Jump to content

User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2005

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How and why[edit]

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)

Having been a student of Chogyam Trungpa I have heard him say precisely that. Let me think about rewording and I will repost something in keeping with the guidelines.
Cool, thanks. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hello[edit]

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.

I appreciate the heads up, but I am an incurable optimist and I think it will all work itself out. Somebody else has entered the debate on homophobia (today), so here comes yet more grist for the mill. Let's hope that more light will be generated than heat.Haiduc 04:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gay Template[edit]

Please vote your opinion of template:gay. Thanks. Apollomelos 19:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

links[edit]

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)


Michelangelo Buonarroti[edit]

Well done on Michelangelo's love life. So often that kind of thing is badly presented. --Wetman 02:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Haiduc

Erik Satie[edit]

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)

152.163.101.7[edit]

One more note. Anon user often fixes spelling mistakes after the deletion to try to deter reverting article to pre-vandalized state. 207.224.215.134 23:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Anon user finally starting to discuss revisions after warning. However I am not sure how discussion will result. 207.224.215.134
Anon user used anon ip User_talk:152.163.100.11 to discuss revisions on talk page. This other ip of the anon user appears to have been blocked in the past for vandalism. Still unsure if discussion will result in good ending. 207.224.215.134 23:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
User has reverted homosexuality six times in under 24 hours many of which we now consider to be vandalism since user is deleting factual information to insert his POV and censor all others. User:Haiduc , User:PaulHammond , and myself have been trying to keep page in good shape from this user's attack. However this user continues to defy. Can an admin please issue a very stern warning to user or block? Thank you. Apollomelos 22:40, 1 Feb 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 :

  • This is yet another disgusting attempt to misrepresent an important historical figure in hopes of advancing the homosexual agenda. Similar attempts were made to hijack the personal lives and reputations of everyone from Jesus Christ to Shakespeare to Alexander Hamilton to James Buchannan, Lincoln's predecessor in the White House, to Adolf Hitler and even Yasser Arafat. That this book attempts to besmirch Lincoln's repuation and character by falsely portraying him as gay is not surprising considering the book's author was both a homosexual himself and a research assistant to the discredited Alfred Kinsey. He's just trying to project his own sexual perversions onto one of the nation's greatest presidents.

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)

      • User also tried to influence voting on template:gay for deletion by attacking pages pretending to be a "gay activist" to provoke others to vote delete. Apollomelos 23:58, 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)

  • Yeah, you are welcome. On the homosexuality page it appears we have three major vandals who attack the page from time to time. One is from New Jersey, another Alberta, and the one above is from Virginia. I'd say the one from Virginia is the most destructive. I've asked for arbitration against him. 207.224.215.134 01:51, 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)

"Photo_of_magazine_page.jpg"[edit]

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 replied to your comments on User talk:Infrogmation. I hope we can clarify any confusion on this matter. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 04:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I replied to your latest message on my talk page. I'm glad to see that it looks like we can work this out. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Also posted on User_talk:Infrogmation: Glad to see that you two have a handle on the issue. I was the person who originally listed this image on IFD, but if we have a legitimate claim to use it based on case law then great. If either of you have the time, are their other similar case-law based precedents in non-US, english-speaking countries? Not that I'm sure it matters, but it'd be interesting to know. Thanks and good work on working through this. -SocratesJedi | Talk 23:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi, glad to see that you too are in agreement. I have no info on other countries, but if I was to make a guess about how to find out, I would find an expert in English common law, which may apply to other Commonwealth countries. But all this is but conjecture. Haiduc 23:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Storage[edit]

Homophobia[edit]

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)

I think I have located what Liberty Miller is using. One of his refs. listed is NARTH. With the ::quote: "the systems that provide the rational and operating instructions for that antipathy ::[against :gays]. These systems include beliefs about gender, morality, and danger by which ::homosexuality :and sexual minorities are defined as deviant, sinful, and threatening. Hostility, ::discrimination, :and violence are thereby justified as appropriate and even necessary."
I think what he is trying to do is re-define the term to NARTH's definition, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. See my talk on Homophobia for more. It appears he wishes to insert "rational" reasons for attacking homosexuals based on beliefs and "morality". Apollomelos 04:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Homosexuality 80.119.202.134 00:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Instant[edit]

Do you instant message? You seem like an interesting person to chat with. Apollomelos 13:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have added many pictures that might interest you to Wikipedia commons on homosexuality. And I have also added Afghanistan along with Pakistan to pederasty, you can see talk page for relevant citations. Apollomelos 15:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Middle East Pederasty[edit]

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)

Polemic[edit]

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)

Back[edit]

I am back to working on homosexuality related articles. I have decided I will first make detailed sections on homosexuality within some militaries then I will make one general article to include a little bit from each one. I have just begun one Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece article. Let me know if there is any inaccuracies since you are better versed in the ancient Greek than I. Apollomelos 19:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pausanias[edit]

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)

Ilias[edit]

You mean 24.130?

"My child, how long wilt thou devour thine heart with weeping and sorrowing, and wilt take no thought of food, neither of the couch? Good were it for thee even to have dalliance in a woman's embrace." (agathon de gunaiki per en philotêti misgesthai)

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)

Maximum light, minimum heat[edit]

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)

Pedastery Featured Article[edit]

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)

Sex in advertising[edit]

See Talk:Sex_in_advertising#For_haiduc. Cheers, Sam Spade 16:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ganymede with cockerel and hoop - Louvre.jpg[edit]

I've responded to your post at Wikipedia:Help desk#image upload problem. --David Iberri | Talk 17:44, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality / polemic[edit]

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)[reply]

Response on Dysprosia' talk page. Haiduc 01:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia/homosexuality[edit]

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)

I should learn to keep my big mouth shut, especially when I am out of my depth. However . . . I am not a physician, but conventional wisdom about pedophiles is that they are socially and sexually undevelopped idividuals who relate to children because they have no ability/interest to relate with adults. Especially the ones who employ violence. It is a dysfunction because it is in the DSM, no? But what does this have to do with paedosexual mores in other time periods? Are we going to go around and declare entire cultures disordered? Seems a bit high-handed to me. So if the Jews were normal, who legitimized sexual relations with three-year old girls (something frankly incomprehensible to me from any point of view) and the Melanesians were normal, who engaged adolescents to inseminate boys between the ages of seven and thirteen or so (counterintuitive, to say the least), we need to have some statement there about the cultural relativity of these diagnoses. One culture's madman is another's holy man, and so forth.
Does it problematize things? Is pedophilia healthy in America? The Saudis may think so, since the Americans grant erotic emancipation to 18 year olds, while in Saudi the age of consent is 21. Is pedophilia healthy in Canada? There they empower 14 year olds to make sexual decisions for themselves. Would you want your 14 y/o in the sexual arena? Would I want mine? Who gets to decide? It is all problematic. Healthy, to some extent, is a matter of consensus. Gays were sick for a hundred years. Now they are well. Tobacco addicts were well for centuries. Now they are sick. To some, a drug user is a spiritual seeker. To some, a sick criminal. I guess I have answered your questions with more questions. As for the Pedophilia article, some historical perspective can't hurt. Haiduc 01:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I asked is because this sort of thing (not necessarily with pedophilia) is one of the problem areas (or at least I think its a problem) with psychology. I'm pretty skeptical about our use of the word 'sick', especially when combined with 'mentally', and especially when we don't note that what we consider sick is perfectly normal in other societies. I'm not about to go and announce my devotion relativism across the board, but some degree of it would seem to be beneficial before we go nuts with prohibitions. Anyhow, thanks for the engaging talk and whatnot. -Seth Mahoney 02:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Shah Abbas[edit]

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)[reply]

Firstly, I deleted your comment because I was offended that you automatically assume I'm a Muslim, which I'm not. Secondly, you state that the title of the painting is Shah Abbas and a page - that's all very fine and well, but I fail to see how that went from that to Shah Abbas embracing his wine boy. It's not obvious to me that he is embracing the 'wine' boy. Maybe the boy isn't even a boy (or a 'male'), but a eunuch - after all, eunuchs were numerous in his court (to watch over the women in his harem) and the whole subject of eunuchs is related to transgenderism, not homosexuality - a world of difference between the two. Eunuchs were never treated like men, but as 'women.' Anyway, to use a painting to speculate that Shah Abbas was this or that as far as his sexuality is concerned is nonsense. I have absolutely no problem with using that painting in an article about Mohammad Qasim - though I would urge you to not speculate about Qasim's sexuality either. On Qasim information is very sparse, though I think there is a fair amount of material available in Persian and I can get to that later. This is not like the case of Abu Nuwas where there is a strong possibility (with at least some history to back up the claim) that he was gay or bisexual - I'm sure you read my opinon on that issue. Just out of curiosity, and humour me if you would, why the interest in pederasty to begin with? I can accept that *maybe*, just maybe, there is a slight possibility Shah Abbas was sexually ambiguous (perhaps bisexual) or was interested in his eunuchs (again, this is 100% speculative and hypothetical for the sake of argument in this discussion - nothing in history to even support the possibility and I would not support any speculation of this in WP) - but a pederast? SouthernComfort 12:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Censorship"[edit]

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.

  • I did not "censor" your contributions. I removed one of three images from a subcategory in a very large category at Commons because I think its membership in that category is highly questionable. I am not trying to "censor the past" or hide the fact that people have been creating homoerotic art for millenia. If I wanted to do that, I would have deleted all the unambiguously homoerotic art on that page.
  • Check out this similar painting by Abbasi. In it, the male figure is clearly groping a female figure's breasts. You cite one expert as to the ID of the figures in the other painting. I'm not sure that one scholar's opinion makes a scholarly consensus. I think that in a visit to the library I could find scholars who differ. You admit that you had doubts about it yourself. The status of the painting in question as homosexual art is ambiguous at best, which is why I removed it -- and it only.
  • I made no edits at Wikipedia, I just asked a native Persian speaker to read an inscription that I could not, to see if it had any information on the artists' intent. Maybe Southern or someone else changed some things here, but I didn't.

--Jpbrenna 17:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. As for the matter of the "Two Lovers" picture, I think that until those putative scholars are found, it would be more correct to leave the picture as it was. (And if and when they are found, it would be far more instructive to our readers to leave the image together with the conflicting points of view, than to remove the image and take sides with this or that faction.) As for the image, I would like to think that the scholars who have used it as an example of homoerotic affection have gone through the same process of doubt and investigation that we are going through here. If there are other views out there (not our own!), let's bring them to bear. But it is not ours to second-guess published academics, a true case of "Sutor, ne ultra crepidam."
The visual conflation of the male and the female form in Islamic art is a fascinating topic, and I think that it goes a long way towards explaining both the ambiguity of the work we are looking at, and the mindset of the pre-modern Iranians, whose enjoyment of the male adolescent form was seen as not in any way impinging upon their masculinity, but quite the other way around. Haiduc 02:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. I think I better understand where you are coming from and what your intentions are and in retrospect I should have been more communicative. That said, I have no problem with referencing academics who have speculated this or that, so long as it is not stated as fact. In regards to Shah Abbas (and Reza Abbasi and Mohammad Qasim), there is nothing in history to support anything about their sexual background (aside from references to Shah Abbas and the women of his harem). As far as I know, no scholars that I know about (historians of the Safavi period) have speculated anything about Shah Abbas or his artisans.
The question is, if an art critic, for example, interprets a painting of Shah Abbas (or any other figure) to be homoerotic and suggests that perhaps the figure involved might have been homosexual or bisexual, does this belong in the main article, or in an article specific to the artist in question? I feel that it would belong in the latter category. If a historian (not an art critic or historian of art history) were to speculate something about Shah Abbas specifically, that's one thing and I would have no problem with referencing his or her opinions in the article. I hope you can understand where I am coming from as regards to this issue. SouthernComfort 03:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just got your message and have noticed your changes to the Shah Abbas article and I think it all looks good. Though I'm not sure how Thomas Herbert's obversations relate to homosexuality per se, but I'll trust your judgement since you're not exactly implying anything about Shah Abbas either. Basically with what you've added, is that the 'Islamic' rules of his court were very much relaxed, which I don't think can be disputed. He was not exactly a model Muslim, after all (none of the so-called 'Muslim' Shahs were - this goes to the very heart of conflict between Iran and Islam which continues to rage on today). At any rate, I'm glad you were willing to clarify things. Thanks. SouthernComfort 01:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you also, for your willingness to explore the issues. Haiduc 01:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

I am a bit out of my depth here, my modus operandi for WP work is to study scholarship on a particular topic and then to condense it. The problem with the ambiguous images is that their interpretation is factored on a thorough familiarity with cultural clues, a facility I do not possess. I am sure that a Persian of the period could look at an image that you and I might find ambivalent and immediately recognize the intent of the artist. Clothing, hair styles, location, artifacts, a universe of clues to which, sad to say, I am blind. Have you looked at the Japanese pictures of men with youths? Most of them could be safely displayed in your average office, since it takes an expert (or a native) to recognize the figures in the flamboyant kimonos as boys and not girls.
So, to answer your suggestion, I would say that each image that is being challenged should be researched, and the results of that research should be included in its page and wherever else it may be appropriate. But I would not want to presume myself an arbiter of other's judgement, as it would only reveal my ignorance. As a beginning, here are Saslow's comments on that puzzling painting by Abbasi [generalizing]: "It is sometimes hard to tell the gender of his androgynous adolescents locked in sinuous embrace, but that ambiguity is part of the message: both beardless boys and smooth-cheeked females would have delighted male viewers without violating the taboo against mature men taking on the passive role. Color plate 12 [our image], in which a lavishly dressed couple nuzzle affectionately, typefies Persian art's lyrical sweetness, gentle mysticism and emotional subtlety-all rendered more appealing by the delicate colors, glimmering gold background, and poetic calligraphy." (Pictures and Passions, Putnam, NY, 1999) Not a word about how he (and others) arrived at that determination, and he is not interested in discussing the topic. Haiduc 00:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kocek and related[edit]

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:

  • in everything pre-20th century, "transsexual" is highly problmatic, and in any case it is a rather limited term, involving an expressed with for genital reassignment surgery in most definitions, and hence inappropriate for times when those were not available at all,
  • transvestism is highly problematic anyway, see the article, if it is solely a matter of cross-dressing, then cross-dressing should be used,
  • when there is reason for the assumption that it was not in all cases just about clothes, your safest bet is probably using transgender since that covers a very wide field, and
  • there is no sex change in humans, the term is simply wrong. It's either a "Change of gender role", or Gender reassignment therapy, or something similar, but not sex change.

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)[reply]

Hallucinogenic drug article title NPOV dispute[edit]

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)

N. Roth and homoerotic poetry[edit]

I appreciate your discussion of Roth's views, but many issues remain:

  • Is it reasonable to conflate alleged homoeroticism (or perhaps even pedophilia) with homosexual activity? Discussing the sexual attractiveness of young men in an article on homosexuality might well be seen as offensive.
  • Is this a notable? Here I mean notable in two senses:
    1. Was this phenomenon widespread or extremely limited? From what I can see it appears to have been limited to a small region and timeframe.
    2. Are Roth's views notable? Are they generally accepted, or is his view unique?
  • Does it belong in the main article? The information might not be notable at all, or might be notable enough for the detailed article, but is it a significant enough phenomenon and view that it belongs in what is, after all, a very brief summary?
  • If it is indeed signifiant, should it be summarized in the main article before it is even mentioned in the detailed article? I would suggest that information should always start in the detailed article, and then be summarized in the main article if warranted.

Cheers, Jayjg (talk) 13:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chehel Sotoon[edit]

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)

Abbas was not a Turk. He was an Azeri - a very different people (see Azeris). Only pan-Turkists believe that Azeris and Turks are one and the same. The distinctions between the Ottomans and Persians are very clear and for you to suggest otherwise is absurd. That's a distinctly Western Orientalist viewpoint, which views the various nations of the Middle East/Central Asia as all being the same (and other such prejudicial nonsense). I'd like to think that you are intelligent enough to not subscribe to such absurdist notions. Just because the word has Persian origins doesn't justify the connection you are making - the Turks have borrowed extensively from Arabic and Persian, and the Persian language has borrowed much from Arabic. But a Persian word of Arabic origin will often have a very different meaning. And likewise with Turkish words of Persian origin.
And don't accuse me of "strong-arming" - I don't like to see people co-opting our cultural heritage for their own POV ends (which borders on chauvinism). As for the painting itself, instead of asking me for evidence, why don't you reveal yours? I made no objection to your recent edits concerning Shah Abbas and Qasim since they are attributed (to a Western historian). In Iran no one even has ever equated this art with so-called "homoeroticism". You probably think this is due to cultural prejudice, but in Iran it's a non-issue as the paintings are simply not viewed that way. I could track down all the exact Persian titles of the various paintings, but in all likelihood the titles themselves are ambiguous (but then again, maybe not). If you have that much of a problem with seeing the dancers as female, I suggest removing any reference to gender. You are also free to add whatever references you want to support this idea of "koceks." The kocek article doesn't even mention anything about this activity in Iran and unless you can come up with some references to justify a connection, I suggest removing the Chehel Sotoon painting from there. SouthernComfort 03:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Batman thing[edit]

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)

I'm working on the first draft now -- I'm still figuring out the exact shape it'll take (the gay bits are pretty easy as their basics fairly well covered in the article as it is; expanding the other sections takes a lot more work, since a treatment of Batman as a part of the mainstream, not-directly-comics-related popular culture doesn't yet exist), but I'm hoping to get it in decent enough a shape to be shared with the rest of the world soon. I'm really going to need feedback there, and I look forward to what you'll have to say once reach a point where it resembles an article rather than a bunch of random ideas. I'll let you know -- won't be too long, I think. =) -- Captain Disdain 02:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you've got a problem...[edit]

Take it up with me on User talk:Tznkai--Tznkai 14:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Tznkai. If I see any more edits like this I will be most displeased. →Raul654 20:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Re: your comments on my talk page[edit]

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)

Re:The archaic editor[edit]

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)[reply]

Greek homosexuality[edit]

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)[reply]

Msg on yr page. Haiduc 01:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sabina[edit]

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)

Rudy[edit]

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)[reply]

Sultan as Caliph[edit]

There was no Ottoman Sultan who ruled as a caliph over "islam", simply none. --Irishpunktom\talk 08:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine as it is. The point, I assume, trying to be made is made, right? The Footnote that you added doe not seem to be working, is that a link to a book or internet site? I'll try fix it if you let me know! --Irishpunktom\talk 14:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmud of Ghazni[edit]

I have fixed the redirect loop problem by reverting your recent change. DES (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so what you want to do is move the article back to a title it used to have, is that correct? This will require some admin assistance. Please list the page at requested moves and start a discussion on the talk page (Talk:Mahmud of Ghazni) about the reasons for this move. If there is a consensus, or at least no objections, an admin will help with the technical details. DES (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits of the "Bisexuality" article[edit]

Hi Haiduc. please see my comments on the bisexuality talk page. Thanks. --Craig (t|c) 05:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you Haiduc. I appreciate your engaging me constructively on this. I think we made the article better. And thanks for the references; I'll be looking for them. --Craig (t|c) 00:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmed II and the fall of Constantinople[edit]

Hi; I noticed someone removed this section that I think you added to Mehmed II a few weeks ago:

During the siege of Constantinople he promised his men "the women and boys of the city." Upon is conquest, he ordered the 14 year old son of the Grand Duke Loukas Notara be brought to him for his personal pleasure. When the father refused to render his son to such a fate he had them both decapitated on the spot.

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)[reply]


Bison Article[edit]

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)[reply]

Category:Historical pederastic relationships[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haiduc/Archives_2005&oldid=1140580195"