any woman): the title may have been chosen by him, just because it sounds mysterious and beautiful. So far I know, there is absolutely no evidence of a pederastic relationship between Jules Verne and the young Aristide Briand. Didyme 18:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. Tu devrai m'ecrire en francais - je lis courrament, mais j'ecris mal. In what regards Jules Verne, I posted the following at his article, which was rejected, but I have not given up on finding a proper way to discuss these serious contentions:

The theme of pederasty

Some historians and literary critics have claimed to see certain pederastic elements in the life and work of the writer. Jean Paulhan, in an introduction to Marcel Moré's The Very Curious Jules Verne, points out the two main themes that, in Moré's view, define Verne's work. First, that "in life we must, little by little, substitute in place of our natural father an older and better man than ourselves," and, second, that "The entire opus of Jules Verne has, as its purpose and secret, pederasty."

Michel Larivière, in his Homosexuels et bisexuels célèbres alleges that Verne, as late as 1878 at the age of fifty, surrounded himself with very young friends, such as the sixteen year old Aristide Briand, whom he frequently picked up from school and brought to his home. Lariviere goes on to note a quasi-universal theme in the novels of "an older and more experienced man who offers support and affection to a young and very handsome boy." Examples of such pairs are Lord Glevanan with the young Robert Grant, in The Children of Captain Grant, and the dashing Pencroft with the fifteen year old Herbert Brown, the "brave boy" whom he "loved as if he had been his own child," in The Mysterious Island.

Another indication of Verne's pederastic leanings has been sought in his purported lack of tolerance for women, who are largely absent from his works (as they are in the tales of other nineteenth century adventure writers not considered inclined to pederasty). Confirmation for Verne's aversion to women has been adduced from his personal life, in which supposedly he remained distant from his wife, even leaving her seven months pregnant while he toured northern Europe. Others, however, have portrayed their relationship as close.

Both him and Satie I got out of Michel Lariviere's "magnum opus". Now I don't know whether he is seen as a reliable resource or a gossipy old queen, what do you make of his work? Cordialement, Haiduc 19:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Platonic love

It's much better, but I think it still has a few problems. I've discussed them over at Talk:Platonic_love#Interpretation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Indian Gay Kings

Hi,

Many of the great Sultans and Nawabs of India were gay. Babur, Mahmud of Ghazni, Mumammad Ghauri, Khilji are some of the famous names. Infact homosexuality was quite openly practiced by Muslim society of India.

I would like to bring all the great gay rulers of India under a single category of "Gays and Bisexuals". However vandals are not letting the task go unhindered. Your help will be appreciated.

Thanks 61.250.232.32 01:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You should sign up for an account so that we can discuss these things. Yes, people are reluctant to deal with that side of the past. Haiduc 02:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA poll

I am not sure if you were aware of this, but the poll had more than one question. Below the question of whether it is a pederasty organization, is a repeat of the question you had voted on above -- asking whether it's an LGBT organization. I figured you might want to know, in case you wanted to repeat your earlier vote. Corax 22:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty in Ancient Greece

Seems like you could just revert those changes and brush off the unsigned, anon ip comments. Dave 01:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

69.22.98.162

I saw your post on WP:AIAV about 69.22.98.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and I wanted to ask about the context. Saying a section is dubious, or indeed reverting repeatedly, are not vandalism unless done in bad faith. Can you clarify the situation? -- SCZenz 16:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about the user's history. His edits today weren't particularly bad, though, and were he not a habitual vandal and POV warrior I'd consider it quite possible that they had been made in good faith (since there has been discussion among users about the appropriate place in the article for discussion of Da Vinci's sexuality, which means that it is disputed). I'm disinclined to block at this time, but I'll leave another talk page note, and if the user persists please let me know. -- SCZenz 16:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I wrote. On Wikipedia, the "disputed" tag means that users disagree on what the article should say; it's got nothing to do with scholarly research. And that appears to have been the case at certain points with this article. Furthermore, POV warriors—no matter how objectionable their views—are not the same as vandals, and are not treated the same way. Does that clarify things? -- SCZenz 16:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation

Hi there, I suppose my question will proably sound stupid but I ought to ask. I found the articles on wikipedia very interesting yet, at least on the subject of homosexuality it seems to be only extensive in english. Could someone kindly explain to me if it is possible to traslate someone elses work allready in the english part of Wikipedia, would that be a problem and how can someone check the work? Please don't send me to find someone from my language secion, I've been trying for days and no luck. Anyone willing to help? Much appreciated!! --Miltiades 00:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What language version do you want to translate it into? Haiduc 02:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

translation

It's grekk I'm on about and I've read few articles that are great yet none have bothered to put or translate a grain out of that vast amount of information--Miltiades 00:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't help personally, but you are entitled to use the material completely freely and to translate as much or as little of it as you are willing. If there is any other way I can be of assistance, please let me know. Haiduc 00:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll lake you up on your offer but bar with me, I'm new to all this!--Miltiades 00:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to ask one thing though, what about copyright? If one is to transate someone's work wouldn't that be breach of their rights? And if one is allowed to translate something then how the original writer can check wether the article has been translated precisely?--Miltiades 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There IS no copyright. Use it freely, as per the GNU Free Documentation License (below). The work here (including any translation) is based on trust and the presumption of intellectual integrity. The saving grace, of course, is that it is a group project and any errors or biases usually work their way out naturally. Welcome to the ludus ludorum. Haiduc 03:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Pier Paolo

I removed that category 'cause I think it's already included in the homosexuals one. Isnt'it? As you would hav enoticed, I'm extensively rebuilding the article, mainly by translation from the Italian article. As I'm of Italian birth-language, you can help me correcting typos and bad phrases, if you want. Thanks. Attilios

OK! Just completed the article. Needed your help to Wikificate it and insert the category as you prefer. Ciao!

Image copyright problem with Image:Boys_arm_in_arm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Boys_arm_in_arm.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 06:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The Justin Berry thing

If Berry was indeed forced against his will to perform sexual acts, that is indeed molestation. I am loathe to call it that because he apparently engaged in it freely for so long that he got the idea to start a business pertaining to it. It seems that the only reason he had a "change of heart" was that a New York Times reporter confronted him, and probably told him that if he did not want to "seek help," he would go to the FBI with evidence that Berry was engaged in the distribution of "child pornography." At least that how it appears from the chronology laid out in the article, even if the reporter wants to consider himself a hero. So yes, while Berry did "express satisfaction," I think it is inappropriate to use pejorative descriptors like "molestation" to describe the sex he was repeatedly having and according to the article willfully selling all over the Net. Corax 17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your terminology, but I wanted to emphasize that Berry appeared to have cooperated willingly and in a heartfelt manner with the authorities. I read the whole article and I was shocked that what I had imagined - from hearsay, mind you - to have been a way for youths to emancipate themselves had such a sordid underside, where the adults were the real players and the kids just pawns. A mess is a mess. Haiduc 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a mess, and Justin Berry would clearly have been better off without those people in his life. But let's be clear that Berry's experience is anecodotal and probably far from representative of what happens when you put teenagers and webcams together. Also, anybody who is threatened with being turned in for kiddie porn by an over-zealous Times reporters will recant in a heartfelt manner. Corax 17:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not get the impression that he co-operated under duress, else why would he rejoiced at the arrest, and expressed resentment at the previous sexual contact?! By the way, I appreciate your trying to bring some integrity to these difficult subjects. By the way, I have been hoping to get a color-keyed map of male age of consent (Europe, then perhaps others) for the "Modern times" article but do not have the Photoshop skills. Any thoughts? Haiduc 17:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Think for a moment. If you're Justin Berry and a reporter approaches you, telling you that you are either going to cooperate to clean up your life or you're going to have a date with federal agents, what are you going to do? You're going to clean up your act and happily disavow your illegal behavior. You'll probably even feign disgust and shock as if to show the authorities that you, too, were a victim and not a perpetrator. And that the only reason you were doing the things you did was that you were forced. I'm not saying that this is what happened with Berry. I'm just saying that I think it's silly that people rush to judgment without giving due consideration to other possibilities. The fact that Berry had a sudden and dramatic change of heart seems to me to indicate that the Times reporter was up to something, even if he does not reveal in the article for the sake of enshrining his image as a child crusader (It wouldn't do to show readers how he coerced and manipulated a teenager into cooperating with his front-page story, would it? especially since it would place him in the same category as the webcam operators.)

Don't mention the assistance on the articles. I consider it a hobby to delve into controversial subjects. As far as the colored map goes, I have absolutely no clue. Perhaps you can do a google image search. Corax 17:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What a hall of mirrors this scene has become. Yes, it is an open question, who was manipulating whom, and we can even paint a picture in which Berry out-manipulates everyone. Rashomon. All you can say for sure is that it was both ugly and sad, and I for one thought it fine that Berry walked. But I do not have much compassion to spare for men who pay boys for sexual acts, whether real or virtual. They bear a lot of the responsibility for this movement to make pederasty illegal where now permitted. Regards, Haiduc 17:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. And of course, it's a vicious cycle, because the illegality makes paying for it much more likely. Corax 18:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Reconsidering: You know why Berry was authentic in the end? He already had received immunity and no longer needed to persuade anybody of anything. He could have broken down in tears, but instead he exulted. And it is perfectly understandable, when you think of it - he had been manipulated into a pattern of degrading behavior. Who would not be resentful, once come to consciousness and faced with those acts?! Haiduc 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps so. Then again, perhaps not. I'm not saying I have any sort of definitive answers here, or that I know more than you do about this. I merely make the suggestion that crimes involving under-age sex generally conform to a script -- in which the adult is the aggressive, lascivious perpetrator and the minor, the innocent and damaged cherub. When a young person without much life experience is confronted with his involvement in a soon-to-be-media-spectacle featuring underage sex, I think it's not unreasonable to ask whether he feels pressure to conform to the role which will minimize the negative fallout from his antics. I also think that the times reporter's implicit self-portrayal as a great humanitarian and child advocate obscures the fact that he, like the men running justin's web site, was effectively exploiting justin and his story for money-making potential. In other words, I'm saying that these cases often involve more than the scripted, cathartic ritual that always meets the eye. That's all. Cheers. Corax 00:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Moronobu Hishikawa

Hello Haiduc :- ) Do you have the references for the interesting article you started, Moronobu Hishikawa? If so, could you put them in the article. Thanks, FloNight 00:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the references for Bacchá and Moronobu Hishikawa. If you come across any more for Moronobu Hishikawa, could you add them? --FloNight 11:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Public order

"Public order crime" is a term of art in criminology and, as such, it sits in the Criminology/Penology classification with a hopefully well-referenced explanation. You proposed to introduce a news item about China. This is a perfectly respectable piece of information on the generic topic of public order offences around the world. I have therefore placed it on a new page where it can be developed by the addition of the many other examples of repression from China. I am also establishing a disambiguation page which will switch to this new page as a generic example of the topic otherwise known as victimless crimes. Forgive what may seem to be a pedantic approach but I am seeking to maintain a proper academic standard on the criminology and criminal law pages in the Wiki and hope that you will accept a ==See also== reference as an adequate compromise. David91 18:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

66.30.208.149

Hi I removed your posting of this anon at AIAV please see the message below that I left for the anon. Please let me know if he does not discuss his proposed changes on the articles talk. I must also tell you that since it is not clear vandalism, you both are in violation of the WP:3RR so I urge you to try and get the anon to discuss this on the articles talk page. Thanks. [2]

Ah I apologize for forgetting to sign, as well as if you took exception to my suggestion of that you broke the 3rr rule. I did not mean any offense, and I hope you will not hold any ill will towards my actions. The 3rr does state that unless it is simple vandalism, or self-reverts, a user may not revert an other user, or he may be blocked. Something along those lines :-D. I do not think a block of either of you is warranted because of a 3rr because the anon’s edits could be seen as vandalism. I on the other hand do not see his edits as vandalism, only as a user who is not familiar with policy. My comment to you about the 3rr was to hopefully deter a potential edit war. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re my comment at the B-P talk page

Yeah, I did see how much was removed, which is why I both recommended moving it to its own article (it is long enough, and could foster even more work, and certainly the book is as deserving of its own article as any other biography on here), and expanding the in-article text. The current synopsis doesn't do it justice, but a full discussion is big enough, I think, to get its own article. I'm certainly open to changing my vote if you've got some info or reasoning I'm not getting, though. -Seth Mahoney 22:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, certainly the point needs to be made that this isn't some hack making arbitrary claims. I'd suggest experimenting after the vote and seeing what you can get away with - obviously there's some bias against the content, but the fact that they're allowing the claim to stay at all is a sign that there's some willingess to compromise. -Seth Mahoney 22:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Hi Haiduc. What seemed odd in this case was that the History of education category had 22 entries and five of them dealt with this one topic. By-and-large the category contains very general items and this seemed unusually specific. The question in these cases is the "if this why not that?" problem and scaleability in general. Should we add Homer, Aristotle, the Ionian school, the Alexandrian school, tutor, priest, nanny, scholasticism and academia? Perhaps we should, but insofar as we don't at present the entries seemed out of place. If you do want to re-cat I would suggest cat'ing the general page on pederasty and not the more specific ones. Marskell 09:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Bagoas/Persian Boy

I'm trying to reread The Persian Boy--once I see how the Orsines episode was used by Renault (I can't imagine she ignored it, but I don't remember it), I'll probably move some of that in. I don't want to duplicate everything from the Bagoas article to The Persian Boy one, though--there should be some distinction. Nareek 18:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hyacinth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hyacinth.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 13:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

male erotic emancipatio-

Hello :) Any thoughts on this? ntennis 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mehmed II

If you have the time and interest, could you have a look at the page? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Feud

Perhaps this is the wrong word. I just noticed that the noticeboard was filling up with his comments and wanted to get it off the page. I didn't have time to examine what was going on, and didn't know how to characterize the conversation. I do have time to look at it now, and I'll try to figure out what is going on. I would suggest that if you post something on the LGBT noticeboard about a user issue, that you explain (with links) how it relates to people concerned with LGBT issues. I couldn't determine that from your post, so the posting looked like more of a personal disagreement. I'm not saying that is what is going on, just that I couldn't easily figure out the problem. I'd be happy to help with this however I can, once I understand it. -- Samuel Wantman 08:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I spent a few minutes looking at his history and here is what it looks like to me. The user finds many articles to be objectionable and that has led to you in many occasions. He should be directing his energy to the articles and not you. His behavior has been reprimanded, and he has been blocked. He seems unrepentant and this is likely to lead to more and longer blocks. His comments do appear to be personal attacks of you on many occasions.

To his credit, I agree that there are problems with some of these articles. Citations need to be added methodically. More energy should be put into presenting views which you and I would probably find offensive. Yet, I believe if presented in a NPOV way they will be seen for what they are. I don't know if this user is willing to collaborate in this sort of effort, but there are probably users that would be willing to work with you to make these articles more NPOV. I think Societal attitudes towards homosexuality is NPOV for the most part in what it presents. It is more POV because of what is not mentioned. Pederasty in the modern world is better, but could still use some more frank discussions about child abuse. Like most POV disputes the exchanges look like each side trying to prove that their view is correct, rather than both sides trying to present a multitude of views in a NPOV way

The more that you can present both sides of an issue, the less you will become the target of these types of attacks. For me, I find it very difficult to work on articles that are very close to me, close enough that they push my emotional buttons. I find that I am incapable to present views I find repugnant in an NPOV way. For this reason, I do not spend much time working on LGBT articles. I appreciate that you have undertaken some of this work. I find a good deal of it to be very good. -- Samuel Wantman 09:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes. To Obi-Wan you listen. I agree with SW. 68.110.9.62 16:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also left comments for 68.110.9.62 here. -- Samuel Wantman 09:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OCD

The Oxford Classical Dictionary has quite a long and substantive entry under the heading "pederasty" clearly delineating it from the other phenomena with which it has become confused in recent years. Since it is the modern source for information on classical culture, I figured it would shut some people up. Corax 16:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it is a modern encyclopedia/dictionary that defines pederasty in a specific way, whether that dictionary refers to antiquity or not. As such, it would be dishonest for people to pretend that nobody these days defines pederasty as anything different from homosexual male pedophilia. Corax 16:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I can try to photocopy and scan the OCD entry on pederasty, then email it to you as a PDF if you so desire. (As I can recall, by the way, the entry was written by David Halperin, who was able to bracket away his extreme social constructionism for the purposes of writing his contribution.) However I am very, very busy this week, so I cannot guarantee when I will be able to do this. Corax 03:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Any objections? (from Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Societal attitudes towards homosexuality)

There are a number of problems with the article, redundacies, nonsense, stuff Lou has pointed out. I'd like to go over the whole thing and polish it a bit, is this a good time? Haiduc 20:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. Please do what you can. —Guanaco 20:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Symonds etc

Hello :)

I hope you don't mind, I moved our discussion about Symonds and Dyer to the talk page as it seems specifically pertinant to that article. I don't know anything about De Vere or Van Keppel, sorry! ntennis 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I award this Barnstar to Haiduc for his great efforts in cleaning up Societal attitudes towards homosexuality.

Feel free to move this to your user page if you like. And thanks for all your hard work. --Chesaguy 02:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

Hi! How's stuff after, you know, all the stress that's been going on around here (or is that one anon still harassing you?)? To get down to business, I had a request regarding Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. In the "Historical cultural variations section" you have (or maybe it was there all along and I didn't notice):

The construction of same-sex relations has evolved over time. Initially they were seen as a casual preference and a leisure activity, subject to the same vagaries as one's taste in food or literature. Only in the past couple of hundred years have they come to be associated with an inherent condition, one which was medicalized in the closing years of the 1800's and normalized a century later.

I'd like to see that theme more consistently developed throughout this section, with sources. You know, like, "this Chinese guy had this to say about sexual tastes" (Such-and-such-Chinese guy, his text), etc. I think that trying to go that route when fleshing out the article would make for a really strong, information-rich section, so if you have any sources, quotes, etc. lying about, I'd love to see them appear in the article. As I work on the "Recent history" section, I'm trying to do something similar, hoping to get a sense of dialogue, voices pulling certain threads through the text, or some such nonsense. Anyway, that's my request, if you're interested. -Seth Mahoney 04:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, there's none of the "let's source so no one thinks we're making this up" sort of worries, but more an interest in making the text seem more, I dunno, alive. First-person/primary source accounts just sort of do it for me, I guess. Sort of gives me a feel for the time that, I think, even 50,000 secondary source words couldn't do.

And yeah, the way these internet gay bashers go about business is so cookie-cutter predictable that it makes me want to throw things. Maybe writing up a predictive "this is what you're about to do" list would deliver just the right amount of shock to give us a brief pause so we could actually get something done. No, probably not -Seth Mahoney 05:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hunh?

Well, I thought you and Seth Mahoney deserved it for all the work you two have been doing on the article, especially with working to make it more NPOV. Just wanted you two to know that someone out there noticed and appreciates your efforts. --Chesaguy 04:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Bosco, and not the chocolate

I have removed your additions tothe St John Bosco page. They are not NPOV and do not meet with the standards put forth by the Saints wikiproject.evrik 23:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• The reference to chocolate was Bosco Chocolate. I looked at your sources and am dubious, but in any case, it is not NPOV and is not appropriate to the page. Add it to the talk page and see what the discussion is.evrik 23:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI

I dont have any opinion in regards to the articles you edit. but you might be intrested to some background on the user you are dealing with, please direct your attention to the history and discussion of the folowing pages: Category:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Category:Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Category:Municipalities in Philadelphia County prior to the Act of Consolidation, 1854, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• N/P, i would also notpay to much attention to the user below is is praticlay nothing more then an abusive sock (same person or not) for the person in question. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• I would reconsider taking advice from a man who is about about to be banned from wikipedia. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443 South Philly 13:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

BP afd

Haiduc: I know we had a heated debate before, but now we actually agree on something--keeping the B-P sexuality article...interesting things can happen, huh-;) Pls see my comments on the afd. I said I would not interfere with the sexuality article and I won't. I fully support our prior consensus. I will keep my word, but as you know, I have limited control over Project members and none over non-members. Grazon is not a member of the Scouting project, so I have no influence over him. I'm truly saddened he's doing this. Notice he's been tinkering with the book article, but a Scouting Project member, Bduke reverted that. Grazon's actions certainly do not speak for all Scouters. I am not trying to bury anything. I simply truly believe the main article should have the summary, the separate article as full as anyone wants to make it, and the book article cover the full book. To remerge everything would heat up the debate again. I will ask other Project members to support to keep the separate article. Pls note, if I was trying to hide this issue, I'd never have agreed to keep the summary and direct link in the main article. regards, Rlevse 16:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jami

I'm not sure what you mean; my edit ([3]) cut down a very long caption, repeated virtually identically over three images, and cut out two of the images (as they overbalanced a short article). I also removed a category which had no relation to anything mentioned in the article text. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work so far. One thing, though — the images should really be thumbed, so that readers can choose whether to see the larger versions (people like me, connecting via 'phone lines, can find pages loading rather slowly when images are large. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Links to your alt user page Haiduk/etc

I changed the category links on the draft article at the userpage "Haiduk/storagebin" simply because they were causing the page to show up in the actual categories, which isn't really appropriate. I thought I had better mention this, in case you thought it was a (very mild) form of vandalism. Staffelde 16:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mahmud of Ghazni

Please do not add unsubtantaied rumors in this page. Mahmud of Ghazni is folk hero in Pakistan and do not vandalize this page.

Siddiqui 02:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see you adding Hadrian to your agenda as that page states Hadrian was especially famous for his love relationship with a Greek youth, Antinous. Why is that ? While you continously add this controversal agenda Mahmud of Ghazni page. Thankyou for your cooperation and understanding.

Siddiqui 03:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You have added nearly 20% of the page with your propaganda. You can atleast compromise on one line rather that one fifth of the page. In Hadrian page there is only one line discussing his homosexuality. Why is there such a difference ? Why is Pakistani historical figure deserves so much of your attention while a Roman and European emperor only one line ?

Siddiqui 03:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your area of expertise in Wikipedia contribution does not interest me. Actually I read Hadrian page few days ago after watching a program about Hadrian wall. Just today you added that controversal subject in Mahmud of Ghazni page that I remembered reading Hadrian page. In any case, please reduce it to one one or small paragraph. You have already discussed this Mahmud in pedestry page. Hope we can reach a compromise.

Siddiqui 03:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to 'Vandalism' by user Wikipsycho on Mahmud of Ghazni page. He had some disput with me on another article and now is hounding me all over Wikipedia. I may initially used it for you but we may have agreed for a comprimise. Sorry if I used that term in the begining.

Siddiqui 04:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lou franklin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

molest?

Tony Sandel 7 March 2006

Hi Replying to your comment on the use of the word 'molest' for a consensual relationship between two minors in the Sorcerer's Apprentice article. I agree with you and have changed it. :)

Haiduc, I'll be watching you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.71.0.48 (talk • contribs) .

Relax - you are not alone. Haiduc 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you like his look, Mr. Unsigned? :-) Fulcher 23:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Societal attitudes

Hey, thanks for adding all those references to the article. As usual, I appreciate your hard work (even if a certain unmentionable editor doesn't). -Seth Mahoney 20:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

And thanks for the note. You're right, it is just a game - I'm sure I'll be back when it sounds like fun again. -Seth Mahoney 18:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Heruli & Homosexuality

Sorry, not sure how to do this (I'm a Wiki-Novice) so I'll just try it this way. You restored some of the text that I had originally posted about the homosexuality of the Heruli. After I got REAMED royally by Wetman and Wiglaf for using "original research" (which is against Wikipedia policy I guess), I fuckin threw in the towel and removed EVERYTHING I had on there (which was quite a lot), like the full list of ALL classical references to the Heruli (some 30 plus I think). Since it's not welcome, I'd appreciate it if you would remove my research again. Anyway, if you would like to discuss that more with me, I'd be happy to! Cheers, Connell (ekerilaz@mac.com)

RFC

Hi. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Siddiqui. I'm sorry for the short message, I think you're a great contributor, and hopefully we talk some day later again. --doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 19:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Deceitful eyes

Heh, I'm not really back yet, though I'm still researching for the article and I am paying attention to my watchlist. As far as the NPOV tag goes, I figure the article is a work in progress, so we may as well allow the tag - one less battle to fight while there's researching and writing going on. Better, I think, to deal with the issue of NPOV tag or not later, after we've resolved more pressing issues. -Seth Mahoney 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Your personal views on why you think Societal attitudes towards homosexuality is biased are necessary. Otherwise your tag simply mimicks the minority editor's views and is not helpful. Thank you. Haiduc 21:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The text of the POV tag simply states that there is a dispute on the neutrality of the article. It does not mean that I believe that the article, as it stands, has POV issues. Cleduc 00:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I read more and understand your comments. I explained further on Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. If you want to pull off the tag, go right ahead, I'm not trying to be unhelpful -- I'm trying to be as transparent as possible to the readers of this encyclopedia that something's going on. Thanks, Cleduc 01:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome

You are very welcome. And likewise, thank you for also being reasonable - increasingly rare these days, as it were. SouthernComfort 05:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Obscenity Warning

[4]

Warning: Please do not add obscenities to Wikipedia. Injecting unnecessary profanities, racially or sexually abusive comments, or provocative pictures to articles or user pages offends many people. Wikipedia treats such actions as vandalism and blocks people from editing for such repeated vandalism. Lou franklin 03:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume that we can post on the adminstrators' noticeboard, explain the situation, and have these removed? Or should we just leave them up? Hbackman 03:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Batman

No worries about being heavy handed. You don't live on the 'net for this long and not get a thick skin :) I was pissier about it before my coffee, but I see the point. And it was really just a 'Be Bold!' attempt that flopped (I am glad you understood I didn't mean it in bad faith at least, that matters more to me right now). I still think it should be it's own article, since I think the discussion stands on it's own legs, but I cheerfully agree to disagree. (This from the chick who also thinks Nightwing should be renamed 'Dick Grayson', and grumbles about that a lot). Paper games - I had a road race card game as a young'un that seems vaguely similar. It's probably on the other side of the globe, though, along with most of my comics :P -- Ipstenu 14:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Gay rights opposition

Perhaps you could answer this question and provide a source or edit. Wuzzy 22:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

"plus has ethnic bias for protecting Persians ancestors from unseemly associations." - I find this totally out of line and offensive considering that I have not opposed the inclusion of Herodotus' comment, only the way you are adding "Persians" to the list completely out of context without quoting the full comment in the appropriate section. SouthernComfort 05:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Crompton?

You edited Matsuo Bashō with a reference to "Crompton, p.440". But... who's Crompton?! Ashibaka tock

Okay, nevermind, I found "Louis Crompton. Homosexuality and Civilization, Cambridge, Mass. and London, 2003. ISBN 067401197X" in another article of yours. I assume this is what you meant. Ashibaka tock 14:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with the page Mirza Ghalib on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. AmiDaniel (Talk) 20:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Oops, a little too fast on the trigger there. My apologies. AmiDaniel (Talk) 20:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Afary

I'm not sure what you mean - I checked the link and copied the quote from there. SouthernComfort 23:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I just checked again - the part that got copied over was not a quote, but it was in the article so I've added that next to the quote. SouthernComfort 23:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ibn Hazm

I forget where I was reading but it was explaining that the constant male referneces of Ibn Hazm was respect because using female was considered disrespectful... so, when I read this (Arberry translation) a lot of it seemed homosexual but... it apparently wasn't (which makes sense since Hazm was fairly conservatively orthodox in ways). Just... can you comment or source other evidence since I don't think the prevailing view is that this is a homoerotic work (Ring of the Dove, that is). Thanks. gren グレン 06:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I really don't know much about the subject but if you can use credible sources and cite all points of view in a neutral manner that'd be good. Just make sure you represent the various points of view... but... it's hard for me to say since I don't know any of the scholarship. Is A. G. Chejne's biography of Ibn Hazm any good? (if you know). and Pederasty in the Islamic lands seems to be a very interesting article, by the way. gren グレン 12:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Distributed Proofreaders

Do you know anything about them and Project Gutenberg? If you did it'd be interesting because I've been (not very hard) trying to get them to do more Arab/Persian material. Not in the original Arabic since that'd have to be done at the pretty dead DP-EU... but, it's interesting and preserving (and more importantly getting them to a wider audience) old books is pretty neat. Just... in case you might be interested. gren グレン 12:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Please see Bisexuality#Middle_East_and_Central_Asia - I'll not speculate as to whether you added this or if it was someone else, but surely this has more to do with pederasty than bisexuality. The article deals specifically with bisexuality, and thus I think it more appropriate to include information dealing precisely with the subject matter in question. Of course, this is a bit of a challenge, all things considered. SouthernComfort 16:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I've never heard that (questionable) Central Asian proverb. At any rate, pederasty is pederasty - we have no "Islamic" pederasty. In fact I find that term totally bizarre especially in light of the fact that those who dared venture into the forbidden territory of same-sex love, whether pederastic or not, risked fire and brimstone in the afterlife. At least, according to the religious mindset. Pederasty, in general, seems to be more of a cultural phenomena of previous eras, rather than tied to religion. SouthernComfort 17:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Maria Sabina

I saw your post on the talk page and added the bit about the song, and a little more. Let me know if you want specific page references or anything.--Rockero 00:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Adolescence

Haiduc, I know you didn't add them, but surely there are better images to add there than one of anonymous American high school students, some kid who thinks he's "emo" and anonymous Japanese kids. I've removed those three since they don't look worthy of an encyclopedia to me. SouthernComfort 08:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I believe the section on Albania in Pederasty should be trimmed and merged with the previous section on "Islamic world" (the Islamic section could use some trimming in general since there is already a breakout article - pederasty is fairly long as it is and needs some trimming). The main article covers the details. SouthernComfort 08:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My picture? On adolescence? I believe you are mistaken. SouthernComfort 10:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus, why would I do that? I'm not a teenager, unless you're trying to get a point across in a subtle manner? Or not so subtle, perhaps? ;) SouthernComfort 10:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good one. The last time someone April fooled me was, I think back in high school, believe it or not. Perhaps the world has lost some of its humor. Anyway, the picture of the Japanese girls wasn't bad, but I thought people might think I'm biased if I left it in there - the "emo" guy though, that I couldn't figure out. What exactly about him is "emo"? Looked a bit doped up as well. Alas, such is the world. I also made some changes to other articles which I am sure you will not like, but this how it is, yes? C'est la vie.

I'm actually spending too much time on WP, it's true. I'm in the midst of writing a novel and I have to do quite a bit of research for one part I'm currently working on, and thus, sleepless nights. I find that WP helps me focus a bit better when my mind wanders. But quite frankly, it's taking up too much of my time and there is too much in the way of factionalism and bitter rivalries and childishness and on and on. I'm talking about other articles that I work on, mind you. I mean, in the end, is it really worth it? SouthernComfort 10:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Poverty of knowledge, eh? That's actually not a bad point. But ultimately even from that perspective, it all comes down to hope - the hope that this knowledge is not only disseminated and read, but understood. The problem is in understanding. Take the subjects that you are interested in, for instance - pederasty and homosexuality. The first is primarily of historical interest, and needs to viewed from that perspective and context - but most people will not be thinking along those lines. It's an incredibly complex and difficult subject to address, and also to teach. Even in undergraduate Classical Studies courses which do not delve into the deeper context of the practice in history, and most students seem to find the subject matter too disturbing to want to dissect and deconstruct what exactly those societies were thinking when engaging in such practices. And take the general subject of homosexuality, already much maligned and misunderstood by the masses in our day and age, where nothing has changed except for the laws. But the underlying mores have not, and there is only segregation along sexual lines. One would think that with greater understanding through knowledge, there will be greater empathy and acceptance. And yet precisely the reverse has occurred. There are certain things which never change in this world, which is why I question the worthwhileness of this undertaking. And thank you for your wish of good luck. SouthernComfort 11:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"What has been exposed and sold as homosexuality is an aspect of same-sex relations which is applicable only to a small minority (4%?) of the human population." That's a very interesting observation though if I am understanding you correctly, I believe you are saying that you do not accept that humans are exclusively one "orientation" or the other? I have found that the increasing development and commercialism of gay and lesbian subcultures (and resulting ghettoization) to be rather ... surreal, and perhaps even disturbing since it all comes down to issues of sexuality (and perhaps gender), rather than ethnicity or "race." But I think that is simply more of a reaction, a symptom of our contradictory world. I think, in the end, most people are confused about these issues, even the so-called "experts" since no one seems to offer any real solutions or even be able to come up with any remotely rational explanations for how and why everything and everyone is the way they are. Does that make any sense? :) SouthernComfort 04:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Tellak

It was surely not a deletion. The same sentence was repeated in the following paragraph. I also added that Dellakname is not an anonymous book. Behemoth 11:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Pederasty in the modern world

Are you sure it was me that placed that tag? I'm not saying it wasn't - I do tend to forget things, and if it was me thanks for the reminder - but I don't remember doing that. In any case, I don't recall this article in particular and I personally don't have any feelings one way or the other about removing the tag, so if it was placed by me, you can remove it by me. Herostratus 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Wolpert

Try to get any source other than Stanley wolpert.You will not find any reference in any of his other biographies.Bharatveer 17:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Stanley wolpert is a committed anti -indian "historian" who is known for making such "speculative" comments.A speculation done by a historian remains , just that , a speculation.It can be considered as reliable only when more historians accept that as fact. And I have never seen any such comments made by other historians.Bharatveer 17:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is one link which gives you an idea how "historian" Wolpert cooked up "his story" .Rebuttal by Katherine Frank

Rebuttal by Katherine Frank-Full html versionBharatveer 07:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is playing "god". I just showed you that no other historian believes the stuff written( about nehru) by "hissstorian" wolpert.Bharatveer 12:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

A few days ago you moved section Relationships to after Leonardo's achievements.[5] While I agree with the intention behind the move, this has introduced a small problem, namely that Melzi and Salai(no) appear in the text without having been introduced; in particular the significance of "Salai was not forgotten" is unclear. Perhaps you can think of a way of addressing this. By the way, I don't understand the sudden shift from "Salaino" to "Salai". Articles in other languages that mention the character at all appear to only use "Salai", without mention that this is a nickname. The online Italian dictionaries that I consulted don't have an entry for "salai(no)". Lambiam^Talk 17:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. FYI, I also posed the Salai(no) question on user Aldux' talk page. I think the issue may puzzle more readers than just me, so some clarification would seem an appropriate inclusion in the text. Lambiam^Talk 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it works; I'm spoiled now of course, but if this had been the first version to cross my eyes, I think I would have had no issues with it. Lambiam^Talk 01:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I received the following reply from Aldux:

It would appear that Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno was also called Andrea Salai, Salaino being probably a diminutive, a quite common thing in Italian. As for its meaning "the devil", my vocabulary, which is quite detailed and full of archaic terms, didn't give anything. Returning to the meaning, this link [6] claims that "Salai" (not Salaino) meant "little devil" it the jargon of the age. And this in confirmed in Leonardo of Enrico Crispino, more correctly says Salai means devil. Probably Salai is "devil", Salaino "little devil". In my opinion you should simply call him Andrea Salai, the name by which he seems to be most famous, removing "Gian Giacomo Caprotti da Oreno" and mentioning once (or never) Salaino. I hope this helps. Bye! --Aldux 22:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Lambiam^Talk 23:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nazar

Hi. I just noticed this section on Sufism when you reverted it. I'm not the one who's been deleting it though. :) It says that it was a practice that was common since the earliest days of Islam. Do you have any references for that? I recollect reading a hadith that warns muslims about "beardless youth". It's mentioned on the Homosexuality_and_Islam page as well. A hadith is as far back as Islam goes and there's a warning rather than an endorsement there. Thanks much. --Nkv 11:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They quote Persian authors mostly which is really not the earliest days. It looks rather vague an inaccurate to me. --Nkv 12:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the facticity of the article itself. Correcting earliest days alone might not be sufficient. I'm rather tied up right now so don't have the time to research but if I find some valid content, I'll update the article. Thanks. --Nkv 10:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I will check out the sources which are cited in the article and do some cross checking. Thanks for the discussion. Peace. --Nkv 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jami

Edit war? What edit war? ;) I don't oppose your edits - only the way you have presented them as facts, which is not the right way to do so, since these are essentially subjective interpretations. In addition, I really don't see how "seeing the reflection (or beauty) of God in youth" has anything to do with pederasty, sacred or otherwise. I think the term "sacred pederasty" is severely flawed in and of itself because Sufi concepts of "reflections of God" have nothing to do with sex. IMHO, there is literally no way that Jami can be connected to a term like "sacred pederasty." Words, and the way we use them, are extremely important, and this is why I strongly oppose linking "pederasty" with someone like Jami, whose work is wholly concerned with spiritual metaphors to advance knowledge of such abstract concepts as the nature of God and reality and all that is. Abu Nuwas he most certainly was not. SouthernComfort 04:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you think the average reader will define pederasty (answer: dic. def)? How does the pederasty article define it? Either way, it cannot be linked to Jami since there is nothing inherently sexual about his poetry, as I have related above. I've asked Zereshk and a couple of other editors to expand the article so that it is balanced, but at the same time your edits need to be disambiguated since it is presenting subjective interpretations as fact, and furthermore none of them seem to even mention the issue of "sacred pederasty." SouthernComfort 05:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you refrain from using phrases like "Persian contingent." I've had quite enough of that. You know very well that Jami and the other Persian poets were dedicated and devout Sufis who wrote verse heavily tinged with metaphor to describe abstract and subjective concepts. There is nothing sexual in their poetry and to say that there is, is simply a minority viewpoint not accepted by the mainstream. SouthernComfort 13:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your agenda is to sexualize the mystical pederasty of the Sufis, in which beeautiful boys, flesh and blood boys mind you, not airy metaphors, became a vehicle for spiritual attainment. You must be confused - it's the other way around. You are the one with the agenda, constantly attempting to link these poets with pederasty (an obviously sexual practice, no matter how you wish to portray it), not me. I have made my comments and arguments very clear - pederasty cannot be linked with these poets - as their poetry focused on spiritual and religious metaphors having nothing to do with sex. Linking them with pederasty is a modern attempt by a small minority of writers with an obvious agenda. As for "spritual" or "mystical" pederasty, that is just a pathetic joke, as the topic doesn't even exist and is not even accepted by mainstream scholars and academics. SouthernComfort 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation on Mehmed II

Thanks! that was quick. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up LGBT notice board

Thanks for cleaning up the notice board. Instead of just deleting old items, could you post the results further down the page? Old results get archived, not deleted. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 01:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've requested admin help for Heracles

I put in a request for assistance in removing the Unsourced category from the Heracles page. I can't believe I didn't notice it earlier. When I get an answer I'll let you know. Ande B 02:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I got an answer right away: An article is automatically categorized under Category: Articles with unsourced statements if one or more lines in the article has a "citation need" tag. In this particular case, its the first line under the Laomedon/Tros section.

Is this cite one that you are able to source? It would probably take me some time. Ande B 03:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty and LGBT

Good morning, I noticed your edit to Category:Pederasty and was wondering how you arrived at that conclusion. Pederasty is one of the three major branches of homosexuality, and the most represented in history and culture. While, as with anything else, one could point to heterosexual analogues and counterexamples, they are pretty much the exceptions that prove the rule and do not diminish the validity and significance of age-structured homosexuality. Haiduc 10:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If we had a Category:Homosexuality and if Category:Pederasty referred strictly to male homosexual pederasty, you would be correct. But neither of these is the case. LGBT is a modern construct, the modern use of the term pederasty is not gender-specific, and the inclusions in Category:Pederasty follow the modern use (apparently even in dealing with the past: there is a distinctly heterosexual Greek vase on that page). - Jmabel | Talk 15:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I guees you are referring to this picture:

[[7]] Both are male. You don't see it very well on this picture, okay, but it's not a heterosexual couple (the way this artist was drawing the breast is misleading). Besides that, there is no general agreement that pederasty isn't a form of homosexuality. It's mostly uneducated people, who would also call someone a "pederast", if he had an affair with a young girl. Fulcher 20:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to take your word for it (on both counts) as far as Wikipedia is concerned, since it is hardly a major interest of mine, but I certainly think that, at this point, in U.S. English at least, "pederast", like "pedophile" carries no implication about the gender of the younger party, only about his/her age. - Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, since really we do more here than merely document slang usage in America I think the category needs to be put back in its place. If you have any further reflections on this please let me know. Haiduc 00:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have said that I will take your word for it, and feel free to go ahead, but U.S. English is hardly a "slang" (of UK English or of anything else). - Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cocteau/Radiguet Discussion

Hello,

I wanted to post something here about this discussion, since I don't want you to perceive this as being somehow homophobic. I know that it is commonly accepted by Gay and Lesbian sources that Cocteau and Radiguet were lovers, but Cocteau's own writings paint a very different figure. Having known/knowing people who knew them from this time has also provided the important information that Cocteau was involved with someone else during the time he was supposedly in a relationship with Radiguet.

The source that you cited (Larivière) does use some documentary sources, but also relies on a quite a bit of information whose only documentation is being uttered at the rue Sainte Anne after having had one cocktail too many by people who perhaps shouldn't have been making the statements in the first place. Cocteau had a great many enemies and the report of his having beaten Radiguet is completely out of charactor. If you can provide me with documented evidence from Cocteau's or Radiguet's writings or people from the period (Max Jacob, Poulenc, Auric etc), then I might be willing to reconsider, but this is almost as undocumented as the people who are trying to either say that Germaine Tailleferre was a lesbian or the lover of Maurice Ravel....Musikfabrik 13:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on my talk page. I do not at all contest the fact that Cocteau was indeed homosexual, but the fact remains that charactoring the Cocteau/Radiguet relationship as sexual is at best rumour (even if the rumour is published) and at worst a deliberate attack on Cocteau (ie the suggestion that he beat Radiguet because of the former's relationships with women). One thing that is clear is that the whole idea of a "relationship" and what that might mean was a very different idea from ideas that those of us in the 21st century might have. What is perhaps far more scandalous is that Cocteau spent so much time with an attractive young man and they did not have a relationship, inspite of what everyone thought they saw. My sources have indicated that this is indeed what happened. If you want to have some sort of material confirmation, I suggest that you look at photos of people with whom Cocteau did have relationships and you will note that his tastes did not usually go towards frail, young men....

However, as is often the case, people publish accounts of what they thought happened (often simply because someone has made an offhand remark) and then the story gets quoted and then finally everyone assumes that what has been printed in someone's book is fact. The reality is always that much more complex that we would initially suspect.

Here is my suggested compromise: that the entry be changed to the idea that it has been suggested in this source that Cocteau and Radiguet had a relationship, but that Cocteau's own writings and those of people who knew them at the time fail to confirm this hypothesis. This encourages others to perhaps do the necessary research either to confirm or deny this idea. Musikfabrik 17:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I discussed this issue last night with a friend who made a very important point in judging the relationship between these two people: The notion of a "pedarest" relationship always has a connotation of an older man posing as the "mentor" of a younger man. In the case of Radiguet and Cocteau, regardless of the sexual equation (or lack of such), the relationship was exactly the opposite; Radiguet opened Cocteau's horizons as a writer in a profound manner. Cocteau does not pretend to have taught him anything at all. So, technically, this can't be a "pedarestic" relationship in the usual sense of the word. Musikfabrik 08:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Iliad

Yes I'm aware that the two warriors were widely regarded as lovers in Classical Greece, yet I feel it's important to point out that Homer's rhapsodies never implied anything like that. The popular misconception of the two heroes being lovers is more-less a Classical Greek POV. Homer by the way never uses the word "erastes", he uses "syntrophos". Miskin 19:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok the conversation is getting a bit weird and I really have no agenda on proving that Achilles fancied girls instead of boys. I just feel obliged to point out that his so-called love-affair with Patroclus is not depicted in the original story, and I really doubt that Thetis ever says anything like that (can't have missed it). Alexander III is a different story, he comes out of a completely different Greece where homosexuality is more common (if we can label it as such). He probably did think that his great-great-great-great-grandfather was in love with Patroclus, but that was the POV of his society. Miskin 02:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A. L. Rowse

I have to admit that I didn't read his book, I only saw on the German page about Frederick II. of Prussia that it was his opinion that the prince and von Katte were lovers. Fulcher 19:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of pederast/pederasty

Hi Haiduc. I have an editor proposing that definion we use for "pederasty" include all ages, on the grounds that the dictionary definitions of pederasty or pederast are "Sexual activity involving a man and a boy" (OED), "A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy" (American Heritage) "one that practices anal intercourse especially with a boy" (Merriam Webster). There is no age definition or exclusion, and of course the word "boy" means male child of any age.

Seems a fair point. I know you're an expert on the subject, do you agree with this definition, and if not, do you have any countervailing source? Herostratus 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

God..... not this subject again.... :-p Fulcher 01:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, my inclination is to agree with you, Haiduc. I was just wondering if you had one or two good cites at hand for your definition, for me to use as counterargument. Herostratus 02:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's probably enough, don't trouble yourself anymore. I appreciate your help!. Herostratus 16:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cocteau/Radiguet

I am not at all upset about our contrasting points of view, as my objective here is that the truth about this relationship (and much more about Cocteau and his circle) finally gets out. I think that eventually it's going to be quite evident what has happened here and to make my case perfectly clear:

• You ask me "how do you reconcile the apparently large amount of time they spent together recreationally with the alleged personal coolness between the two?"

• • The answer is that Cocteau considered himself a poet and had a very structured sense of what that meant to his life and the way he lived it. Nothing he ever did was done without considering the implications that his philosphy had on his actions and vice versa.
  • This is not to say that he didn't have a sex life and didn't also do such things as take opium and other drugs, but in the case of Radiguet, he was fascianted by his talent as a writer, but was not at all interested in him as a sexual object. Cocteau's tastes did not run to young boys, but rather to the twenty-something buff, body-builder type typified by Marais and later Dermott (who I'm surprized nobody else bothered to mention, as he was Cocteau's adopted son and heir....). Cocteau was not Montherland or Gide; he simply had no interest in boys. He spent time with Radiguet because Radiguet's ideas about literature and writing were fascinating and opened doors for Cocteau's own style...but at the same time, he was also spending just as much time with Auric (who went along on the trips with Radiguet, along with Mr. and Mrs. Valetin Hugo), Piscasso, Poulenc, Satie and many others. Cocteau spent as much time with as many of these others as he did with Radiguet and was equally as paternal to many of them. Nobody ever says anything about Cocteau and Picasso.....not that I'm suggesting anything by that either...Let me just say that Cocteau's affections were definitely elsewhere during this period.
  • What happened here is that people such as Hemmingway (a well-documented homophobe), Bréton (another well documented homophobe) and his circle and other colleagues who were jealous of Cocteau and his midas-touch with avant-garde art were always on the lookout for a way to attack him. His homosexuality was the obvious subject of choice and the usual "homosexuals all want to corrupt the young" tactic was the fastest way to get people's attention and Radiguet was the best way to start a rumour, since he was also an excentric figure and somebody that people (in spite of his way with the ladies) could easily call "gay"....and of course, it was all "Cocteau corrupting him" anyway, so it didn't matter how many affairs he had. The Hemmingway "anecdote" is so openly homophobic that I'm surprised that you would use it, but let us suffice to say that Hemmingway's use of a feminine ending in the phrase might have less to do with whatever Cocteau had said and more to say about Hemmingway's fractured use of French...
  • So, by allowing this rumour, which has no documented basis in any primary sources, you're effectively prolonging this homophobic attack. Cocteau's own reaction to Radiguet's death (when your boyfriend dies, do you talk about "stupor and DISGUEST"? Do you go off with Diaghilev to the latest Ballet Russes Premières and start smoking opium because it's there? None of this computes with the idea of a love affair....) and Radiguet's own statements do not seem to indicate that anything was happening.
  • And how come you don't say that Radiguet was also sleeping with Juan Gris and Max Jacob, since he was sleeping in their appartments anyway?

In any case, I do appreciate you leaving the contrasting opinions, as this is the only way that the truth about this subject is ever going to come out. There is so much horrible scholarship about this period by English-speakers that anything which tries to correct almost a hundred years of poorly researched material is going to have a hard time at first. I do believe, however, that the cream does rise to surface eventually. Best wishes Musikfabrik 12:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I have deleted the reference to "Cocteau being prostrate with grief and taking to his bed" and also "Radiguet's death lead to Cocteau's opium addiction" because, in both cases, Cocteau said that neither of these things happened. You've found another source that contradicts this, but,again, where is the truth? Why would Cocteau lie about this? Wouldn't it have looked better for him if he HAD taken to his bed? Why is he saying that he didn't and went to Monte Carlo for the Ballet? Why is he specifically saying that Radiguet's death had nothing to do with his opium addiction?
    • I'm inclined to think that Cocteau says this because that's exactly what happened. What was the basis for this other source? Letters? people talking after the fact? Who was doing the talking? If you can quote somebody like Max Jacob in a letter, than perhaps I might be inclined to rethink this. If this is Breton or somebody like that spouting at some interview thirty years laters, maybe there's something else going on here.Musikfabrik 14:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • The reason that I removed the business about Cocteau lying in his bed prostrated with grief and the idea that he started Opium because of Radiguet's death is because I know catagorically that both statements are false. Why leave yet another layer of falsehood? Isn't there enough of that already?
  • I've also given you as much information as I could to explain exactly why Cocteau and Radiguet spent so much time together and I understand why you have difficulty accepting it because it is so outrageous: The man who has been painted as this outrageous homosexual, morally bankrupt drug user and "corrupter-of-youth" was actually so altruistic that he was willing to pour his energy into the career of someone who he knew would not reciprocate in any way. It was purely artistic and it was....at the risk of being completely unbelievable, a completely pure friendship which was purely based on artistic considerations. I agree that this is completely outrageous, but it's also a key in understanding Cocteau. One of the reasons that he did not talk about his relationships, even when they were public "secrets", was because of things like this and people going out of their way to twist anything beautiful into something ugly.
  • If push comes to shove, I can't play my entire hand here; A lot of information cannot be given, since some of the people involved have family who do not want this information released. Also, much of it is original research which is not suitable for Wikipedia. At some point, however, this real story is going to get out...Musikfabrik 08:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have re-added the material about Cocteau being confined to his bed after Radiguet's death and also the idea that his Opium addiction was a result of this event, but I have added qualifying information. I know that this information is false, but I am willing to leave it in if you will allow the qualifying information to remain. At least, this way, the truth has a chance of getting out....Musikfabrik 22:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Modern_kocek.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Modern_kocek.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Giuliani

Hey bud, I've spent a lot of time on the Giuliani article, and I wonder if I could communicate with you about some of your recent changes. I'm new to Wiki, so I don't know how this works precisely, but I'm hoping we can find a consensus on some of these edits. I really appreciate your help with the article.

For starters, thank you for cleaning up my erratic language in the opening. I'm completely bewildered by opening passages on Wiki, because the extraction of themes underpinning the political subjects' legacies seems to raise alarms as to POV injection--the alternative being, in the case of the Giuliani bio:

"He married his second cousin, Regina Peruggi, in 1968. He later divorced her and obtained an annulment from the Catholic Church in 1982. He was married to Donna Hanover from 1984 to 2002. They have two children, Andrew and Caroline. He married Judith Nathan in May 2003."

I'm equally responsible for mention of the negative aspects of G's legacy as I am for the drawing out what I perceive to be his "renown"--this is an article that would not note Diallo or Louima if not for my edits, so please set aside any suspicions as to my intentions.

Still, as much as you've corrected my excessive wording in the intro (for which I am indebted to you), you have also inserted some POV that simply cannot stand. The assertion that "NYC's crime rate shrank in keeping with nationwide trends during Giuliani's tenure" is completely false, and while you may find verbal support for this assertion, this assertion belies the facts, including the graphic, appearing later in the article, that selectively downplays the progress in NYC crime rate under Giuliani.

Two little things--why remove the 3 "It's" from the quote of G? Are the appearances of the off-site links in the beginning clean enough, should they have those commas or not? DBaba 22:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help! What I meant about the crime rate, if you look at the graph, you'll see the reduction in NYC crime does not resemble the reduction in crime nationwide--the nationwide rate did not halve itself. A problem with the graph itself--a problem too complicated to get into in a Wiki bio--is that the nationwide charting includes NYC: 3% of the population of the country halving its crime rate had a significant impact on a modest nationwide decline.

Someone inserted the word "significantly" in place of the nationwide trends wording. I just didn't want to change it myself and create a conflict.

I'll be more careful policing my excessive adjectives.

Thanks again DBaba 06:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Reconquista

Thanks for stopping in and explaning yourself in Talk:Reconquista. I have responded and placed a tenative compromise on the Reconquista page itself.

Nudity

Hey, good job on the photo addition to Nudity. I've been trawling through various userpages and galleries looking for something tasteful and copyright-free but couldn't find anything. Kasreyn 04:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply re Rape!

The category is for "individuals who have been criminally convicted of rape, or those for whom there is little academic doubt among historians as to whether they committed the crime." and the article in question begins "In greek mythology" hence he isn't appropriate for the category. Looking at the category there are no other fictious characters (and by stating 'Greek mythology' it is implied he is fictious. However I am not the be-all-and-end-all here by any means, and if you want to revert it I won't change it :) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 11:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Milk, Harvey (600).jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Milk, Harvey (600).jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 00:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Saslow

Hi Haiduc. Can you give complete bibliographic information for the work cited here, so we can add it to the references list? Also is that the same work cited later on in that article? Thanks — Paul August ☎ 16:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty in Ancient Greece

I noticed that you removed the tag from this topic. You claimed it was spurious and unsupported. That is true only in the sense that no elaboration was given for placing the tag. Why don't you leave it up there until there is at least some discussion about it? I, being a big fan of ancient Greece and Rome and the famous people from that time, have noticed your many contributions. However, it seems as if an insane majority of your contributions attempt to homosexualize (is that a word?) every topic to which you contribute. On many ancient people, you are the first contributor to include anything relating to homosexuality/pederasty. I find this to be a disturbing trend. Especially when you present this information as fact when in reality you could not truthfully come to that conclusion based on the source material you use. This does not stand out more than in your section on Spartan Pederasty. You do point out the point of view of many ancient writers that the Spartans did not engage in sexual relationships with youths, but then you say they imply it was erotic. This implication is not found in Xenophon (who wrote down the very Lycurgan law which describes the punishment for pederasty), it is not found in Plutarch, it is not found in Cicero, and it is not found in Aelian. Not at least in the quotes you use of these writers. This topic is a controversial and debated one. Yes, most historians take the view that you do, but it is not historically truthful to say the ancients were implying anything when they make absolute statements. This topic is presented as fact, and when a topic that is highly debatable is presented as such, it is easy to see how someone might see a POV present in your contributions. Ajz123 16:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I think your comparison of this topic to sports and TV in the USA is a poor one, but I understand your point. The reason I think it is poor is that you are working under the belief that pederasty/homosexuality was institutionalized/ritualized. This is not so much fact as it is a theory. As I said before, most historians take this view. That however has no bearing on the reality of the situation. In his Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, Xenophon makes it very clear there was no sexual component. He even went so far as to say that some outsiders of that time would not believe this is the case. I have never understood how so many modern historians, including yourself, seem to totally ignore him. He is simply the best and most closely connected primary source we have on the Spartans and their way of life. He has no reason to lie or make things up, especially if you think pederasty was so accepted. In his "Spartan Reflections," Paul Cartledge does the same thing you do. He quotes what the ancient writers said, but then adds how there was an implication to the contrary or some bias in their writing which suggests they are wrong/lying/covering-up/etc. When you do that, you are going way beyond what the original authors wrote and inputting your own ideas or feelings. I am not directing this statement only at you, but I think it is arrogant of modern historians to think they can extract the "truth" from 2000 year old writings that no one before them could find. And what is heterosexual about a topic that doesn't mention sex?

I am not embarrased by this topic, but I am disturbed by it. I am disturbed by it because I don't believe it to be intellectually honest. I don't deny that there are writings and paintings and ceramics from the ancients that suggest there were people who engaged in pederasty/homosexuality. But the evidence that exists does not come close to proving this was a standard way of life. And you have created an entire article about it.

Imagine, hundreds of years from now, someone researching racism in history, much like you researching pederasty. Then, imagine this person accusing people of being racist and creating a list of all the racist people throughout history. Calling someone a racist is a very serious charge, that should not be made without incontrovertible proof. This does not include accusations or implications or assumptions. Our society does not like people to judge other people. Why then, is it OK for our society to judge people who no longer are alive?

It bothers me greatly when things from the past are revised by modern people because we think we know what really happened. It is a dangerous practice and in my opinion, not right. If we have a limited amount of information on a topic, that topic should be presented as it is communicated to us. If historians feel there is more to the story, they need to present those feelings as THEIR feelings and not what is really the truth. Ajz123 15:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It is nice to know that I will not have to wait long for a response from you, and I thank you for that. The first question I have for you is how are you using pedagogic. I want to be clear on this because it affects the way I read your response. Do you mean pedagogic in terms of a teacher of youths, or are you closely aligning pedagogic with sexual relations? If there is no sexual component, there is no pederasty. The word pedagogue means an instructor of youths. Simply put, a teacher. So yes, by definition of the word, the Spartans had pedagogues, but not pederasts. It seems to me that you use the word pederasty because of the implied sexuality of the agoge. As I mentioned in my last message to you, this implication is not made by the ancient historians, nor should it be made by us. The Spartan system of education was that of a mentorship program. Each boy was given a mentor to educate them on the Spartan way of life, what it means to be a soldier, how to deal with fear and war, etc. Unfortunately for you, I don't believe this article could be edited in any way that could make this very important distinction clear. Any mention of pederasty regarding Sparta should at best be a small blurb, rather than the main idea of the article. That being said, I don't believe the article Spartan Pederasty, in its present form, really has a place on wikipedia. Again, if the relationship is not sexual, it is not pederastic. There is no way we can possibly know what each Spartan felt personally about this behavior since they were not big on leaving us artifacts, so we can't say that even though there was no sex, they still wanted to have sex with the boys. Couple that with what the ancient writers say regarding punishment for pedarasts, we cannot say they were pederasts. That is historical revisionism of the wrong kind.

Regarding pederasty in general, to say there is no intrinsic crime in it is eye-opening. To say you do not think it is either good or bad is astounding. Pedophiles are a plague on our society. I am not ashamed to say I think pedophilia is deplorable and destructive, just like how I feel about racism. I will judge it and I will not hide from what I believe. But I will not say someone is definitely a pedophile if I do not know for sure. I may lean towards believing that, but I will not state it unequivocally. With the Spartans, we have more evidence against pederasty than for it. So I am not about to be cool with people ignoring the evidence because of their own personal motives. Ajz123 14:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty is sexual! That is what the definition is. I am saying that if there is no sexual component of education, there is no pederasty. There is no sexual component to Spartan education, therefore, there is no pederasty. You are the one saying you can be a pederast and not be sexual with a boy. If you believe that, you are operating under an incorrect definition of the word. And how can you draw a line differentiating pedophilia with pederasty? Because one is believed to be institutionalized? Is that why the word is slightly different, to make it different than pedophilia? The more I hear crap like this, the more I think the people that really push this idea do it to make this behavior normal. Pedophilia is pedophilia. Institutionalized or not. In your example, how is the adult man from England who is in a erotic relationship with a teenage boy not the same as a pedophile? The law? That's it? I contend to you, that regardless of the legal age to consent to anything, most everyone in society will look upon that relationship with disgust. I don't know what the legal age is in Chicago, but if I ever saw an adult man being amourous with a teenage boy, I would be repulsed. And my reaction would have nothing to do with the law. It is a natural reaction that I did not learn from anybody, and I cannot envision a scenario in which someone could ever convince me that that behavior is OK. I am also quite certain that I am not in the minority on this.

Obviously I have an opinion about pedophila. It is very unfortunate that people are born with it and have to struggle with it their entire lives. But the problem with it is that pedophiles prey on children. Even if they can't help it, it is still unacceptable. What is self-serving about that? Are you going to tell me preying on kids is OK? I hope not.

I know I am on the fringe with my opinion about Spartan pederasty. I acknowledged this in one of my previous messages to you. History is not a popularity contest. It does not matter how many people, historians or not, believe something to be true. The truth is the truth, regardless of how many people believe it. Is current historical thought more important than historical truth and honesty? You can't tell me that you are absolutely sure that Spartans were pederasts. The historical record does not indicate this. This idea is actually relatively new and has been almost blindly accepted by the public and historians. We have reached a point where it is almost impossible to believe that anyone from Ancient Greece had a very close friend that they did not have sex with, or wanted to have sex with.

Think about how much importance is placed on Constitutions throughout the world. Use the USA as an example. That document means everything to this country. There is no country without it. Think about how people scream and yell when someone tries to do something that the Constitution does not allow. Think about the reaction that occurs when somones constitutional rights are violated. If it's in the Constitution, it is sacrosanct. Now think about how the Spartans felt about their laws. I think you could argue they valued their laws more than we value ours. How then, could they overlook or ignore the laws pertaining to their upbringing? The laws that outlined how to become a true Spartan. The laws that said if an adult Spartan desired a boy with lust in his heart, he was punished. Ajz123 01:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My problem is with the moderns. They are the ones really pushing this idea. If not, could you tell my why so much of this "scholarship" has come to us in the past 50 or so years? Some of the historians who are "experts" in this field have some questionable motives in my opinion. I am almost certain that you have a much more complete collection of ancient writings than I do. I have had real difficulty trying to find anything by Aelian, and much of Xenophon's writings are hard to find (especially at Borders or Barnes and Noble). As history is just one of my many hobbies, I guess I put forth no more than a simple effort in trying to attain the writings of many of the ancients that we are discussing. So I will take your word for it when you talk about the language that they use. I have read a couple things by modern historians who analyze the words you have highlighted in your last response, and they come to the same conclusions. I would just point out that ancient greek is quite different from modern greek, and I have read arguments that the popular analysis done on these words has been incorrect.

I have always read "allow embraces and a common couch to lovers" to be nothing more than hugging each other or allowing friends to display a close connection and acceptance. Friends hug/embrace each other all the time with no sexual implication at all. Take football or basketball for example. Think of all the ways teamates show affection for each other. They hug each other, jump on each other, slap each other on the ass, and many other things. Are you also aware that when the game is over, these guys all shower together in common showers naked? While these activities are sometimes mocked, it is understood that there is nothing sexual at all about it. I don't believe the Spartans were any different. Deep friendships do not have a sexual component. I would do the same things for my close friends as I would do for my family. A Spartan would die for his comrades without a second thought, so would a modern American soldier. Love can exist as an asexual feeling/emotion. I am getting the impression you do not agree with this. This is also the impression I have of the historians who really push the pederastic idea. Obviously, the ancient greeks were more comfortable with the human body than modern man is. They put a high standard on a well-proportioned body. That is one of the reasons athletics were so important and one of the reasons they were performed naked. The body was something to be looked at and admired. This is a very difficult concept for us to grasp.

I have the belief I do (regarding spartan/greek pederasty) based on only a few things I admit. What I just described in the above paragraph is one of the reasons, but another reason is the Spartan law. As I said in my last response to you, the Spartans valued their laws more than anything. More than individuals, and more than life itself. Breaking these laws had serious consequences. It was against their laws to choose a child from the agoge based on sexual desires or reasons. Xenophon is very clear on this. I ask you again, what reason does he have for lying about this if it was standard behavior?

In addition to reading the ancients and modern historians, I love reading historical novels. If you have not yet read it, Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire does a better job than I do in explaining my view of the Spartan mentoring program. The book is certainly not the end-all be-all of truth, but I do find it to be extremely accurate and in line with the ancient sources. I would suggest you read it. Ajz123 17:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you remember, my first message to you was regarding the NPOV tag that you removed from the Spartan Pederasty article. Now that we have exchanged a number of messages, it is becoming clear that you either refuse or fail to see how I or anyone else sees a strong bias in your contributions. Every definition of pederasty I have read states that pederasty is sexual. You obviously do not like the definitions given by Webster, American Heritage, and Oxford. So why don't you, in a formal dictionary style, define pederasty.

You mention how your focus is sexual history rather than antiquity. This is not something you needed to tell me. I knew this based on your many contributions. You are always going to have a difficult time trying to convince people you are being objective when many of the "experts" in your subject of choice are gay themselves. The two authors you mentioned from the end of the 19th century, John Addington Symonds and Edward Carpenter, are gay. William A. Percy is gay. One of the references you use was published by Haiduk Press (any connection?), a publishing house that appears to be pro-gay (check out their Links page). These people obviously have a reason to make the ancients pederastic/homosexual. It is an attempt to normalize their own lifestyle. That is why any hint of this behavior from the ancients is jumped on and made to appear pervasive. Just from our disagreement regarding males hugging, it should be clear how easy it is to pervert innocent asexual displays of friendship and comfort into erotic displays of love.

I wonder if you have played team sports. Since I have my whole life, I can tell you that it would be very easy for an outsider to conclude that there was widespread sexual attraction amongst the players on a team from the jokes, conversations, and physical contact that happens. The physiques of players are noticed and commented on. Many times, the players with the best go out of their way to show them off. This is nothing more than pride. The line you are walking between deep heterosexual friendship and homosexual friendship appears to be non-existant. But there is definitely a line. A very clear and defined line. Deny it if it makes you feel good, but it is there. And your belief that erotic friendship is superior, well, that is nothing more than YOUR opinion. If that is seeping into your analysis regarding ancient pederasty (which I think it is), you need to try harder to supress it. It is clouding your objectivity.

To me, erotic excitement and carnal craving describe exactly the same thing. Again, you are giving way too much weight to a supposed implication in the writings. You want to believe the implication or suggestion is there, but it isn't.

"Lycurgus adopted a system opposed to all of these alike. Given that some one, himself being all that a man ought to be, should in admiration of a boy's soul endeavour to discover in him a true friend without reproach, and to consort with him--this was a relationship which Lycurgus commended, and indeed regarded as the noblest type of bringing up. But if, as was evident, it was not an attachment to the soul, but a yearning merely towards the body, he stamped this thing as foul and horrible; and with this result, to the credit of Lycurgus be it said, that in Lacedaemon the relationship of lover and beloved is like that of parent and child or brother and brother where carnal appetite is in abeyance. That this, however, which is the fact, should be scarcely credited in some quarters does not surprise me, seeing that in many states the laws do not oppose the desires in question."

If you see homosexual/pederastic desire permitted here, you must see it literally everywhere. Ajz123 00:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you not define pederasty? I asked you to and you avoided it. Is it because it is not possible? I would like a straightforward definition. Also, are you connected with Haiduk Press?

I did not say that gay authors should be disqualified in writing about this subject. But I find it interesting (from reading the Pederasty in Ancient Greece discussion page) that while you obviously feel gay authors can be objective, you don't feel the same way about a greek author who wrote a book questioning pederasty. You think he wrote his book because he was trying to defend his national honor? Why, because he disagrees with you? You obviously feel he has a specific motive for taking the position he has taken. You feel that he is overlooking facts to protect himself and his people. But this does not apply to John Addington Symonds and Edward Carpenter? I brought the gay author thing up just to point out how someone's background could very easily influence the way they look at certain historical events/subjects/ideas. Thank you for making my point more obvious. It was unexpected.

To say that no serious scholar doubts the existance of greek pederasty is arrogant. There are not many of them, but they are there. Don't discount them because they have a different interpretation. If they don't believe in it, they may not feel it would be worthwhile to write about it since it doesn't exist. Take into account all the authors that have written about Jesus. What percentage of them have written about his family with Mary Magdelene? Not many....because it didn't happen. And I guess I am a solitary eccentric since I disagree with a large group of people. Eccentric like a genius? Nah, I doubt that is what you meant.

You have missed my point twice now regarding sports and sexual innuendo. I am mearly using a modern example that I thought anyone would be able to understand to point out how certain actions can be interpreted. We need to be careful we do not mistakenly label something that it is not.

You asked me a series of questions about what I want to be on the record about. A few of those should be obvious based on what I have said in my other messages.

So nudity and athletics absolutely implies sex. What about near-nudity? How much different is that really? Boxers compete shirtless. Mixed martial artists in the Ultimate Fighting Championship are not allowed to wear shirts, long pants, and shoes. Many wear only spandex shorts. Many times, the fighters end up in very suggestive positions. In high schools in the 1950's, when boys gym classes went swimming, all the students were naked. All this must mean that pederasty is rampant, right?

We both acknowledge that the ancient writers noted that the Spartans did not act out sexually with their students. Lycurgus' laws state this unequivocally (though you still don't see it). We know the Spartans had harsh penalties for breaking their laws and customs. Can't you see that with these rules in place, nudity in athletic competition could be viewed in a non-sexual way? You asked me if "..the synchronicity between the Spartan adoption of nude athletics and of open pederasty is purely coincidental?". The way you asked me the question (already believing pederasty to be widespread) is slanted in your direction. The core of our debate revolves around whether or not pederasty/homosexuality was institutionalized. Before the subject was brough up 50-100 years ago, there was no consideration of this by historians. You claim it was supressed on purpose. Good luck proving that.

We are both set in our interpretations of the Ancients. I am not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me. What do we do from here? Encyclopedias are not platforms for denying ideas. A topic entitled "The Misinterpretation of Ancient Greek Education" would be accused of rampant bias. Taking the denial-side of an argument always looks antagonistic and defensive, regardless of its legitimacy. This is why I have not made sweeping edits to your contributions or made a new topic altogether. I felt that going straight to the author and debating the matter would be the best course of action and in-line with what Wikipedia wants. I do not think that I have the motivation or patience to really try and convince a lot of people that your interpretation is either incorrect or very flawed. I can only hope that more people start seeing past the suggestiveness of your position, and start giving "dissenters" more consideration. Ajz123 20:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Semantics

Please remember that pedophilia (i.e. the sexual attraction to a child) is not the same as child molestation or exploition. Failing to recognize any difference between the two is belittling and harmful. JayW 22:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Could use your help

Haiduc,

I have seen your work on a number of pages and you seem to do a great deal of research. There is an article that is in desperate need of help and I was hoping that you might know someone who could perhaps get it into proper shape. The article is History of lesbianism. Previously I asked for expert help and posted requests for clean up on the LGBT boards but aside from one editor who was as frustrated by the state of the article as I was, there has been little activity in response to that request. I don't know enough about this topic to be able to help with the substance but I do have a good background in journalsim and copy editing. Still, I felt that I should make one final attempt to get this page into order before giving up entirely!

Whatever you decide to do, even if it's nothing, I thank you for taking the time to read my request. Ande B. 19:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. If you find anything you think might be helpful, by all means, let me know about it. I'm trying to crawl out from under a huge back log of work right now, but I hope to make more substantial contributions once my life clears up a bit. See you around. Ande B. 03:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Help save Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity

Your reversion of my edit to Masturbation#Masturbation_techniques without explanation

Why did you revert my edit without explanation? As I explained in my edit summary and on Talk:Masturbation#Proposed_Removal_of_Unreferenced_Material_in_Masturbation_techniques_Section, the material I removed was especially inconsistent with Wikipedia:Verifiability because it consists of material that is outside the common knowledge of most people and unreferenced medical claims. Also, my objections to these two passages were on the talk page without further comment for nearly twenty-four hours. John254 03:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a response to your comments on Talk:Masturbation#Proposed_Removal_of_Unreferenced_Material_in_Masturbation_techniques_Section. John254 19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:LGBT

I'm still of the opinion that pederasty doesn't belong on Template:LGBT sidebar because LGBT (gay, even) represents something other than homosexuality, and people in the LGBT movement(s) generally want to redefine their sexual (and political) identities a way that excludes certain relationships, pederastic ones high on the list. That said, I agree that any article or template that attempts to build a history of homosexuality (which, as far as I'm aware, they all do) should absolutely include pederasty. Maybe a third option would be to get rid of Template:LGBT sidebar entirely and replace it with a historical template of some sort that actually links the LGBT-related articles in a meaningful way (which, of course I'm opposing to the current way, which seems entirely arbitrary). -Smahoney 02:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not arguing for an objective definition of LGBT that, based on the structure of the world as a given, makes it so pederasty doesn't fit. It just seems to me that, perhaps hypocritically, contemporary people who identify as LGBT are making a concerted effort to construct their group identities in such a way as to exclude pederastic relationships and those who engage in them. I also think the just dismissing this trend as empty "PC speech" really oversimplifies and underestimates the power of the sort of discourse that is going on. What the situation really reminds me of is that of middle-class black people demonizing poor black people in order to prove to middle class white people that "we're just like you". Our people don't engage in this sort of behavior - the people who do must be some other kind of people. But, hypocritical as it may be, it is going on, and it seems to me almost like a reversed anachronism to project historical heirarchies of relationship structures onto present groups of people who stratify various kinds of relationships differently, or alternatively, an actual anachronism to project LGBT identities onto a past where they don't fit. And I don't think that a website that identifies as LGBT including historical information on, say, Wilde, or Barthes, or Szymanowski makes the case that LGBT people are claiming pederastic relationships as a part of their emerging cultural heritage. What would make that case is examples of LGBT groups claiming contemporary people who engage in pederastic relationships as their own, something I do not see going on at all, outside the queer community. -Smahoney 22:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Malagnac

Haiduc, I have no objection of course to anything which is factual and apologise for my deletion of this information if you think it is relevant. My edits to the article were on the basis of style and POV. --Smerus 09:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Somerset Maugham photo

Haiduc, could you do something for me: the Somerset maugham article used to have a photo, gy George Platt Lynes, showing Maugham dressed in a suit scowling at a naked man, the man with his back to the camera. Not in the least pornographic, but very expressive of the dichotomy between the private and public man. Some homophobe has removed the photo, possibly including the original file from wikicommons. I know it sounds strange but (a) I don't know how to fix this, and (b) I don't have time. But I feel very strongly that it should be fixed - this is an ongoing campaign by some idiot to sanitise poor Willie's memory, and it annoys me very much. Hope you have more time and knowledge than I do. (Lynes is a well-known photographer, and I believe there's no problem finding the image and getting permission to use it). (Sorry, forgot to sign - PiCo 08:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Mast

Please comment here I'm not disagreeing, I'm actually sure they are correct. However I fail to see how the fact that fat people masturbate more has any relevance to the topic. --mboverload@ 11:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky

Dear Haiduc, I have no big quarrel with the article as it is at present. I don't think I said (or anyway I certainly didn't mean) that, in general, information on notable personages' private relations is not of encyclopaedic interest. But I think that prurient information, (such as giving names and details of those who are of no encyclopaedic interest themselves save as alleged partners of encyclopaedic subjects), is not encyclopaedic. They cannot answer back (should they wish to) nor are they likely to have present-day defenders, and documentary evidence to support their supposed roles as such is often likely to be contentious. Frankly I could do without knowing the names of the valet and nephew mentioned in the article but I wouldn't make a big thing of it. Tchaikovsky's homoexuality in itsrlf should of course be reported (and the debate about it, although I have no reason to doubt it).--Smerus 17:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Konstantin Leontiev

Could you add a third opinion on this edit? Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

is it or isn't it?

I think, for the most part, not (although Erastes should be in Category:LGBT history not Category:LGBT). I understand the complaint, but barring another term to use in the category other than LGBT, I don't see any other solution, so these articles all belong by default in Category:LGBT history. (Sorry bout the convoluted message - I just woke up). -Smahoney 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Batbed.jpg

The image can be recovored. Here is its history. The original uploader was User:Ghetteaux who is still active. The image was tagged with {{no source}} on June 24th. On June 28th, OphanBot removed it from articles, On July 1st, User:Jaranda deleted it. I would be happy to restore it if you take responsibility for properly tagging it. If you have the source information and want me to restore it, let me know. As this is a new feature, I have not yet restored any images, and want to make certain that I follow the correct procedures, so I'll research a little. -- Samuel Wantman 19:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is that questionable?

Saying that something is the most common in history presumes that someone has made a review of history and compared the frequency of different things. If someone has done so then we can report their findings. Absent any such study it appears to be a mere conjecture, no different from saying that something is the most loved or hated. If it's verifiable then let's verify it. If it isn't, then we should remove it. -Will Beback 20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be hasty - I waited a couple of days, but I frankly doubt that it is verifiable unless you're sure you've read it somewhere. How soon do you think you can find the source? Why does it have to be in the article in the meantime? -Will Beback 11:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Denning/deEvia

No, Robert Denning passed away just last August and his bio is here also. His New York Times obituary mentions that he was just 15 when he met deEvia and that he lived with deEvia and deEvia's mother after his parents and younger brother moved to Florida when he was between 16 & 17. I knew them both well. Doc 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty/pedophilia

Hi there Haiduc. I added the links because I reckoned that anyone looking at the pederasty filmography list might want to see the 'pedophila and child sexual abuse in films' list too. As we've all discussed, there's a blurring between pederasty and pedophilia in many people's eyes and indeed, many of the films listed on the pedophilia page also contain pederastic abuse i.e. boys clearly post puberty. I've not tried to update the pederasty page as its hard enough keeping the pedophilia page up to date! The same logic really applies on the 'pedophila and child sexual abuse in fiction' link as many of the books listed involve sexual abuse of both boys and girls and both pre- and post- pubertal children - not to mention physical child abuse... best wishes, Tony Sandel

ps how come my name comes up red and everyone else's blue??

Haiduc - thanks for your reply post. I've updated the links to one only and added a link from Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in films to Pederastic filmography. I'd thought of splitting the non-abusive pedophile works from the abusive as you suggest, but I think it is impracticable as we then have the problems of categorising false accusations like What Happened to Mr. Forster? and also unproven allegations like The Man Without a Face. Some works have both these and abuse too! --Tony 13:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty and Close Relationships template

• I agree that pederasty deserves to be listed on the close relationships template because it does meet the criteria specified.
• I intended the template to be about contemporary relationships, dealing with forms of relationships and aspects of relationships in modern life. I wanted people to be able to quickly access information about their own relationships. I added this to the template criteria. (Pederasty still meets the modified criteria).
• I would like readers to have quick access to modern constructs of pederasty, as the intended focus is on contemporary relationships in modern life (people's own current relationships). I changed the link to point to the article Pederasty_in_the_modern_world.
• On the Pederasty_in_the_modern_world article I added the Close Relationships template.
• On the Pederasty_in_the_modern_world article, I added a link at the top of the article pointing people to the Pederasty article for a more historical perspective. That should quickly direct readers who click the pederasty link on the Close Relationships template to historical information if that's what they want. Kelly 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Commons

Sire, I have just made an update to the gallery - a lot of new pictures (all copyright-free) and better versions of some stuff that was already there. Fulcher 15:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Eromenos

I don't get your drift: the image is present on tondo (art), where is DOES look quite out of place as the technical aspects of pottery per se have nothing to do with nude or pederasty, but you object to its use on eromenos, a page that explicitly states that pederasty was 'bot always' part of it but clearly not considered inappropriate? Am I missing part of the story, which might need adding on the hypothetically misleading page? Fastifex 16:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Since you ask -very courteous, by the way- I would kind of mind. Why don't you simply add the image of your preference, so both views are liberally served? Fastifex 11:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty def.

Hi, in case it's not on your watchlist, I just changed the "pederasty" def in Pedophilia's "related terms" section. I do think wiki ought to reflect usage rather than prescribing it, but don't want to mess too much with your material, which you obviously know very well. DanB DanD 00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

sources for Homosexuality in ancient Greece

You're right that nothing will convince our "true believer" but I hope the sources will come in handy for improving the article. I also hope our true believer goes away; dealing with vandals/trolls is time consuming and takes energy that could be better used in improving the text of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

I see your point that ratings might come into play when deciding what articles to include in a subset of Wikipedia, but I find it difficult to be very concerned about this. For the ratings to truly mean something, a person or persons with real expertise needs to review all the articles in a given subject area and decide their importance relative to each other; otherwise the ratings are simply subjective judgments about individual articles that a given editor thinks are important. I just don't see the benefit of spending much time on it.

As for the pages you mentioned, I think the Parthenon is definitely of top importance, because it's the best-known building from classical antiquity, has had a tremendous impact on art, architecture, and perceptions of the ancient world, and has even sometimes been called the greatest architectural accomplishment of human history. The agora is perhaps not top importance, but it's more than a marketplace, it's the center of political and social activity in the ancient Greek city, and as politics is one of the ways the Greeks have influenced us, the agora is certainly worth noting; not to mention that the Athenian agora is where such figures as Socrates, Zeno, and Plato spent time philosophizing. Atlantis is entirely unimportant as classical topics go; it's only important because so many people in the last two centuries have been interested in mythical lost continents. I agree that the Eleusinian Mysteries and Olympics should be rated top. Not sure I agree about pederasty, but that would depend on how other articles get rated. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Request

Could you please take a look at this edit of mine? I'm not sure that my interpretation is correct. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts on WikiProject LGBT studies

When you've got a few minutes, I was wondering if you'd take a look at my ideas regarding increasing participation in WikiProject LGBT studies? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Greek Pederasty ----> Pederasty

Haiduc, I prepose to you that these two catagories should be merged. I thought about this on the Homosexuality in ancient Greece page. I think that should both be included in the LGBT catagory and in the Pederasty catagory (along with all the other pages in the Greek Pederasty catagory). I'm not sure why we'd need the distinction. We could also place all these pages into an LGBT History (Greece) subcatagory in LGBT History. CaveatLector^Talk 15:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. My concern was that the article itself is designed to cover all homosexual practices in ancient Greece, and that there is actually only one part of the article concerned with pederasty. Granted that pederasty does entail a large portion of the same-sex relationships of the Greeks, its certainly understandable. I think that, given the title of the article, it still seems that it doesn't serve well for it to be secluded in a catagory that deals soley with pederasty. Wouldn't it be better to place this in the LGBT history catagory and place Pederasty in ancient Greece in the Greek pederasty catagory? CaveatLector^Talk 04:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality in ancient Greece and User:Cretanpride

You may have already spent more time dealing with this than you wish, but User:Cretanpride has just violated WP:3RR, so I reported it at WP:AN/3RR.

I also initiated a request for investigation into User:Cretanpride's editing a couple of days ago. No action has yet been taken. I think you're allowed to add your own comment if you wish. In addition to being a jerk, our sockpuppeteer is violating a clear consensus of editors in his edits, so admin action is definitely warranted. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you by any chance an LGBT Admin?

I need some immediate help with another editor who is making me more and more uncomfortable. I just don't know how to deal with the situation. CyntWorkStuff 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much I will try contacting that person. CyntWorkStuff 00:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ellinas is a sockpuppet of User:Cretanpride

I doubt you're following the requests for checkuser page, so I wanted to let you know that CheckUser has confirmed that User:Ellinas is a sockpuppet of User:Cretanpride. If another "friend" of Cretanpride shows up we'll be more than justified in treating him as a sockpuppet. Honestly, I cannot understand why this troll hasn't been banned.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akhilleus (talk • contribs) 11:14, August 28, 2006 (UTC)

Turns out that he was using User:MegasAllexandros as well during his block. I've blocked that account indefinitely and blocked Cretanpride for a month for the flagrant violations of WP:SOCK. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical revisionism and the ancient Greek articles

In short, how do we stop this? This has now been extended to the Alexander the Great article as well as several others I imagine. This seems to be driven not only by a misunderstanding of the term 'pederast' but also by some sort of nationalistic willful ignorance and a desire to see the Greeks as some sort of ultra glorious society. How can we keep these abusive users from re-writing history? CaveatLector^Talk 22:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith

Please do not accuse others of vandalism in topics where you most likely have little knowledge of the subject. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I have added a response to your comment. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Pederast category reversions

Howdy. I did several reversions of what seemed to be vandalism, though I'll admit I might have been in error. I spend a lot of time on anti-vandal patrolling and am perhaps too sensitive to controversial unsourced edits by anon IPs. What seemed to confirm to me that it was vandalism was the cat on Caravaggio (the first one I looked at, it's on my watch list). The article doesn't seem to support that cat, and I've no reason to think it's true (or false) from my outside reading; we just don't know. I looked at a couple other articles cat'ed by that user and reached the same conclusion, decided it was a vandal run and began systematically reverting. Then I saw some cat removals, and saw that at least one of the articles supported the applied categorization, so I stopped, realizing then that it was probably well-intentioned. Studerby 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Pelagius of Cordova

I have reverted the edits you made per my comments at the discussion page. --evrik 00:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Image source

Hi Haiduc, some time ago I uploaded Image:Zeus abducting Ganymede - Roman Mosaic.jpg to commons aswell. Now some anonymous user is making a fuzz because the information doesn't state who created the scan or photo of this PD-old work of art, as in some countries copyright law would grant the creator of the reproduction some rights aswell. Do you know where you found/got the digital picture or did you make it yourself or do you know who created it? Apparently if the creator of the reproduction would be a French person this might be a problem (according to anonymous). Thanks in advance for any answer on the matter. - Pudding 13:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer on my Dutch talkpage. We'll see what happens - if you find more info it would be welcome ofcourse. - Pudding 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's me agian. Looking at this picture and comparing it to yours it seems that the two mosaics are quite different in state/quality. The caption I added to the picture on commons states that it is on Cyprus, but that's only because I assumed it would be. Come to think of it - would it be possible that you photographed a reproduction (in mosaic) somewhere else?? - Pudding 15:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Pan and Daphnis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pan and Daphnis.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 88.160.247.46 15:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please use the talk page

Before editing, please use the talk page. You should not put information on wikipedia without any sources. The edits to the Mychal Judge article were explained on the talk page. Right now there are no sources to support that he himself was an activist for homosexual rights. The previous arugment had been he was member of an organization that was.

It is a big mistake to then just say he is cause an oranization he was in is.

The organization released their position on gay marriage in 2003, Mychal Judge died in 2001. The organization had no position on gay marriage in 2001, while he was a member. We should not assume that he agreed with everything put out by the organization and would agree with everything they put out after he is dead.

Please remove the category that you added to Mychal Judge's entry. 75.3.23.157 02:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, good work. 75.3.23.157 02:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

75.3.23.157 appears to think that saying someone is an LGBT rights activist is equivalent to saying that they have a position on gay marriage. DignityUSA, of which Father Judge was an active member, is an LGBT rights organization. To argue that just because he was an active member of an LGBT rights organisation we don't know he was an LGBT rights activist is of the order of saying that just because he was a Franciscan friar we don't know he was a Catholic. Yonmei 09:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Re. your comment on my Talk page: "consensus-building with other editors"? What is the point of building a consensus with 75.3.23.157, who thinks that saying someone is gay is an attack and is accusing me of anti-Catholicism because I restored the edits their vandalism had removed? Yonmei 11:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Not everyone comes with the same baggage" is a reason not to give Father Judge credit for being an LGBT activist... why? Yonmei 12:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mychal

Yonmei is asserting that Mychal Judge's membership in Diginity alone qualifies him as a gay activist, even though an aspect of that organization was just a support group. Yonmei has claimed that being in Diginity means Mychal Judge was for promoting the change of the Church's stance towards gays, but Yonmei has not provided any sources with any kind of quotes from Mychal Judge where he says he wants the Church to change it's stance on gays.

His only proof is that he is a member of Diginity, and form there, Yonmei is coming to his own conclusion, which would qualify as original research.

Could you please tell Yonmei that he can not add the category anymore without any sources? Also tell him that his current source is himself which is original research. 75.3.23.157 15:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you read this yet and is there anything you can do to help? 75.3.23.157 00:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

hermes

Hi Haiduc, I do not recall exactly where I got the info re: libation of male genital symbols with olive oil. I will find out and get back to you. There is a marvellous book called "erotic art in Pompeii' which shows a term of Hermes annointing his genitalia with olive oil. That is an illustration of the practice. However, as far as an explicit verbal ref - I will have to get back to you. Lgh 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Child soldier - Burma.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Child soldier - Burma.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

U have broken the 3RR in Alexander the Great. revert yourself or u'll be reported. Hectorian 01:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting a new entry, not the same category as before. And please stop playing these games. Haiduc 01:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

(Personal attack removed)

Fair enough; feel free to restore his comments if you're OK with them. It's certainly true that our friend seems to have issues that he may not be consciously aware of; "methinks the lady doth protest too much". But that's neither here nor there. I would generally support the notion of finding a constructive way forward, but Cretanpride and his various sockpuppets have shown such disregard for Wikipedia's policies and principles that I don't see how it's possible to work with him here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Crispin van den Broeck painting

I don't recall exactly how I came across this; it may have been in one of my copyediting binges. As an amateur student of art of the period, however, the claim set off my speculation detectors.

I personally don't think this is a period painting. I don't think a Flenish painter of the period would have drawn the faces so sketchily, and especially not someone renowned as an engraver of the human figure. Also, this simply doesn't look like his other work. Finally, the facial expressions are highly atypical. To me it suggests someone in the 1920s, or even later, aping Flemish painting and working from a photograph.

All this is in the way of tripping my alarms; I would not presume to dispute the Fitzwilliam's attribution of the painting in the article itself. However, turning to the site you referenced, I see a lot of quite tendentious interpretation. Blake's "Glad Day", for instance, is a reference to the unsinning, original Adam. Any vaguely comprehensive reading of his poetry will divulge this. I have to agree that the Los image looks bad, but it again could well be simply unfortunate draughtsmanship. I'm not at all sure what the Rembrandt is trying to teach us, but here we go into a long insinuation that modern references to Ganymede are intended to signify what the ancients meant by the same thing. This simply cannot be taken as a given. What it reads like is my daughter's book about famous left-handers, many of whom are simply interpreted as such through highly indirect and dubious readings. Anyway, the site simply isn't a good source. They present the claims without evidence and without attribution as to their authorship. Mangoe 13:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It seemed the best solution: identify the interpretations as modern and leave it at that. I can't say that I follow the symmetry you propose between Androphile and the Fitzwilliam. The first is dedicated to sexual identity advocacy, and the second has no such commitment either way. I don't know anyone personally at the Fitzwilliam, but it's hard for me to imagine an art museum staffed with homophobes-- whatever you take that word to mean. The choice between the two interpretations seems to be between one that is sexualized and one that is not; and frankly, I'm not inclined to look at a painting of a pair of boys and think "sex".

And part of the issue arises out of the fact that however the symbols are being used (assuming that they are such, but it's hard to make sense of them otherwise) it's clearly an unconventional use. I think that's part of what intrigues us about the picture, that it looks as though it has some secret within it. Mangoe 03:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Foley

What the hell? I'm over there trying to salvage a contorted pile of crap. And people start editing right over the top of me. I didn't even know it until it was going on a while. You'd think they'd have the courtesy just to wait a few minutes before completely redoing what I was trying to fix. Ughhh. It must be middle of the night over in the States, I wonder why so many people are up and working on this. (I'm an ex-pat in Australia).

Yes, this article is going to require a close eye. It seems to have attracted some whitewashers. Derex 12:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I got all pissed off at Biblio... because I thought he had just stomped all over what I had done. Turns out that he thought I had stomped all over him too. We were actually editing different sections which were essentially redundant. He missed my entirely, and thought I had gutted it. I mistook his for a ruined version of mine, as he just reinserted the old stuff he assumed someone had stripped. Anyways, got that sorted out. And my blood pressure has eased dramatically now. Good night to you. Derex 13:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, the portions you are reverted do not belong in that section. They belong above it in the section specifically detailing the "alleged failures to act". Biblio isn't hiding anything, he's cleaning up information which should not be placed where it is and copyeditting the article. Kyaa the Catlord 17:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of blame to go around. :P Kyaa the Catlord 17:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part. I also like the article much better the way it was a couple days back. It bothers me that someone hacked it all up without discussion. I think the most active editors (you, me, Biblio, Durtang, & Kyaa) are _generally_ on the same page, though with some more minor disagreements. The random editors coming in though keep screwing with it. I think we should restructure a bit (as I mentioned there). And the Leadership response should be sectioned by name, as you suggested, and as we had previously. There's really no other way to do that part. For example, Boehner is now on his 5th version of the story.

Unless we get a consensus on a rejiggering now, I'm going to wait until it's past midnight in the states (5pm here), and just fix it up then. If you have any specific suggestions on that, please note them on the Talk where I asked for more input. Derex 02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

PS, I intend to resist the "blame the media" spin. That's not based on any explicit published criticisms. I do think Biblio is in good faith on that, but he's mistaken. It's not justified under our neutrality policy. Derex 02:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm with you on that. It will go. However, my impression is that Biblio's not trying to whitewash; he's just wrong. Of course, I had the opposite impression at first. Derex 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I had to Babelfish that edit summary. I'll keep that one handy. Derex 02:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You might fine this editorial useful in your breakdown by person. It's got some detail collated. I'm off to sleep now. Derex 12:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious what you think about how it turned out. Derex 11:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pathologies

I agree with the removal of the material due to its being unsourced, but I absolutely reject the notion that pathology is something that can be determined by political fiat. Going by this reasoning, criticism of government is pathological because in Soviet Russia government critics were judged shizophrenic and interned in mental hospitals. Or, a behavior is pathological up to the border but no longer pathological in the neighboring country. Haiduc 11:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say pathologies were determined by political fiat. I said they were determined by cultural norms. There is a difference. Hospitalizing government critics in the Soviet Union was a cheap political ploy, not a serious attempt to diagnose a pathology. But what is pathological will in fact change depending what context your doing the behavior in (where "context" necessarily includes what culture you happen to be in, in addition to the more detailed context of the specific situations your doing it in within a culture). Its easy to think of examples so need I even bother giving one. (an easy one: starving yourself) Unless your one of those people who think there is one right culture (i.e. one right set of behavioral norms) then your going to have to agree with me--there's no way out of it ;).

As an aside: criticism of the soviet government very well could have been symptomatic of schizophrenia, depending on the criticism (e.g. "they are aliens who have put microchips in my head and are controlling my thoughts!") Its just so happens that in the cases your refering to they were willfully misdiagnosing legitimate criticism as a pathology for political reasons. Brentt 19:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

survey says:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=predatorgate

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Mark+Foley+scandal%22

predatorgate!

grazon 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

you realize that's actually only about a hundred uses, not 53000? look at the bottom of the page with links to the next page of hits. Click #3. I don't know why Google does this, but it vastly overstates hits on raw count. I think someone said they're counting links to pages that use that term.

This guy grazon is an enemy of his own cause in my opinion. No one pays any attention to an article with spin. "Predatorgate" makes it sound like this is a hit-piece, which totally discredits all our work. That upsets me. Foley and the leadership are nailed to the wall by the facts alone. Derex 02:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

pred. gate

Don't restrict you're search to google news "normal" google the terms. grazon 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edit

I don't think this edit did what you want it to. You probably want to restore the descriptor. JoshuaZ 03:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

You're welcome. I'm trying not to take sides and patrol the article for NPOV violations. I've spent a TON of time reading the sources on this page and am pretty much disgusted with everyone involved in the media at this point. But I'm trying to keep cool. Your words help me feel like I'm doing something "right" here. Kyaa the Catlord 00:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Masturbation

Any particular reason that you removed the references to Hermes in your new version of the "antiquity" section? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The only thing missing is the hermae now. Was this intentional? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 14:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll keep my eyes peeled for references in literature. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex the Great

Haiduc, I just posted on the article's talk page about this. I think it's time to seek some form of dispute resolution: POV-pushers have dictated the article's text and the discussion on the talk page, and only a handful of editors are participating. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc, I wouldn't attach too much importance to Apro's use of the word "consensus"; English doesn't seem to be his first language, so I don't think he's asserting that he can determine the course of the debate by himself.

However, I do share your frustration with the way the RfC is going; just like last time, the discussion is going nowhere (at least this time there are no sockpuppets). I think that not allowing the categories in (whichever ones they should be) is an NPOV violation. Maybe the next move is a request for mediation. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've finally had a chance to look over the debate and have tried to formulate a possible compromise. It's not ideal (compromise rarely is), but I think it might be a way forward. Let me know what you think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Haiduc, this may interest you. Our latest contributor has probably been here before. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexander

Did you have some particular objection to my work on the article? Haiduc 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. The change you made looked just like one of the half of a dozen of vandalism attacks I reverted last night. I had to be more careful, sorry. Did you restore it, or do you want me to do it?—Barbatus 10:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I like that biblio-diagnosis. Will borrow the code, if you don't mind.—Barbatus 12:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Malik Ayaz

Could you please find the source you used for the stories? They are very interesting and I'd like to do further research. Ashibaka tock 23:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you found these on the Web? Is it possible that http://dawn.net/weekly/ayaz/20010316.htm is the source for your story of the mirror? Ashibaka tock 00:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, the page is better off for it! I'll have a look at these, too. Ashibaka tock 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alcibiades

Nice photo. Thanks!--Yannismarou 14:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation, Alexander the Great

Hello,

regarding your request for mediation here for article Alexander the Great, I just want to let you know that I've taken this case for mediation and I will help you to solve it. Every party is now announced that this is an open case. We will continue on Talk:Alexander the Great.

Regards, Wissahickon Creek ^talk 12:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

Foley /Mercieca Scoop timeline

You wrote: >We should take care to not make it seem as if it was Foley who publicized Mercieca's identity ->he was scooped by the Sarasota paper. Haiduc 23:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, are you sure about that? It's not clear to me. From what I've read, Foley's attorney emailed the name of Mercieca not to the church but to the local district attorney's office the same day, or maybe even the day before, the Sarasota paper ran their article. then again, they said they phoned him 4 times before running the story. but the question remains, if they didn't get the name from a leak from the DA -- in which case they didn't really scoop Foley, just other papers -- where did they get it? In my opinion, we just don't have enough information to know yet. One possibility is that simply process of elimination -- I remember a quote from a catholic priest who knew Foley at the time in question, saying that there were only 5 living priests who fit Foley's description (Foley's atty had said the perp was alive.) I would be renewed in my faith in journalism if I found out that a reporter followed up with that priest and contacted all 5 possibilities, but I have to think it's at least 50-50 that he either got the name off the record from Foley's atty or had a leak from the DA.Msalt 04:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

saw your last reply... It's definitely true that the Sarasota paper was the first to PUBLISH Mercieca's name, but is that really important? Seems to me, if Foley did send that name to the DA first, and esp. if the newspaper GOT the name from a leak of Foley's email to the DA, then the most accurate description is "Foley stated that... and Mercieca confirmed...." Aren't we more concerned with accurately stating the facts, than the chronology of who made the facts public?

Seems to me that the way you were framing it in the article definitely implies that Foley ONLY released the name after it was made public, ie that he was dragging his feet. And while that certainly is one possible interpretation of the evidence, I don't see any facts that back that up. The paper following up on Foley's release is certainly an equally valid interpretation, esp. since his lawyer had announced 2 days earlier -- and long before any newspaper articles -- that he would be releasing the name.

In general, I prefer to avoid interpretation, and the phrasing I picked -- keeping your term "parallel to", without reference to scoop -- is I think the best way to accurately do that.Msalt 17:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation Cabal case

You are receiving this notice because you have already been notified of the mediation cabal case here. I am offering to take over the mediation and welcome you to participate or request another mediator. Cheers. --Keitei (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction

Hi Haiduc and others visiting. Can you have a look at the discussion page and see what you think about possible new layout 'borrowed' from Wiki Reference article. Tony 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Tony

Proposed policy on death threats

Hey, Haiduc. Since you were a recipient of Cretanpride's lovely little email back in September, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new proposed policy under discussion at Wikipedia:Death threats. I've put in my two quadrantes, but I thought you'd like to know as well. Best, —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Er...what?

As we have drifted off the topic of poor patient Tony's article into a land of weirdly strained misreadings, I don't think we need to clutter up that talk page any further.

So...uh...to recap, we have drifted into a land of weirdly strained misreadings. Please do your best to read the words that I write, and not attribute to me the words that the kind of person you imagine me to be might have written. DanB†DanD 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tony

Thanks for your post on my page. Although I've contributed about 80% of the material, I can't control/revert what others post unless I've read the books and I have read hardly any of the adult/girl section for instance. In due course the girls will need to be split out - for KB size reasons if nothing else - and others can edit that. Tony 01:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Tony

Saddamm

It is not nuetral when an encyclopedia takes a stance in accordance with what the media has been reporting. Your comment on the editing was "timing of announcement staged to benefit the GOP." This is not the job of an encyclopedia and is irrelevant to the verdict as reported in an encyclopedia. Steviedpeele 02:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you are correct. I'm new to this and I may have been a little too subjective in my editing. Regards, sdp. Steviedpeele 04:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My 1 word edit on the Pedarasty page

Hi Haiduc,

I was wondering if if anyone would notice or comment on that edit--that's why I didn't classify it as a minor edit. My change was based on the definition of Pedarasty in the history section, where it describes some of the relationships as "chaste". According to the dictionary, chaste inplies a relationship free of sex. From the online dictionary: View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source chaste  /tʃeɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[cheyst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective, chast‧er, chast‧est. 1. refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion; virtuous. 2. virgin. 3. not engaging in sexual relations; celibate. 4. free from obscenity; decent: chaste conversation. 5. undefiled or stainless: chaste, white snow. 6. pure in style; not excessively ornamented; simple. 7. Obsolete. unmarried. [Origin: 1175–1225; ME < OF < L castus clean, pure, chaste]

So having that in the history section of the article naturally implies that not all pedarast relationships are erotic. Thus, my edit for consistency in the article.

I realize that page is controversial, and has been debated on any number of talk pages. I assure you I am not trying to press a point of view, or vandalise the page in any way. If you want to change it back, please feel free.Jeffpw 08:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think where we diverge on this is your view of mentorship vs. pedarasty. Sure, mentorships are pretty cut and dried, relating only to the subject of said mentorship (work, school, etc). My feeling, based on what I read in the article (and going back to the historical synopsis) is that some (though not all) pedarastic relationships were not sexual in nature, and were more "chaste love" relationships. Go ahead and revert it, if you want. I'm really not so interested in the subject that I want to push a particular POV. I was more interested in consistency than anything else. However, if you want to revert my edit, you might also want to edit out the word "chaste" from the historical overview. Jeffpw 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

abbas I gay link?

i really don't think there's enough there for a link - either there should be more on his homosexuality or there should also be links to Islam and Alcohol & articles about adultery and harems in Islam etc Danlibbo 01:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah - that's all good and well but the sources i've read make more mention of the general 'moral corruption' of his court and thus there should be other links (we should also probably actually make an article of Islam and Alcohol first) - I'm going to remove the link for now and hopefully put it up with other such links when we've made the articles more substantive - cool? Danlibbo 22:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consider also warning vandals

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [8]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini 21:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

E.M. Forster Homosexuality Dispute

Thank you for providing a reference.

Evilgohan2 01:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley Scandal

Please note that I have just nominated Mark Foley Scandal for Featured Article status. You can find comments about its nomination here. I am leaving this message because you have significantly contributed to the article. Thesmothete 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Louvre

Hi Haiduc, that would be Br 93 you're talking about. I'll try to go and shoot it this week. I must say bronzes are pretty tricky, though, I've never had much chance with them. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I answered your question about the classification of the pederasty category on Commons. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of it, as you may not go on Commons very often. I'll keep you posted on en: about the pictures. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Dionysus

I hope you didn't think me rude for reverting you. I quite agree about the awkwardness of the current note format on that page! Andrew Dalby 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Problematic edits by 132.241.246.111

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problematics edits / Block evasion by Grazon. —75.18.113.152 01:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Cretan hunters

Hi Haiduc, here you are. It's not the best shot ever made, but the Louvre room was damn dark and you almost couldn't see any detail with your own eyes. I'll go and try again another time, when it's sunnier outside. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Work in progress

Hi Haiduc, I wanted to say how much I've appreciated the work you've done on GLBT & GLBT related topics. I became aware of your work through your editing at Justin Berry. While looking at other edits, I noticed you had created a page called User:Haiduk/work in progress. I'm thinking this was a slight error, but I was worried that it could be seen as an attempt to run multiple accounts. I see no reason to think that you have, based on the logs of both accounts, but I wanted to make you aware of the potentially incorrect name for that page. Thanks again for the improvements you've made. --Ssbohio 07:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Casement a pederast?

Hi Haiduc, in response to your asking for proof that Casement was not a pederast, I would like to point out that you have not proved that he was. The opinion of a Unionist MP in the 1950's, years after Casement's death is not proof and it is likely that Hyde may have had a political motive for claiming Casement was a pederast, as he would have regarded him as a traitor. Natalieduerinckx 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali

My general experience with him is that he can be very reasonable, and usually willing to compromise on things. What specific pages is this conflict on? Khoikhoi 08:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So what do you think about NAMBLA, the pedophile group? Baristarim 04:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And, btw, in the "English" language, having sex with an underage person is pedophilia, are you honestly trying to defend that it is not so??? How can it be a "slur"?! The new lows of the politically correct saga. Well, there are all sorts of people on the Net I suppose.. Baristarim 04:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. However pretending that taking advantage of the naivité of a human being because of his age, in a way that will be detrimental to his development as a balanced human being in society, is not pedophilia, and that on the basis of some animal urges (misplaced desires) that have not been rooted out by evolution is also not something to be thought highly of, right? :)Baristarim 05:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right I suppose :) Baristarim 05:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject

I note with some interest that despite your obvious work on LGBT articles and contributions to the WikiProject, you are not as yet a member. May I ask why, or welcome you to join if it has simply slipped your mind? Your membership would be appreciated. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, Haiduc, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice or clarification. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there. If you're going to stay awhile, please create a square in our project quilt! You can put anything you want in it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome!

Good to have you officially on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Chess

Oh cmon, don't edit war. There's no POV. Who the players may or may not be is irrelevant to the article. The fact that it is an ancient depiction of chess is relevant. If you choose to take offense from another editor, that's your problem, but don't slap any POV tags on an NPOV article to further your argument. --Dweller 15:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't think you need to provide a reference. A beautifully referenced comment about the Yeti would also be incongruous in an article about chess. The caption just needs to say what it needs to say. If we knew the names of the players, that would also be irrelevant, unless the article wanted to cite a notable person as a chess player and he/her was depicted. No-one, least of all me, is suggesting that the referencing on the photo itself should be altered, or any referencing to it in articles about Homosexuality or associated topics. --Dweller 15:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Anal-sex synonyms

Hi again, thanks for your good work on so many articles.

I saw the recent addition of "buggery" and Sodomy" to the anal-sex article. The reason I object to them (just my view) is that Buggery (although very commonly used the U.K.) is more or less a racial slur. And "Sodomy" is a term that has been vague and undefined (at least in U.S. law), and not defined well in it's origin, the hebrew bible. Historically in U.S. law, it could mean oral sex, or anal sex, or bestiality, or pretty much any form of non-procreative sex. So, listing it as a synonym for anal-sex seems wrong to me. Also, both "buggery" and "sodomy" carry a long history with them of being very negative. Suggesting that anal sex is synonymous with them associates that negative history with a neutral descriptive term. I am not trying to "promote" anal sex, but I think in fairness of NPOV, it is best to not try to negatively slant peoples perceptions from the outset either. Atom 00:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User warned

I warned Metaspheres about changing your comments on the LGBT noticeboard. If he does anything like that again, please give him a warning. He can be blocked for that. By the way, have you considered arch9iving this page--it's over 200 Kb long now. Jeffpw 11:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Michael Yates (stage designer)

Your recent edit to Michael Yates (stage designer) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As the other person who editing that page, I want to confirm that there was NO vandalism on Haiduc's part: there seem to have been simultaneous edits at the same time that the entry was being moved to a different heading, and Wikipedia seems to have got confused. The result of the simultaneous move/edit was a page that mixed elements of two edits, making a mess of both, which I think is now sorted out. Macspaunday 02:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)