It does seem useful to point out why and how Buddhist practices change in America, but to say that the change is of a certain nature may take us into regions of NPOV. In particular, to say that what is being kept is the good stuff and what is being gotten rid of is the culturally-specific but ultimately unimportant stuff, is to take a particular POV stance on what is and is not important, and we can't do that here at Wikipedia. What you should do is find out who in the Buddhism community argues this point, describe their position objectively, and then cite your sources. -- कुक्कुरोवाच| Talk‽ 18:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Haiduc, The user User talk:Noah Peters who you inquired using his talk page about homophobia is indeed homophobic. The last few days he as attacked many gay-related pages on wiki. For example on the gays during Nazi Germany page he has repeatedly inserted paragraphs alluding that many if not most Nazis were gay men, whether closeted or open. Such statements contradict reality and all the authorities’ on the Holocaust. I am trying to maintain vigilance against the vandalism.
Please vote your opinion of template:gay. Thanks. Apollomelos 19:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the links because the articles really have nothing to do with homosexuality, and those links at the most part are much fringe arguements and cause distractions. If you want to make separate relevant articles and incorporate those links then that's fine. I deleted the link on the samurai page but not on the shudo page. HOpe this helps. Wareware 07:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well done on Michelangelo's love life. So often that kind of thing is badly presented. -- Wetman 02:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Haiduc,
I saw you recently added a reference to Erik Satie's homosexuality to the opening paragraph of the Erik Satie article. Kindly inviting you to have a look at the paragraph I added about Satie's sexuality to Talk:Erik Satie. I have come to the first version of the second step I describe there, and would care for your input!
Thanks!
-- Francis Schonken 15:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am not quite sure, but I have noticed another user who was blocked temporarily for vandalizing pages I was working on and then impersonating me had an ip from VA. He created:
Notice these new ips and users attacking pages that I work at present are also from VA:
Apollomelos 23:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It appears the user may have taken to online gay-bashing. This is an excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's talk page by user Abelincoln98 :
Apollomelos 23:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please note a report by another user reagrding this vandal from jan. 27th. Apollomelos 23:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Go through any of these users that I have listed and speculated to be the same individual and you’ll find every time they edit a gay-related page they either attack it or add negative comments. For example:
Apollomelos 00:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have added that to vandalism in progress and three revert rule violation page. Feel free to add any comments you have noticed. I thought I should give you the heads up on these users who are editing homosexuality since we are nearly the only ones who keep an eye out for it. Thanks. Apollomelos 00:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Image "Photo_of_magazine_page.jpg" has been re-deleted. It most certainly was not "deleted in error"; it was tagged as a copyright problem and went through Wikipedia:Images for deletion as well (either of which would have been enough for deletion. If you are not the photographer and copyright holder of the image, you have no right to release it as "PD-self". Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Images, and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to inform yourself of Wikipedia practices and policies on image uses. You may also wish to see Wikipedia:Fair use; note that fair use is context dependant. I'll assume this was the result of some sort of confusion on your part; note that deliberately putting false information here is considered vandalism. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 01:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I made some additions to homophobia. And I noticed the user who added the NPOV violation tag has done little to edit the article. Although I am not quite sure, I believe when adding such a tag the user must state his or her objections in clear unambiguous language specifying them and offering solutions. Many of the objections that I read on the talk page were very vague and ambiguous. Hope this helps. Apollomelos 22:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits on Homosexuality 80.119.202.134 00:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do you instant message? You seem like an interesting person to chat with. Apollomelos 13:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have added a picture of Zeus and Ganymede from Afghanistan to Wikipedia Commons. The picture also depicts Eros (Cupid) in it. And a found this today while searching images on Yahoo [1]. What do you make of it? We could upload it on fair use to English Wikipedia. Apollomelos 18:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It asserts that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Which many Christians hold different opinions on that subject. That is the whole reason we have an in-depth article on that subject. A brief summary is okay but to assert something has fact is ignorant. Would you not agree? Apollomelos 03:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry I messed up the see also section then, unfortunately the three items were not recognizable as belonging together. I think the Pausanias quote would be a very funny addition to the article, so please by all means quote it (do you have the reference?) -- but I think it should be outside the "see also" section, still, since (as I have shown...) lack of context will induce people to reorganize it from time to time. I think if you dig up the Pausanias quote, it could even go into the intro. dab (ᛏ) 13:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You mean 24.130?
Has this gone around as evidence of Achilles' homosexuality? *lol*, a verse where his mother suggests he should copulate with women rather than sit around depressed? The per is contrasting the misgesthai to eunê and sitos. His mother is telling him to rest, eat, and copulate (adding "with women" as a matter of course, not as an admonition), if anything, this is evidence of A's heterosexuality. The contrastive force of the per is rather weak too, not much more than a rhetorical turn of phrase, The whole Ilias would be rather pointless if Achilles was a homo, or why would he get so angry about that slavegirl Agamemnon took from him? True, he may still be 'bisexual' in principle, and open to the occasional tryst with Patroclus, it's just that, well, Homer didn't choose to say so. dab (ᛏ) 15:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thats kind of a best case scenario, and one which requires both a certain level of egolessness, and a goodly amount of mutual understanding and a shared paradigm. I can say this with confidence having spent far too much time @ WP:RfM and WP:RfAr ;) Anyhow, you handled yourself in an exemplary manner, for which you earned respect, as well as my thanks. Thank you for being here, ( Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Pedastry is a very excellent article, and I think it might be a good candidate for featured article (to be featured on Wikipedia's front). If you think this is a good or bad idea please let me know and discuss in the Pederasty talk page. -- ShaunMacPherson 05:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See Talk:Sex_in_advertising#For_haiduc. Cheers, Sam Spade 16:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've responded to your post at Wikipedia:Help desk#image upload problem. -- David Iberri | Talk 17:44, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I'm quite irritated and disappointed that in this edit you chose to revert what I had done, and you hadn't discussed this at all on Talk, or responded to my reasoning for doing so.
What was the point of me responding to you, or editing further, for that matter, if you weren't going to discuss it and just go and revert anyway? Dysprosia 23:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, this isn't a call to make a correction or to feel bad about something or, necessarily a "hey! Kudos!", or anything like most of the stuff I've seen on Wikipedia talk pages. I'm just interested in something you said on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pedophilia and homosexuality: "As a matter of fact, we should think about making some distinction between pedophilia as a psychological dysfunction, with its constellation of social and sexual disabilities, and pedophilia as a cultural practice engaged in by healthy members of societies with other standards than our own".
What do you mean by 'psychological dysfunction', 'social and sexual disabilities', and 'healthy' in this sentence? Why I'm asking: It seems to me that if other societies can have intergenerational relationships that aren't dysfunctional and don't involve social and sexual disabilities, and are, in fact, healthy, then these terms can only apply within a given society, which kind of makes sense. But, I guess, if something like pedophilia (or anything else deemed a psychological disorder, for that matter) can be healthy in another society, does that say anything about the possibility of its ever being healthy in our society? Either way, it seems like a statement like that problematizes a lot of our ideas about psychological health, which is, hey! pretty interesting! - Seth Mahoney 17:33, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Please refrain from making accusations against User:Zereshk and User:Jpbrenna, as that is totally inappropriate and uncalled for. If you check the history, I'm the one who deleted the image. They had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, there is literally no historical evidence that Shah Abbas (or Reza Abbasi) engaged in homosexuality (or were homosexual or bisexual), and to speculate this in an encyclopedia article is (especially based on a single painting), I think you'll agree, inappropriate. I have no idea what the Persian title is (as you only provided a translation) so I was not able to verify the proper title from the Reza Abbasi Museum, the staff of which have an extensive knowledge of Isfahan school artworks and history.
Anyway, I have no problem with the painting itself, since I don't see anything 'homosexual' about it - Americans and northern Europeans also generally consider two men embracing and kissing each others cheeks in greetings (which is common in France, southern Europe, the Mediterrean, Middle East, and Central Asia) to be 'gay', perhaps due to latent insecurities or whatever - but I don't see its relevance to the Shah Abbas article since there is already another image there. How about starting an article stub for Mohammad Qasim, and include the painting there? SouthernComfort 08:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Haiduc, I'm sorry it took me so long to reply to your post. I started composing a reply last night, but accidentally erased it. I'm also sorry for not bringing you "into the loop." I didn't even know that you were the person who put the image up at Commons until Southern mentioned you at Zereshk's userpage.
-- Jpbrenna 17:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I received a message earlier about Wladislaus III of Poland, who is also in the Homosexual category at Commons, and whose presence there also struck me as a bit odd. I posted to a Polish history buff's page to see if he could clear things up (The Wikipedia article doesn't mention anything about it). Apparently no one dared speak about exactly what practices led to Wladyslaw's defeat at the hands of the Turks.
Looking at the artwork in that category, most of it is pretty clearly homosexual in content. The Greek pottery, for instance, shows unmistakable instances of the "love that dare not speak its name" speaking loud and clear. A few pictures there really stick out though -- The Two Lovers one being the most egregious example in my mind. I think this French art critic may need to go see an optometriste.
I think there is a bit of an Ace & Gary situation here. What would you think about creating an "Ambiguous Eroticism" category for art that is hard to categorize visually, and another category for historical figures of ambiguous sexuality? (I'm not sure what we would call the second one - any ideas?) -- Jpbrenna 00:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you are doing quite a few articles at the moment, some of which also touch transgender issues; and I noticed that you used " transsexual and transvestites" and " sex change" in this one. That's rather problematic, and I corrected that, but maybe you could simply make sure you use appropriate terminology yourself, namely:
Also, if appropriate, you could maybe just insert [[Category:Transgender in non-western cultures]] and/or a link to the List of transgender-related topics yourself. (See the respective articles for details, or let me know if you have any questions or are not sure how something should be phrased. -- AlexR 05:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I've added the "roughing out" as you've requested to the hallucinogenic drug talk page. Please check it out, thanks :) -- Thoric 22:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your discussion of Roth's views, but many issues remain:
Cheers, Jayjg (talk) 13:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Calm down. I simply corrected several errors - for example, it was during the reign of Shah Abbas II, not Abbas I, that Chehel Sotoon was first built. I also expanded the section on the artworks. And also this issue of 'koceks' - that's Ottoman related (a very, very different society), not Persian. There is no evidence of this in any of the Persian courts. Also you stated in the caption to the image that the dancers are male, while the musicians are female - that is not only erroneous (the dancers are clearly female, while the musicians and everyone else are male - but you see the females as actually being koceks), but speculative. If there is an art critic or historian that you want to quote (who wants to see something that really isn't there), by all means include it, as that is purely his or her opinion. SouthernComfort 01:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, Haiduc, I hope you do not think that I agree with Crash or am trying to turn the article into something that hides the issue of homosexual connotations -- I can assure you that I'm not. I think Crash's bias is showing, even though he denies having any; his actions have demonstrated that he is very eager to either remove any mention of homosexuality or to write something that discredits the source or disputes the claim although there's no way a casual reader might think that the article claims or implies that Batman and Robin are engaged in a homosexual relationship. I really, really dislike that.
That said... I'm not going to repeat myself because I'm sure you're getting sick of reading the same thing over and over, but in short there's just too much stuff in the article. It makes for bad reading, and that doesn't serve anyone's purpose. At the same time, because of readability issues, there's not enough space to really do a proper treatment of how much controversy there was about that, and how much of the Batman imagery lends itself to homosexual interpretation and/or fantasies, and how classic a figure Batman is on that front, etc. That, too, is a loss. I'm kind of hoping to fix both of these issues. If you have any suggestions on that front, please let me know.
I'm thinking that in the original Batman article, the issue could be touched on in the "Evolution of the concept" section which would need to be expanded a little to explain the change from the original, very dark figure to the more campy version, and that would be a natural point to bring up the imagery and Wertham shortly, along with a link to the more detailed version. "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary," says Wikipedia: Article size, and I certainly wouldn't dream of just removing all mentions of the issue under discussion.
Oh, and please note that I would also remove the "Batman in other media" section and include it in the new section as that, too, is a fairly long section that impacts negatively on readability, but would fit the new article's scope supremely well. -- Captain Disdain 01:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Take it up with me on User talk:Tznkai-- Tznkai 14:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Tznkai. If I see any more edits like this I will be most displeased. →Raul654 20:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I just thought you'd like to know since you were interested in the article on Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, I've also created a sub-page with a list of categories related to LGBT issues, including a category on People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality, and written several articles in that category. Exploding Boy 04:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Haiduc, but this is a phrase that is less than ideal - not that I mind colorful writing, but when I saw the edit, I didn't know it, and I asked on #wikipedia (where quite a few native speakers of English were present) -- and nobody knew what it meant, either although one person knew at least where to look it up. [2] It seems to me that an expession unknown to so many people is better replaced with a less colorful, but at least understandable way of phrasing it. As for the accuracy question, I remember reading more than once that the general applicability of these ideas is questioned by several scholars these days. This not exactly being my field of greatest interest, I never bothered to make a note of these comments, but they exist; hence the comment. You might want to notice that I merely asked the question, not changed the text. Oh, and maybe you should stop jumping at people quite so harshly - you know, I don't mind, and I know you; but you might scare the newbies. -- AlexR 13:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Haiduc,
Things have settled down in my life and I am returning to Wikipedia to complete the Greek homosexuality articles I started earlier this year. How have you been? Have you read Dover's new revision about Greek homosexuality by chance? Apollomelos 00:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. My problems are not major. Basicly, there is actually very little written about her, this should be expanded. The incantations/Chants can be put into either Wikisource or Wikiquote, because I think they take up more space than the Info about her. It needs to wikified. I don't really know enough about her to do this. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 09:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
No objection to your recent update but did Ferrer really use the word emplace? That doesn't sound like a Freddy word, it's more like a David Dinkins word. patsw 04:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
There was no Ottoman Sultan who ruled as a caliph over "islam", simply none. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 08:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I have fixed the redirect loop problem by reverting your recent change. DES (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Haiduc. please see my comments on the bisexuality talk page. Thanks. -- Craig ( t| c) 05:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi; I noticed someone removed this section that I think you added to Mehmed II a few weeks ago:
This page, like a few others, is occasionally 'whitewashed' by editors who find it hard to believe discreditable anecdotes about some famous people, so on that basis I was going to restore your contribution. On the other hand, it's not something I have a citation for, and I suppose it could be controversial. Would you like to restore the passage and provide a reference for it? Tom Harrison (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I was in the process of writing my reasons for the tag on the talk page. Just finished when I saw your message. -- Brentt 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
You added Gaozu of Han and Emperor Hui of Han to the category. Since I think the historical evidence is, at best, speculative, I've reverted the additions. Please discuss if you have solid evidence. -- Nlu 05:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
It does seem useful to point out why and how Buddhist practices change in America, but to say that the change is of a certain nature may take us into regions of NPOV. In particular, to say that what is being kept is the good stuff and what is being gotten rid of is the culturally-specific but ultimately unimportant stuff, is to take a particular POV stance on what is and is not important, and we can't do that here at Wikipedia. What you should do is find out who in the Buddhism community argues this point, describe their position objectively, and then cite your sources. -- कुक्कुरोवाच| Talk‽ 18:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Haiduc, The user User talk:Noah Peters who you inquired using his talk page about homophobia is indeed homophobic. The last few days he as attacked many gay-related pages on wiki. For example on the gays during Nazi Germany page he has repeatedly inserted paragraphs alluding that many if not most Nazis were gay men, whether closeted or open. Such statements contradict reality and all the authorities’ on the Holocaust. I am trying to maintain vigilance against the vandalism.
Please vote your opinion of template:gay. Thanks. Apollomelos 19:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I deleted the links because the articles really have nothing to do with homosexuality, and those links at the most part are much fringe arguements and cause distractions. If you want to make separate relevant articles and incorporate those links then that's fine. I deleted the link on the samurai page but not on the shudo page. HOpe this helps. Wareware 07:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well done on Michelangelo's love life. So often that kind of thing is badly presented. -- Wetman 02:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Haiduc,
I saw you recently added a reference to Erik Satie's homosexuality to the opening paragraph of the Erik Satie article. Kindly inviting you to have a look at the paragraph I added about Satie's sexuality to Talk:Erik Satie. I have come to the first version of the second step I describe there, and would care for your input!
Thanks!
-- Francis Schonken 15:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am not quite sure, but I have noticed another user who was blocked temporarily for vandalizing pages I was working on and then impersonating me had an ip from VA. He created:
Notice these new ips and users attacking pages that I work at present are also from VA:
Apollomelos 23:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It appears the user may have taken to online gay-bashing. This is an excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's talk page by user Abelincoln98 :
Apollomelos 23:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please note a report by another user reagrding this vandal from jan. 27th. Apollomelos 23:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Go through any of these users that I have listed and speculated to be the same individual and you’ll find every time they edit a gay-related page they either attack it or add negative comments. For example:
Apollomelos 00:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have added that to vandalism in progress and three revert rule violation page. Feel free to add any comments you have noticed. I thought I should give you the heads up on these users who are editing homosexuality since we are nearly the only ones who keep an eye out for it. Thanks. Apollomelos 00:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Image "Photo_of_magazine_page.jpg" has been re-deleted. It most certainly was not "deleted in error"; it was tagged as a copyright problem and went through Wikipedia:Images for deletion as well (either of which would have been enough for deletion. If you are not the photographer and copyright holder of the image, you have no right to release it as "PD-self". Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Images, and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to inform yourself of Wikipedia practices and policies on image uses. You may also wish to see Wikipedia:Fair use; note that fair use is context dependant. I'll assume this was the result of some sort of confusion on your part; note that deliberately putting false information here is considered vandalism. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 01:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I made some additions to homophobia. And I noticed the user who added the NPOV violation tag has done little to edit the article. Although I am not quite sure, I believe when adding such a tag the user must state his or her objections in clear unambiguous language specifying them and offering solutions. Many of the objections that I read on the talk page were very vague and ambiguous. Hope this helps. Apollomelos 22:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits on Homosexuality 80.119.202.134 00:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do you instant message? You seem like an interesting person to chat with. Apollomelos 13:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have added a picture of Zeus and Ganymede from Afghanistan to Wikipedia Commons. The picture also depicts Eros (Cupid) in it. And a found this today while searching images on Yahoo [1]. What do you make of it? We could upload it on fair use to English Wikipedia. Apollomelos 18:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It asserts that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Which many Christians hold different opinions on that subject. That is the whole reason we have an in-depth article on that subject. A brief summary is okay but to assert something has fact is ignorant. Would you not agree? Apollomelos 03:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry I messed up the see also section then, unfortunately the three items were not recognizable as belonging together. I think the Pausanias quote would be a very funny addition to the article, so please by all means quote it (do you have the reference?) -- but I think it should be outside the "see also" section, still, since (as I have shown...) lack of context will induce people to reorganize it from time to time. I think if you dig up the Pausanias quote, it could even go into the intro. dab (ᛏ) 13:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You mean 24.130?
Has this gone around as evidence of Achilles' homosexuality? *lol*, a verse where his mother suggests he should copulate with women rather than sit around depressed? The per is contrasting the misgesthai to eunê and sitos. His mother is telling him to rest, eat, and copulate (adding "with women" as a matter of course, not as an admonition), if anything, this is evidence of A's heterosexuality. The contrastive force of the per is rather weak too, not much more than a rhetorical turn of phrase, The whole Ilias would be rather pointless if Achilles was a homo, or why would he get so angry about that slavegirl Agamemnon took from him? True, he may still be 'bisexual' in principle, and open to the occasional tryst with Patroclus, it's just that, well, Homer didn't choose to say so. dab (ᛏ) 15:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thats kind of a best case scenario, and one which requires both a certain level of egolessness, and a goodly amount of mutual understanding and a shared paradigm. I can say this with confidence having spent far too much time @ WP:RfM and WP:RfAr ;) Anyhow, you handled yourself in an exemplary manner, for which you earned respect, as well as my thanks. Thank you for being here, ( Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:24, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Pedastry is a very excellent article, and I think it might be a good candidate for featured article (to be featured on Wikipedia's front). If you think this is a good or bad idea please let me know and discuss in the Pederasty talk page. -- ShaunMacPherson 05:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See Talk:Sex_in_advertising#For_haiduc. Cheers, Sam Spade 16:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've responded to your post at Wikipedia:Help desk#image upload problem. -- David Iberri | Talk 17:44, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I'm quite irritated and disappointed that in this edit you chose to revert what I had done, and you hadn't discussed this at all on Talk, or responded to my reasoning for doing so.
What was the point of me responding to you, or editing further, for that matter, if you weren't going to discuss it and just go and revert anyway? Dysprosia 23:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, this isn't a call to make a correction or to feel bad about something or, necessarily a "hey! Kudos!", or anything like most of the stuff I've seen on Wikipedia talk pages. I'm just interested in something you said on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pedophilia and homosexuality: "As a matter of fact, we should think about making some distinction between pedophilia as a psychological dysfunction, with its constellation of social and sexual disabilities, and pedophilia as a cultural practice engaged in by healthy members of societies with other standards than our own".
What do you mean by 'psychological dysfunction', 'social and sexual disabilities', and 'healthy' in this sentence? Why I'm asking: It seems to me that if other societies can have intergenerational relationships that aren't dysfunctional and don't involve social and sexual disabilities, and are, in fact, healthy, then these terms can only apply within a given society, which kind of makes sense. But, I guess, if something like pedophilia (or anything else deemed a psychological disorder, for that matter) can be healthy in another society, does that say anything about the possibility of its ever being healthy in our society? Either way, it seems like a statement like that problematizes a lot of our ideas about psychological health, which is, hey! pretty interesting! - Seth Mahoney 17:33, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Please refrain from making accusations against User:Zereshk and User:Jpbrenna, as that is totally inappropriate and uncalled for. If you check the history, I'm the one who deleted the image. They had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, there is literally no historical evidence that Shah Abbas (or Reza Abbasi) engaged in homosexuality (or were homosexual or bisexual), and to speculate this in an encyclopedia article is (especially based on a single painting), I think you'll agree, inappropriate. I have no idea what the Persian title is (as you only provided a translation) so I was not able to verify the proper title from the Reza Abbasi Museum, the staff of which have an extensive knowledge of Isfahan school artworks and history.
Anyway, I have no problem with the painting itself, since I don't see anything 'homosexual' about it - Americans and northern Europeans also generally consider two men embracing and kissing each others cheeks in greetings (which is common in France, southern Europe, the Mediterrean, Middle East, and Central Asia) to be 'gay', perhaps due to latent insecurities or whatever - but I don't see its relevance to the Shah Abbas article since there is already another image there. How about starting an article stub for Mohammad Qasim, and include the painting there? SouthernComfort 08:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Haiduc, I'm sorry it took me so long to reply to your post. I started composing a reply last night, but accidentally erased it. I'm also sorry for not bringing you "into the loop." I didn't even know that you were the person who put the image up at Commons until Southern mentioned you at Zereshk's userpage.
-- Jpbrenna 17:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I received a message earlier about Wladislaus III of Poland, who is also in the Homosexual category at Commons, and whose presence there also struck me as a bit odd. I posted to a Polish history buff's page to see if he could clear things up (The Wikipedia article doesn't mention anything about it). Apparently no one dared speak about exactly what practices led to Wladyslaw's defeat at the hands of the Turks.
Looking at the artwork in that category, most of it is pretty clearly homosexual in content. The Greek pottery, for instance, shows unmistakable instances of the "love that dare not speak its name" speaking loud and clear. A few pictures there really stick out though -- The Two Lovers one being the most egregious example in my mind. I think this French art critic may need to go see an optometriste.
I think there is a bit of an Ace & Gary situation here. What would you think about creating an "Ambiguous Eroticism" category for art that is hard to categorize visually, and another category for historical figures of ambiguous sexuality? (I'm not sure what we would call the second one - any ideas?) -- Jpbrenna 00:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you are doing quite a few articles at the moment, some of which also touch transgender issues; and I noticed that you used " transsexual and transvestites" and " sex change" in this one. That's rather problematic, and I corrected that, but maybe you could simply make sure you use appropriate terminology yourself, namely:
Also, if appropriate, you could maybe just insert [[Category:Transgender in non-western cultures]] and/or a link to the List of transgender-related topics yourself. (See the respective articles for details, or let me know if you have any questions or are not sure how something should be phrased. -- AlexR 05:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I've added the "roughing out" as you've requested to the hallucinogenic drug talk page. Please check it out, thanks :) -- Thoric 22:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your discussion of Roth's views, but many issues remain:
Cheers, Jayjg (talk) 13:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Calm down. I simply corrected several errors - for example, it was during the reign of Shah Abbas II, not Abbas I, that Chehel Sotoon was first built. I also expanded the section on the artworks. And also this issue of 'koceks' - that's Ottoman related (a very, very different society), not Persian. There is no evidence of this in any of the Persian courts. Also you stated in the caption to the image that the dancers are male, while the musicians are female - that is not only erroneous (the dancers are clearly female, while the musicians and everyone else are male - but you see the females as actually being koceks), but speculative. If there is an art critic or historian that you want to quote (who wants to see something that really isn't there), by all means include it, as that is purely his or her opinion. SouthernComfort 01:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, Haiduc, I hope you do not think that I agree with Crash or am trying to turn the article into something that hides the issue of homosexual connotations -- I can assure you that I'm not. I think Crash's bias is showing, even though he denies having any; his actions have demonstrated that he is very eager to either remove any mention of homosexuality or to write something that discredits the source or disputes the claim although there's no way a casual reader might think that the article claims or implies that Batman and Robin are engaged in a homosexual relationship. I really, really dislike that.
That said... I'm not going to repeat myself because I'm sure you're getting sick of reading the same thing over and over, but in short there's just too much stuff in the article. It makes for bad reading, and that doesn't serve anyone's purpose. At the same time, because of readability issues, there's not enough space to really do a proper treatment of how much controversy there was about that, and how much of the Batman imagery lends itself to homosexual interpretation and/or fantasies, and how classic a figure Batman is on that front, etc. That, too, is a loss. I'm kind of hoping to fix both of these issues. If you have any suggestions on that front, please let me know.
I'm thinking that in the original Batman article, the issue could be touched on in the "Evolution of the concept" section which would need to be expanded a little to explain the change from the original, very dark figure to the more campy version, and that would be a natural point to bring up the imagery and Wertham shortly, along with a link to the more detailed version. "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary," says Wikipedia: Article size, and I certainly wouldn't dream of just removing all mentions of the issue under discussion.
Oh, and please note that I would also remove the "Batman in other media" section and include it in the new section as that, too, is a fairly long section that impacts negatively on readability, but would fit the new article's scope supremely well. -- Captain Disdain 01:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Take it up with me on User talk:Tznkai-- Tznkai 14:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Tznkai. If I see any more edits like this I will be most displeased. →Raul654 20:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I just thought you'd like to know since you were interested in the article on Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, I've also created a sub-page with a list of categories related to LGBT issues, including a category on People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality, and written several articles in that category. Exploding Boy 04:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, Haiduc, but this is a phrase that is less than ideal - not that I mind colorful writing, but when I saw the edit, I didn't know it, and I asked on #wikipedia (where quite a few native speakers of English were present) -- and nobody knew what it meant, either although one person knew at least where to look it up. [2] It seems to me that an expession unknown to so many people is better replaced with a less colorful, but at least understandable way of phrasing it. As for the accuracy question, I remember reading more than once that the general applicability of these ideas is questioned by several scholars these days. This not exactly being my field of greatest interest, I never bothered to make a note of these comments, but they exist; hence the comment. You might want to notice that I merely asked the question, not changed the text. Oh, and maybe you should stop jumping at people quite so harshly - you know, I don't mind, and I know you; but you might scare the newbies. -- AlexR 13:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Haiduc,
Things have settled down in my life and I am returning to Wikipedia to complete the Greek homosexuality articles I started earlier this year. How have you been? Have you read Dover's new revision about Greek homosexuality by chance? Apollomelos 00:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. My problems are not major. Basicly, there is actually very little written about her, this should be expanded. The incantations/Chants can be put into either Wikisource or Wikiquote, because I think they take up more space than the Info about her. It needs to wikified. I don't really know enough about her to do this. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 09:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
No objection to your recent update but did Ferrer really use the word emplace? That doesn't sound like a Freddy word, it's more like a David Dinkins word. patsw 04:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
There was no Ottoman Sultan who ruled as a caliph over "islam", simply none. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 08:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I have fixed the redirect loop problem by reverting your recent change. DES (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Haiduc. please see my comments on the bisexuality talk page. Thanks. -- Craig ( t| c) 05:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi; I noticed someone removed this section that I think you added to Mehmed II a few weeks ago:
This page, like a few others, is occasionally 'whitewashed' by editors who find it hard to believe discreditable anecdotes about some famous people, so on that basis I was going to restore your contribution. On the other hand, it's not something I have a citation for, and I suppose it could be controversial. Would you like to restore the passage and provide a reference for it? Tom Harrison (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I was in the process of writing my reasons for the tag on the talk page. Just finished when I saw your message. -- Brentt 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
You added Gaozu of Han and Emperor Hui of Han to the category. Since I think the historical evidence is, at best, speculative, I've reverted the additions. Please discuss if you have solid evidence. -- Nlu 05:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)