Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 6

message: Removed several POV statements like:
* "both sides would presumably agree that there is no doubt..."
* "as such quotes use commonplace words which are not in dispute"
* "many would contend, however, that such disputes over a few words, and other such speculative theories on all such subjects, cannot overrule the clear statements in many revealed sources which state the matter in unambiguous, simple words whose meanings are not in dispute"
:The author is clearly proscribing infallibility to her/his own interpretation/translation. The reality is the statements to which the above refer have been disputed by a number of authors, most notably John Boswell in his lengthy Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century.
* "if it had, then such a provision would have been recorded"
:Another example of an opinion stated as fact. Opinions should be restricted by some indication of the person or persons who believe them.
I suggest the author of these statements contribute their interpretations with the same qualification that she/he provides to the opposing viewpoint. Also, in the interest of the preservation of space, the longer edits would be better suited for the History of Early Christianity and Homosexuality.
-- Queerudite 02:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV in Christianity section

message: There was a lot of excellent material here in those Nature and Nurture sections.  For better or for worse, it was starting to be very duplicative (or in some cases, containing the missing pieces of) Causes of sexual orientation and its major subarticles, Genetics and sexual orientation and Environment, choice, and sexual orientation.  I've integrated most of the material from this section into those articles, and left behind a brief introduction and pointer.  What I've done is certainly fairly rough; there's a lot of filling and smoothing out and especially hunting down references and evaluating studies yet to be done.
The section on homosexuality as a social construction  will be shortly merged into the section with a similar name in Sexual orientation if there was anything here that isn't already there. -- Beland 06:25, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature and Nurture material merged elsewhere 

message: There is a great unbalance in this article as it starts out with a very lenghty explanation on the etymology of the word homosexual. This is not only out of place in an encyclopedic article, it is also very American centered, as this distinction between gay and homosexual does not exist in many other cultures and languages across the globe. It should be explained, but should not be in the first section. -- Solitude\talk 17:37, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
"Homosexual" holds a negative connotation to gay people for two reasons.  One is that if they are old enough to remember the 70s, people were called "known homosexuals" and it was a huge insult to them and suggests that all gay people live lives of one-night stands and cannot be monogamous.  The other is that it sounds too clinical.  It dehumanizes the person.
Be bold! Edit it to make it better. 金 (Kim) 03:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay / Homo 

message: :Why do we even bother to have links to the conversion therapies websites when all major medical and scientific organizations have denounced them?  -- User:Apollomelos
It could be very useful to some extremely troubled parents to give information on the acceptance and denunciations (along with information on the credentials of those who are promoting or derrogating these alleged therapies).  金 (Kim) 05:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit, putting links to conversion therapists on the homosexuality page has dubious merit. It is a minority issue in regard to the wider issue of the homosexuality. I think linking to the reparative therapy or ex-gay articles where more balanced links can be made would be more appropriate. --Axon 09:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked evolution and they do not have links to outside creationism sites, only an internal link to Creation vs. evolution debate. Nothing about the Flat Earth Society in the Earth article. I think we are on solid ground deleting the quackery links [damn, npov again] and following Axon's advice. Haiduc 05:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion Therapies

message: Since this topic is so extensive it seems to me that some of the more arcane arguments on translations and interpretations should be assimilated into the article on Christianity and Homosexuality, with this section setting out the issues and leaving out the details of the debates.  Haiduc 13:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This section is becoming top-heavy

message: Some of the images on this article have huge captions. Does anyone think that all that information should belong to the text (the article's body), and not to captions? I find it pretty bad to look at images with that much text on them. Aesthetically, it doesn't work well for me.--Kaonashi 02:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what the solution is. This is a long (perhaps too long at 49K) and complex article, and using the captions compartmentalizes the information in a very effective way. It is a standard publishing practice, especially in academic texts. Haiduc 02:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captions 

message: I've added some pictures in the category LGBT on Wikimedia Commons. They can be addressed from all Wikipedia versions, be it the English, the German, the French or any other, without prior upload. Just add  to the source code of the respective article. --Amys 07:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures on Wikimedia Commons

message: Perhaps someone's here who speaks Polish. The Wikipedia article :pl:Homoseksualizm classifies homosexuality as a mental disease and categorises the whole issue under "psychiatry". Misleadingly they cite the ICD-10-catalogue (F66...), which does not pathologize any sexual orientation at all, but I guess they translate it in a distorting manner. Perhaps someone can help. I have removed the article's first section ("Diagnostic criteria"), but I can neither understand what exactly was written nor state my opinion in Polish. Someone should have a serious look on that. --Amys 04:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, meanwhile I've found out that the paragraph clearly states that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. But strange anyway that they group the article into the category "psychiatry". --Amys 17:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not worry. I took a look and noticed that "Heteroseksualizm" is also featured under the "psychiatry" category. If it is sauce for the goose. . .  Haiduc 22:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish Wikipedia

message: There were many articles missing from the "see also" links, but it would be rather arduous to try to maintain a comprehensive list, and to try to decide which belong there.  Categories exist to deal with exactly this sort of situation.  So, I consolidated a bunch of links so that now people should be able to find articles on topics of interest by following category links (which hopefully have a comprehensive list of articles on the topics) or to the main article on the topic.  I made sure that all the articles that used to be on this list can be accessed from the appropriate category or main article that remains. -- Beland 04:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also link consolidation 

message: The image seems to be a modern icon by Robert Lentz.  I will delete it from Wikimedia Commons, because it is copyrighted. Perhaps it should be deleted in the English Wikipedia, too. I don't think it qualifies as fair use, does it? --Amys 07:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you caught that.  I saved it from a gay Christian website that said it was hundreds of years old and from Mnt. Sinai.  I guess this just goes to show the problems with the internet. Apollomelos 12:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the tag to reflect fair use and also made a notation for readers on it's picture page. Apollomelos 13:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Sergius and St. Bacchus

message: I think this associated press quote has interesting bearing on this topic: 
:"The scientific dogma used to be that hormones alone could “masculinize” the brain, he said. But he identified 54 genes that work differently in the brains of male and female mouse embryos just 10 days after conception — before sex hormones are ever produced.  Doctors also once thought that how people were raised and their genitalia were enough to determine gender...But Reiner began seeing children who had been assigned to one sex as babies and a few years later began identifying themselves as the other." 
--Nectarflowed 19:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Determination of neural gender in utero

message: About the image in the art section "Hunting lice by candlelight" , is this the best we can do for this section? I think not. The caption is ridiculously huge and, if you ask me, overly grasping and pedantic. It is highly conjectural and subjective, drawing inferences about the subject which I doubt exist at all except perhaps in one particular viewers mind. I submit that the comment is in fact what would best be described as original research. A google search for the painter OR the painting and the word(s) homosexual or homoerotic reveal absolutely nothing. Wikipedia articles are really not the place for individual art interpretation (though if you WERE to ask me, I'd say that image is creepy and well... uninteresting :).  I propose the image be replaced with perhaps a non 2-dimentional work of art, something like...I don't know...the the warren cup , for instance. Thoughts?
:You are probably right about dumping the Both picture and caption. But as for the Warren cup, it seems a bit provocative, and then, how would you decide which side to use. Not having both images would seem to be a bit POV, no? ;] Seriously, though, I suggest something more modern, maybe even 20th c. How about Cadmus' The Fleet Is In! Haiduc 14:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if it'd be POV to use only one side but yeah the side with the servant on it is uhmmm....unsettling. My reason for not suggesting modern art is copyright issues, but I'll look into it.--Deglr6328 16:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're ok as far as copyright, we can use it under "Fair use" law. Haiduc 17:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm alrigty. This is nice and big  but the color's all wrong....color's good here  but image is too small..... dunno where to get a large high quality scan.--Deglr6328 03:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, what a scan! If the color is off it may be because it had not yet been restored (it hung in the Alibi club in DC for fifty years. I say let's take a detail of it, the part with the blond dude hooking up with the burly sailor. Haiduc 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Here: 
Haiduc 04:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ok I'll leave the rest to you then.--Deglr6328 06:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hunting lice by candlelight

message: I'm not so sure fair use is acceptable in the use of these latest 2 copyrighted images added to the article. I would almost certainly suspect the pengin pic is a copyvio in this instance even with mention of source.--Deglr6328 01:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to more expert users to decide. The penguin came from http://www.sensualism.com/gay/, and the Weegee pic from http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/2002/03mar2002/ae01_outlaw.htm It seems to be the property of http://icp.org/weegee/ and I have contacted them regarding its use. Haiduc 02:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest images

message: There not a single historical image of lesbianism among the various images of male homosexuality. Can anyone suggest one? - Montréalais 15:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: May be some picture of a "passing woman" that we could find. Could go well with the Anthropology section too. Haiduc 18:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I noticed that in the article, and came here to see if anyone had mentioned it. The images in the article seem to be rather male-biased (though I'm sure that that is due to the historical prevalance of the images). A little balance would be good. — Asbestos | Talk 11:55, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lesbians

message: The map that appears in this article is quite out of date. Homosexual marriages have been legalized in Spain (it is even possible for gay couples to adopt children). Homosexual unions had already been recognised years ago in some Autonomous Communities like Navarra, Asturias and Catalunya.
: I'll change the caption until someone appears who knows how to change the map. Haiduc 11:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexual Marriages in Spain

message: First off, don't accuse other users of vandalism whenever they edit something you did.
Secondly, look at what you are changing. You're removing a detailed, cited quotation which helps explain the picture. Furthermore, the original version clearly states that "This interpretation of the myth is not accepted by Christians holding same-sex love to be a "sin." Your edit changes this to "Many scholars have pointed out, however, that neither the language nor the context of the relevant Biblical passages have anything to do with homosexuality."
Can you see the POV difference? Your edits are clearly coming down on the side that this image has nothing to do with homosexuality. That's POV, that's why I reverted. --Feitclub 19:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
:205.188.116.71, thank you for your new contribution. I am editing it based on the following information:
 Ahbh is the same word used in Genesis 29:20 for Jacob's love for Rachel, and is used
 repeatedly in Song of Songs. It is typically translated as love in the context of a marriage or
 sexual desire (Proverbs 5:19, etc.; see Strong's concordance #0160)
:Haiduc 23:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits made by 205.188.116.71 

message: Re RickK' deletion of the lists of artists, I do not think that merely saying these people are mentioned elsewhere is sufficient. If we had titled lists grouped by profession then we could link to them and that would be fine, especially as this article is a bit top-heavy. But as it is, information is being lost (and I did not even check to make sure that the deleted names all figure in the named list). So I suggest that either we create named lists by profession somewhere and link to them, or bring back the delted material. Haiduc 12:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went back again to check out the list you mention, and I stick by my previous comment. However! There IS a better way. If you remember, in the Music category we did not list any composers but simply had a See link to the list of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual composers. So, if you would not mind creating analogous articles for the other lists and putting those names there, where they would be listed _by category_ then I would be in complete agreement with your edit (if replacing the removed names with see links). If you are too busy then I will do it when I get a chance, but in that case please restore the lists in the mean time. Thanks, Haiduc 03:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of artists lists 

message: : "The male form is superior to the female form."
I don't really get what it's trying to say at all. I'm trying to translate this article into russian (slowly), but this just sounds rediculous... and almost chauvinistic. Beta m (talk)
::The lists in the Polemics category are simply lists of arguments (some perhaps valid, some perhaps invalid, some chauvinistic, some mysogynistic, and so forth) that have been used over the years as ammunition in the debate on what is proper love and what is the best love. Good luck with your translation work. Haiduc 11:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male vs female form