Talk:Reza Abbasi

message: This was pulled from the article for lack of relevance: "Reza is also a name for mentally challange people.
But, of course, being called a Reza is an insult." Haiduc 19:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out the lack of references. They have been provided. Let me know if you have any other objections. Haiduc 04:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I do. You write "appreciating youthful male beauty" - how do you connect this to "pederasty"? The link and category should be removed. Taliesin1 04:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me but we are talking about Abbasi here and "appreciating youthful male beauty" - you want to link that to homoeroticism, is one thing. But "pederasty" this is not. Two very different things - one is about art, other is about a perversion. Also, where is written that Abbasi was this "pederast"? Taliesin1 05:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His involvement is with the art. His personal feelings are officially unknown, but are not important. Your own opinion about pederasty being a perversion makes perverts out of most of the major Persian poets, and many of the Arabs. Hafiz, Jami, Khayyam, Nuwas. Come on. And you neglect the fact that for many the pederasty was held to be of a chaste nature. Not mere enjoyment - passion, desire, ecstasy. But I guess all the Sufis were perverts too. Haiduc 15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must disagree. Look at Michaelangelo - no mention of "pederasty" or category of "pederast". You say yourself we know nothing of what he was. And you write "appreciating youthful male beauty" - that is not "pederasty". It is "homoeroticism". No evidence that any Persian artist (or for many European artist like Michaelangelo) was ever a "pederast". "homoerotic" art is common theme and you can link "appreciating youthful male beauty" to that, and remove the category. There is no proof. You see my point? Taliesin1 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And as for Sufi, I say again that for "pederasty" there is no proof - but there is "homoerotic" Sufi poetry, I agree. In Sufi spiritual ways there is many times no distinction between genders since "spirit" is not linked to gender, so this is not unusual. If you read about some gnostic groups they also had similar concept and some even promoted same-sex love as more spiritual. But this usually has nothing to do with "pederasty". I cannot agree with that. Taliesin1 00:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled comments

message: I've removed the reference to the above writer unless he is saying something specifically about Abbasi and/or his art. SouthernComfort 22:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: El-Rouayheb

message: Do I have to point out that your "defense" of Reza is off the mark, and just another straw man argument? No one, certainly not I, ever implied that Reza was a pederast (his art argues for that, but that is not for me to declare). It is his art that is pederastic. Why are we even debating this, as if Persian pederasty was some kind of uncertain thing? It is not. It has been discussed in Europe as well as in Persia for the past 2500 years. Why the coverup that this art is not indicative of desire and erotic feelings? All these sheikhs ogling those teenage boys - who'll believe that they were passionless? Not even an eunuch. Give it up - we are not dishonoring anyone here, these are all chaste images. You know, there is a pattern I have detected here in my work to "call a spade a spade". First I open the discussion with a modest mention that such and such is of a pederastic nature. Then editors such as you jump on me with both feet claiming lack of sufficient proof. That forces me to contribute more and more material. Then they concur that it is indeed the case, but they complain that now there is too much material and it is out of proportion to the rest of the article. Where do you want to go with this? Haiduc 23:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already stated the obvious - that the sources you have provided do not say anything about the man being a "pederast" and no other sources (and I've checked) say anything either. This is not about defending the man or whatever - it's about getting down to what the sources actually say about him, and they don't say anything about pederasty or even homosexuality. But despite this you consistently want to add the "pederasty" category and the second source which says absolutely nothing about Abbasi or his art for that matter. Why can you not leave the issue of the man's sexuality ambiguous, since obviously not a whole lot is known about it? Be reasonable. SouthernComfort 00:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the whole irony here that we each think we are being reasonable and the other not? Let me explain where I am coming from. I am building up an academic resource for the study of same sex-sexuality in general and age-structured sexuality in particular. Thus my my criterion is "Is this article something that a person studying age-structured sexuality is going to want to see?" Because if it is, it should appear in the category pages related to "Pederasty" so that they can serve as a reference for all the materials in the encyclopaedia related to the topic. Reza's work is an example of the best Persian work at a time when pederasty flourished, both at the court and among the populace - by all accounts - and its representation in art is not of my own making, as I am sure you are aware. Thus his art belongs in that category group, even assuming that he as a person does not. And really, how can you keep on dragging out this tired point about his personal proclivities when I have already pointed out that it is a straw man argument and not of the essence? Haiduc 00:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is very ironic as well, but this is WP after all. I understand your viewpoint concerning his art, that it is potentially indicative of pederasty - this is, of course, assuming not a single thing about his own sexuality. For all we know he was simply following the Safavid mores. So thank you for clarifying your position and I have a better understanding of what you are trying to accomplish here. I would prefer, however, if we could create a new category for Pederastic art rather than just include this article in the more general Pederasty. What are your thoughts? SouthernComfort 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is well taken, and I would have no objection to your classifying the article in that fashion. Haiduc 01:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. SouthernComfort 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, from a cursory examination, it seems that the pederasty category could use a breakdown into two or three more subcategories, i.e. Pederastic poetry, for instance. SouthernComfort 00:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Idem. I have been mulling it over and have simply not gotten around to it. Haiduc 01:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started an additional cat for "poetry" and updated several articles accordingly. Hope that is fine, but feel free to revert those edits which were incorrect. SouthernComfort 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian pederasty and Reza Abbasi 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Reza Abbasi - Two Lovers (1630).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 14, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Reza Abbasi - Two Lovers (1630).jpg]] to appear as POTD soon