Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 8

message: I don't see the point of leaving these links around to be argued over.  The organisations in question are religious in nature and of limited interest and marginal influence (to put it mildly) in the fields of sociology and sexology.  The links exist, it seems to me, primarily as advertsements for the religious interests with which they are affiliated. I've removed the section. We have articles on such organisations and a "See also" link to such articles would be better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
:I would agree: this page already links to the ex-gay page. Axon 4 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)
I agree that ex-gay is the appropriate place for links to those websites. Here they just look like advertisements for a particular point of view which is primarily derived from religion, which is not the subject of this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)
::I'd like to apologize on behalf of religion for our errant brothers and sisters, and also suggest we vet all of the external links on this page. On the other hand, I tend to have that opinion about most external links.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)
In reference to Tony Sidaway, Axon, given that the other links are for organizations which each likewise present a "particular point of view", there is no justification for deleting any organization which presents an alternate point of view. --66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
: (I have refactored the above on the principle of Remove personal attacks)
: The principle of NPOV is to represent all significant points of view on a subject.  We've done that by describing the viewpoints of various religions and providing a link to Ex-gay.  We don't do that by providing advertising links to groups that are trying to convert people to their religion.
: Courage describes itself as an apostolate and Exodus describes itself as a ministry.  They couldn't be plainer, they're avowedly religious organisations, not secular ones.  They're inappropriate for an article about homosexuality in a secular encyclopedia,  but are appropriate for articles on such organisations.
: There really isn't a debate going on over this, it's just a few religious organisations that currently find their views largely unrepresented in secular thinking.   Artificially inserting links to them doesn't change that.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)
 
::Citing Haiduc's comment is not a "personal attack" against him - if anything, it was his comment which made the personal attack by disparaging a religion he doesn't like. There was no legitimate reason to censor most of my remarks, as anyone can see by looking at the original via the edit history for this talk page.  66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 02:38 (UTC) 
::On another note: since there's a "Reform Judaism" link, you can hardly claim that these others are being removed because religious organizations are 'out of place' in this article. If all religious organizations are to be excluded, then why is this not being done in the case of liberal religious organizations?  66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)
:::Despite the common opinion that polls are evil, I think this is an appropriate time to gauge where opnions lie.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)
::::I'm sure I could find many Christians willing to vote on my side, but that would be silly. Polls are not meaningful because they merely reflect whoever happens to be checking the article's discussion page. 66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)
:::::Likewise, I can find many Christians willing to vote opposite. Thats not the point. I'm using the quick poll to see if we have (near) consensus (of wikipedians) or not.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
::::::No, it's merely gauging the opinion of the people who happen to edit this specific article, most of whom tend to be gay activists. I could always round up other "Wikipedians" willing to vote for the opposite point of view, but that would merely spark a "poll war" as both groups tried to recruit voters for their side - to say nothing of the "sockpuppets" that both sides would inevitably employ. That's why polls are not meaningful. 66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)
I must say, I find the last post rather offensive.  I also find this quickpoll pointless and objectionable, not least because it's poorly constructed; it would be far more productive, and any decision(s) reached would have far more weight, if we discussed the issue and reached a consensus.  Exploding Boy July 5, 2005 19:55 (UTC)  Added: having taken another look, I'd add that there are now far too many external links given, most of them with only the most tenuous link to the topic.  Exploding Boy July 5, 2005 19:57 (UTC)
:Exactly how do you believe it could be better constructed? The reason I made it was to see if there is a near consensus among editors. If there is, then discussion becomes simpler. If there isn't, discussion is still needed. I'd also like to point out that managed to have an edit war over these external links. I repeat, an EDIT WAR over EXTERNAL LINKS. Personally, I've found a very useful tool for saying where consensus lies, or is closest to is to take a survey, a poll if you prefer. Again, I am guaging opinions. I do not have the aim nor the ability to declare policy over this article. At any rate. I did this in good faith, and if you have a better solution, by all means go for it.--Tznkai 5 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)
===Quickpoll===
Is having a wikilink to ex-gay sufficient, or should we have external links to these groups?
Yes ex-gay is sufficient
:# --Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)
:# -- AlexR 5 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)
:# -- Axon 5 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
:# -- Seth Mahoney July 5, 2005 17:34 (UTC)
:# --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
No we should have external links to these groups
I do not wish to vote for either option because of the reasons stated here
:With the recent edit comments by 67.41.236.211 calling me a "wacko" and an "idiot", this debate has now degenerated a step further.
:For whatever it's worth, I don't personally subscribe to the "reparative therapy" idea - in fact the traditional Christian view has always been that same-sex attraction is merely one of countless sinful tendencies that we all have in various combinations, and these tendencies should be resisted by a disciplined life, not therapy (a modern practice). Nevertheless, the people at "Courage" and other such groups are genuinely trying to save souls, and they have kept going despite all the abuse they take from the gay community.
:But this is not a debate over the theory itself, but merely a matter of whether to include opposing points of view or not. These links had been allowed previously; I believe it was my friend 67 who removed them, sparking the current edit war.  66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)
Here is an excellent example of your behavior: 30 June 2005 18:43 - You re-insert the links, then you refuse to discuss them, engaging in edit wars instead until 5 July 2005 00:38, five days later. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)
::Well when you revert an article (six times in 24 hours) and refuse to discuss why on the talk page (until recently) you are seen as an internet troll. Not to mention the issue of these links had already been agreed upon several months ago. Rarely do you engage in civility, most the time you edit war instead, usually for several days. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)
:::And I did not remove them though I do agree with those who did. I get tired of edit warring with you, most the time its useless as you return in a month or so. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:37 (UTC)
::::Needless to stay I decry your generalizations of homosexuals as some sort of political activist. "gay activists" Are you recruiting for the heterosexual lifestyle? It's absurd. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)
:::::If the above comments were directed at me, I will merely note that the repeated removal of valid material, while using terms like "village idiot" and "wacko" to describe your opponent, would generally be seen as "troll" activity. I, on the other hand, was attempting to restore material that was being deleted, and I have never engaged in uncivil discourse, much less the use of invectives. 66.216.226.34 6 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)
: I sympathise with 66.216.226.34.  We don't call one anothers whackos and village idiots on Wikipedia.  Also I'd like to point out that quickpolls are not binding--the proposal failed.  We make decisions by discussing and editing.
: I agree that the people at Courage and whatnot do seem to care about people's souls and whatnot.  However this is a secular encyclopedia, and homosexuality is not defined in terms of the soul in secular discussions, although in a religious context, depending on the religion, it would have a place.  We already link to Ex-gay (I think I recently inserted the link myself and I hope it survived) and we note religious attitudes to homosexuality in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
::Was there any decision on this topic? Should we remove the links to Courage and Exodus? Axon 18:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links to Exodus-style organisations

message: Is having a wikilink to ex-gay sufficient, or should we have external links to these groups?
Yes ex-gay is sufficient
:# --Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)
:# -- AlexR 5 July 2005 07:02 (UTC)
:# -- Axon 5 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
:# -- Seth Mahoney July 5, 2005 17:34 (UTC)
:# --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
No we should have external links to these groups
I do not wish to vote for either option because of the reasons stated here
:With the recent edit comments by 67.41.236.211 calling me a "wacko" and an "idiot", this debate has now degenerated a step further.
:For whatever it's worth, I don't personally subscribe to the "reparative therapy" idea - in fact the traditional Christian view has always been that same-sex attraction is merely one of countless sinful tendencies that we all have in various combinations, and these tendencies should be resisted by a disciplined life, not therapy (a modern practice). Nevertheless, the people at "Courage" and other such groups are genuinely trying to save souls, and they have kept going despite all the abuse they take from the gay community.
:But this is not a debate over the theory itself, but merely a matter of whether to include opposing points of view or not. These links had been allowed previously; I believe it was my friend 67 who removed them, sparking the current edit war.  66.216.226.34 5 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)
Here is an excellent example of your behavior: 30 June 2005 18:43 - You re-insert the links, then you refuse to discuss them, engaging in edit wars instead until 5 July 2005 00:38, five days later. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)
::Well when you revert an article (six times in 24 hours) and refuse to discuss why on the talk page (until recently) you are seen as an internet troll. Not to mention the issue of these links had already been agreed upon several months ago. Rarely do you engage in civility, most the time you edit war instead, usually for several days. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)
:::And I did not remove them though I do agree with those who did. I get tired of edit warring with you, most the time its useless as you return in a month or so. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:37 (UTC)
::::Needless to stay I decry your generalizations of homosexuals as some sort of political activist. "gay activists" Are you recruiting for the heterosexual lifestyle? It's absurd. 67.41.236.211 6 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)
:::::If the above comments were directed at me, I will merely note that the repeated removal of valid material, while using terms like "village idiot" and "wacko" to describe your opponent, would generally be seen as "troll" activity. I, on the other hand, was attempting to restore material that was being deleted, and I have never engaged in uncivil discourse, much less the use of invectives. 66.216.226.34 6 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)
: I sympathise with 66.216.226.34.  We don't call one anothers whackos and village idiots on Wikipedia.  Also I'd like to point out that quickpolls are not binding--the proposal failed.  We make decisions by discussing and editing.
: I agree that the people at Courage and whatnot do seem to care about people's souls and whatnot.  However this is a secular encyclopedia, and homosexuality is not defined in terms of the soul in secular discussions, although in a religious context, depending on the religion, it would have a place.  We already link to Ex-gay (I think I recently inserted the link myself and I hope it survived) and we note religious attitudes to homosexuality in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
::Was there any decision on this topic? Should we remove the links to Courage and Exodus? Axon 18:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quickpoll

message: State-sponsored violence against gay men and lesbians occurs largely throughout those cultures under the sway of the Christian, Judaic and (to a lesser extent) Islamic religions.
:Need a citation using those exact words, or need a refrence and we'll refactor to de-pov--Tznkai 15:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the above section requires citation, but we should not remove the link to Violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered in the meantime. Could we work it back into the article for the meantime? Axon 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sticking it in see also in the meantime--Tznkai 14:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be careful with the citation game, since if that was required of every sentence in the wikipedia all writing would grind to a stop. If you have a problem with the historicity of this statement explain what it is. Here is a "softer" formulation: Historically, state-sponsored repression of gay men and lesbians has been documented primarily in those cultures under the sway of the Christian, Judaic and Islamic religions. Haiduc 20:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with the sentence, I even agree with it, I just agree that it also requires backing up with citation. Axon 07:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Under the sway of" is pejoritive and POV, unless of course, you can provide me with a citation. I couldn't think of a way to NPOV it myself, so I removed it under WP:NOR. Note, that I don't disagree with the statement in general, but strong claims should have strong proof.--Tznkai 14:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Removed undersuspicion of breaching WP:NOR, need a refrence.--Tznkai 15:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not write that so I do not have references. However I remember reading similar material over the years. If you are not familiar with the concepts (and the ones in the above paragraph) I have to wonder about your knowledge of this topic. It is not fair of you to force other editors to spend time familiarizing you with material you should have studied before attempting to edit an article such as this one. Especially when you are taking the liberty of removing text and then questioning it, rather than the other way around, which seems less high-handed and more considerate of others' work. Haiduc 21:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof/strong claims require strong proof. This is not a fact reporting, this is a social science analysis here.--Tznkai 14:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sections 

message: The attitude of Early Christians toward homosexuality has been much debated. One side has cited denunciations of sodomy in the writings of the era, such as in the Didache and in the writings of Saint Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and in doctrinal sources such as the "Apostolic Constitutions" - for example, Eusebius of Caesarea's statement which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men". Others claim that passages have been mistranslated or they do not refer to homosexuality.  Some Christians maintain that the Bible, principally in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, denounces homosexual activity as a sin, in the eyes of God an "abomination" — a term used to describe a wide range of offenses, from incest and bestiality (sex with animals) to the eating of prohibited foods.
Among the  prominent Christian figures known to have had same-sex relationships, Richard I of England had a relationship with King Philip II of France,  Ralph Archbishop of Tours had his lover John installed as bishop of Orleans with agreement of both the King of France and Pope Urban II, and a number of popes and cardinals, especially during the Renaissance, also shared the popular tastes for handsome youths, so prevalent at the time in northern Italy.  
Other Christians of the time were critical of homosexuality. St. Thomas Aquinas denounced sodomy as second only to bestiality (sex with animals) as the worst of all sexual sins, and St. Hildegard's book "Scivias", which was officially approved by Pope Eugenius III, related visions in which same-sex relations are condemned as "perverted forms".
This entire section needs to be rewriten. Ambigious pronouns, confusing structure, over wikilinking, lists of names, incoherent writing, and flat out confusing passage.--Tznkai 15:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section in need of rewrite: Christianity 

message: Little is known about the origin of the competing term homophilia, except it is entirely Greek (homo + philia, meaning "love"), and it only achieved currency in the Scandinavian countries. The term appears to be the same in all of the Scandinavian languages - homofilie.
Note that homofil ("homophile") is a noun, whereas homosexual is an adjective. One can be "homosexual," or one can be "'a homosexual man" or "a homosexual woman," but one cannot be - at least grammatically - "a homosexual."
In pan-European jurisprudence, and the individual laws of most European nations (except the Scandinavian countries), "homosexual" and "homosexuality" typically refer only to men, except when used with the modifiers "woman" or "female." Otherwise, "homosexual women" and "female homosexuality" are usually called "lesbian" and "lesbianism" in European case law, parliamentary resolutions, etc.
For reasons I do not know, this section has come under dispute. Last I checked, this was nearly consensus. I suspect it may have more to do with the editors than the passage itself, but please go ahead and hash it out.--Tznkai 14:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see a lot of problems here--Tznkai 14:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted passage 

message: User:66.216.226.34 and User:67.41.236.211, let me begin by acknowledging you are probably both fine editors and fine people. That having been said, the interaction the two of you are having is causing severe problems to this article, not the least of which is your constant back and forth arguing over this talk page. I suggest the two of you shape up your interactions with eachother, and stop reverting eachother. I don't care, and I doubt anyone else cares who started it, or whos worse, and whos better, and what "side" you're on or your particular POVs on Life the Universe and Everything.
This has got to stop, and it will stop, either by your own will, or through dispute resolution. I will not play favorites, and you can expect RFC's on both of you if you don't find a way to get along enough to not take down the spirit of goodwill in this project, specificly, this article.--Tznkai 14:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  66.216.226.34 and 67.41.236.211 

message: This article is heavily POV - the pro-homosexual ideology is inescapable.
:Please sign your posts by adding -~~~~ at the end.  -Seth Mahoney 02:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:I've just been reviewing this article for bias, and thusfar I have not found problems of that nature. Objective information that disagrees with one's own expectations and values can appear biased, so perhaps I am failing to see subjective statements. Without specifics to go on, however, enlightenment on my part may be much delayed.  Please provide specific complaints. 金 (Kim) 05:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, a specific: " Only a minority of people were found (5–10%) to be exclusively heterosexual..." 220.8.135.26 12:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly is reporting the results of Kinsey's study breaching WP:NPOV? --Tznkai 14:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV, "pro-homosexual ideology"

message: Having received from you on my discussion page the following message:
:If you've got a problem...
:Take it up with me on User talk:Tznkai--Tznkai 14:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a problem with particular edits, discuss them here. If you have a problem with me, take it up with my on my talk page. If you think my behavior is a public matter, feel free to file an RFC against me. The Christianity section is incredibly confusing. I'm planning on rewriting it myself once I figure out what it says. Don't misunderstand, I work here on the talk page to discuss, explain, and get input for my edits. In no way, am I or any other editor (not under sanction anyway) required to ask your, or any one elses permission to make changes to articles.--Tznkai 19:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: There is a difference, albeit subtle, between seeking consensus and asking permission. As for the Christianity section, I would not call it confusing (I am not confused in the least by it) as much as I would call it disjointed and lacking in continuity. It will benefit from having the touch of a single editor from beginning to end. I would do it myself but it is not my specialty, so I am glad you will take it on. In the mean time, however, something is much better than nothing, and I will replace it where it belongs. I look forward to reading your version when it is ready. Haiduc 01:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I disagree, Tznkai. 

message: The general Wikipedia standard is that an article that was begun using British spellings should continue to use "colour," etc., and articles that began with American English should continue to use that system. I haven't put this article through a spell-checker yet, but it appears that we have at least two systems competing.  Unfortunately there is no established custom for "branding" an article with respect to the preferred spelling system, so we will have to muddle through. Most writers probably unconsciously use their own accustomed spellings.  金 (Kim) 05:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling question

message: One passage leaves me guessing as to what it is intended to mean. Perhaps the person who wrote it can clarify:
Societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships, reflected in the attitude of the state and the church, have varied over the centuries, from requiring all males to engage in relationships, to casual integration, through acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin, repressing it through law enforcement and judicial mechanisms, to proscribing it under penalty of death.
What is "casual integration"? Casual racial integration, casual integration of homosexuals with heterosexuals (live in same apartment complex or something like that), or what?
Also, it would be helpful to have citations for claims such as the idea that some societies require all individuals to engage in same-sex relationships.  金 (Kim) 01:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integration and homosexuality??? 

message: The article has:
:Despite the emollience of attitudes towards homosexuality,
"Emollience" is not a word in my copy of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language." If the person who wrote this sentence reads this, or if anybody else is sure of what the intended meaning was, please edit the sentence.  金 (Kim) 03:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A non-word. What is the article trying to say? 

message: ===RFC, Kinsey in intro===
Bmicomp filed an RFC on the article, stating: "The "Kinsey Reports" reference citing that he found a 10% of people are homosexual, a study whose methodology is reguarded by all as highly flawed. The issue is whether mentioning this study in the intro as is, is NPOV."
The sentence reads "Starting with Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s, anthropological and scientific research points to "
I found no other place to comment so am starting a new subsection. Comments below.
-----
It seems an odd construction simply because it says "starting with" but doesn't mention anyone after Kinsey. If a brief history of the majory changes in scientific views towards homosexuality were listed, then it would seem to fit. (No one disagrees that Kinsey's assertions all remain standing, correct?). Otherwise, since no other specific research/scientist is mentioned, then perhaps specific mention to Kinsey ought to be removed and an overview of the current scientific view of homosexuality ought be put in its place. FuelWagon 21:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC, Kinsey Reports

message: Bmicomp filed an RFC on the article, stating: "The "Kinsey Reports" reference citing that he found a 10% of people are homosexual, a study whose methodology is reguarded by all as highly flawed. The issue is whether mentioning this study in the intro as is, is NPOV."
The sentence reads "Starting with Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s, anthropological and scientific research points to "
I found no other place to comment so am starting a new subsection. Comments below.
-----
It seems an odd construction simply because it says "starting with" but doesn't mention anyone after Kinsey. If a brief history of the majory changes in scientific views towards homosexuality were listed, then it would seem to fit. (No one disagrees that Kinsey's assertions all remain standing, correct?). Otherwise, since no other specific research/scientist is mentioned, then perhaps specific mention to Kinsey ought to be removed and an overview of the current scientific view of homosexuality ought be put in its place. FuelWagon 21:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC, Kinsey in intro

message: FuelWagon wrote:  "I found no other place to comment so am starting a new subsection."  It appears that the originator of the RfC forgot to insert a section in the talk page about the RfC.  I see that the statement referring to Kinsey has been revised to cite sources arguing that it was flawed.  I would recommend that the paragraph in the introduction be summarized as a statement that studies on the prevalance of homosexuality in humans and in animals have typically resulted in estimates between 4% and 10%, and move the details into sections.  That is my recommendation.  The article has been improved and can be improved more.
Since homosexuality is a controversial issue, presenting neutral point of view is inherently difficult.  It appears to me to be a good mostly neutral article that is developing well.  Maybe someone should request peer review, if that has not already been done.
Robert McClenon 22:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another comment on the RfC

message: This article is periodically the target of editors claiming that "lists are bad." Here is an attempt to condense the topics of the list into a prose paragraph. I removed the third category since it is included in the almost mentioned in the first category, and seems redundant and a case of hair-splitting.
:Since its coining, the term homosexuality has aquired multiple meanings. In the original sense, it refers to a sexual orientation characterized by aesthetic attraction, romantic love, and sexual desire exclusively or almost exclusively for members of the same sex or gender identity. It can also refer to sexual relations with another of the same sex or gender regardless of one's sexual orientation or self-identification. Any objections to my posting this to the article? Haiduc 01:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, scrapping the third one is a bad idea - there is a difference between behaviour and identifying as - a vast difference, actually. You might wish to refer to previous discussions about the definition. -- AlexR 04:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since its coining, the term homosexuality has aquired multiple meanings. In the original sense, it refers to an innate sexual orientation characterized by aesthetic attraction, romantic love, and sexual desire exclusively or primarily for members of the same sex or gender identity. It can also refer to the manifestation of that orientation in the sexual identity of an individual, an identity which may or may not be at odds with that person's sexual behavior. Finally, it can refer to sexual relations with another of the same sex or gender regardless of one's sexual orientation or self-identification.I think I see what I missed. Is this what you meant? Haiduc 10:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro rewrite 

message: -	In particular, The Knights Templar of medieval times were disbanded under a shourd of secrecy at least partially as a result of confessions extracted from members under torture of homosexual conduct advocated by the organization. The Knights Templar, a Christian military organization that protected proselytizers from bandits while travelling to distant countries, were brought to an end on the 13th of October 1307. Philip the Fair, the scheming grandson of St. Louis of France, ordered the arrest of all members of The Knights Templar under a slew of questionable and wholly trumped-up charges. The royalty of France felt intimidated by the Templars growing power and felt that the fraternal society had come to the end of its usefullness. Along with the accusation of buggery, the other charges against the Templar were also heretical and defamatory, such as "denying Christ" and "spitting on the cross". It is said that when his supposed confession of homosexuality was read before him before a trial with Pope Clement the Fifth presiding, Jaques de Molay, the leader of the Templar, flew into such a rage that the Pope ordered him to control his language.	 
-		 
-	After denying again in his last words to the gathered crowd the heretical crime of homosexuality, Jaques de Molay was burned at the stake the 18th of March, 1314 alongside Geoffrey de Charney -- second in command of the Templar. Both men were positioned over the fire deliberately in such a manner so that their feet and genitals would burn first. The Knights Templar: A History And Mythos Of The Knights Templar -- templarhistory.com and Jacques de Molay and the Shroud of Turin -- UK BBC
Anon removed this with the reason that this article should not have extensive history of the Knights Templar. I agree, but when removing sections, one should always save the text somewhere. Perhaps we can cut this to two sentances and restore those?--Tznkai 17:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exised Section 

message: Uh. Are all these pictures needed? I just find it a bit much personally to have tons of pictures of anything. Most of them don't seem to be adding to the article much.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
:They were used here in a feeble attempt to circumvent the bad prose, probably. If you would like to discuss here particular pictures which you feel do not add to the content then we could go further with this. Haiduc 8 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)
::My listing of the pictures and my thoughts follows. If I say "relevance?" I know it is relevant in general, but how is it speciifcily useful, notable, and informative isntead of just taking space?
1. Picture one of Zephyrus and Hyacinthus is without context and large
2. Karl-Maria Kertbeny is not important enough to homosexuality as a whole to have an uninformativie picture.
3. "Researchers tend to find many gay and lesbians living in enclaves..." Is fine.
4. "Squawk and Milou" also fine. but I like penguins.
5. "The rainbow flag is widely used as the symbol of gay pride.": Fine.
6. Homosexuality laws of the world: Fine
7. Same-sex unions in North America: Put it in the same-sex marriage article.
8. Same-sex unions in Europe: Put it in the same-sex marriage article
9. "A soldier joins gay pride events in Jerusalem, Israel":  Not sure why this is important, but its not a bad picture
10. Burning of Sodomites: One or two of these may be pertinent.
11. The Fleet Is In: Relevance?
12. David and Jonathan: Discussed adnasuem elsewhere. Leave it for the main christianity and homosexuality article Redundancy with Burning
13. "Youth seeking his father's advice on choosing a lover": Relevance?
14. "Köçek with tambourineEntertainers and sex workers,": Large picture. Relevance?
15. "Ancient Greek representation of male love.": Relevance?
16. ""The Gay Deceiver"": Relevance
17. "Young men sipping tea, reading poetry, and making love" Relevance?
18. "Dance to the Berdache": Intresting, may be more appropriate elsewhere.
19. "Samurai and kagema": do we really need a picture for each?
20. "Roman man and youth in bed" see above.
21. "Shah Abbas I of Iran embracing his wine boy" relevance?
22. "Consecration of the Anglican Communion’s first openly noncelibate gay Bishop," Very notable. Tiny thumbnail. Keep.
23. "An estimated 700,000 participants (AFP) march through Paris, France, chanting "Marriage, Adoption, and Equality" during 2005 Gay Pride festivities." Sure.
24. "An example of Japanese Yaoi." Relevance?
Can ANYONE give me a decent reason why we have 24 pictures? Surely some of these can go.--Tznkai 8 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)
:Tznkai, in the first place I take exception to yout position that "fewer pictures is better." It strikes me as indefensible. The point is communication, and pictures are an exceptionally effective tool. That being said, there may be some redundancies. The three maps side by side are annoying. But until someone with the requisite skills (you?) produces a unified world map, I think they should stay. As for the others, each one illustrates a particular aspect of the discussion, in context and in a relevant place. As for the fact that there are other articles which may need these pictures, fine, but since the publishing of pictures is not a zero-sum game I do not see what concern that is of ours. Haiduc 9 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)
::Sometimes less is more. My position is a style one, which is that pictures are not inherently good or bad, neither is text or information. The vast majority of these pictures I believe are of limited usefulness. Furthermore, aside from the fact I think its a bit much aestehtically, pictures tend to rake hell on how articles appear to readers. I think articles should be comprehensive, not exhaustive.--Tznkai 9 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)
::I agree that sometimes less is more, but sometimes an adage does not fit. The pictures from other cultures are invaluable since they are an unmediated reflection of those societies. All the verbiage that a modern writer could generate, and even translations of primary sources, which are (if you have worked in this field) so prone to adulteration, cannot compare with the effectiveness and accuracy of an image from the society being discussed. "Esthetics"? You have your opinion, I have mine. They differ. "Exhaustive"? You could write a twenty-volume encyclopaedia on this topic. What you have here does not even begin to scratch the surface. "Rake hell"?! There are plenty of articles here with plenty of pictures, and I have never had any problem looking at them. I can't imagine what you could be referring to. Can you indicate somewhere in the rules of this project where it says that having fewer pictures is preferable to having more pictures? Haiduc 01:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we had an edit conflict on muhammed involving a map of conquest in the middle east that managed to cluster three edit links on top of eachother. To answer your further points, no, this isn't about "rules" or even "guidlines" or policies. This has to do with my opinion on what makes a good article, like any other wikipedian. I think the purpose of a good encyclopedia article is to have a breif survey of the facts and significant opinions. I don't think we need to prove relentlessly that every culture has some art somewhere that involves homosexuality (usually between men I may add, slightly slanting the data). Honestly, I think we could lose half of these pictures and maintain the article, possibly make it better. 1,2,7,8,11 all strike me as things that we wouldn't really miss.--Tznkai 15:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reference to edit link clustering is spurious since that is not the case here, and is a problem of incorrect positioning not of number of images. As for "proving relentlessly" I think it is better to let those cultures speak for themselves through their images than to resort only to (arguable) reformulations. Yes, we should illustrate the topics we discuss, it is a far more effective and respectful form of communication, respectful of the topic and of the reader. It brings us closer to the spirit of the project, which is that the editor should be as transparent as possible. And it speaks volumes to the LGM's you are so fond of. Haiduc 20:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To follow up to your selection of pictures, #1, Zephyr and Hyacinthus, is emblematic of the topic. There seems to a loosely followed pattern of including emblematic pictures in articles here, and this is a good choice by my lights. #2 is filler and could certainly go. Whether is should go is another matter. #7 and #8 should be integrated into #6 as alternate pictures. #11 seems a bit spurious and could be sent to the article on Cadmus. Haiduc 21:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures