Disputatio:Homophylophilia/Archive1

message: Current definition: "Homosexualitas est actio sexualis inter solum masculos, vel solum mulieres." This needs repair, as the noun being defined is usually taken (by anthropologists, psychologists, et al.) to denote a state of mind or being, but the definition indicates conduct. IacobusAmor 14:35, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the correct way to say this in Latin is... well a huge can of worms. Homosexualitas is not a great formation, both because of the mixed roots, and because the way Greek actually uses the prefix homo should make this word mean "of the same sex" (i.e. any group of men are HOMOSEXUAL!!!!). Unfortunately most of the alternate expressions I've seen are likewise pretty lame... so I guess this article should stay here for now. --Iustinus 16:23, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

message: Wouldn't it be better to make a comment on a link like http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html instead of simply removing it? I think the article as a whole could have a NPOV if we just gave the different POVs a forum and put them into a relation. --Roland (disp.) 17:35, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably you're right. In my haste to remove blatantly subjective material I might have overlooked something. Please re-add whatever it is that I overlooked. However I see no need in the definition paragraph of this article to say anything about scripture or anything of any point of view whatsoever. It just needs defined.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:56, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :It started with that and ended with the removing of

text: :*Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae super actus homosexualis

text: :*Instructiones de ordinatione sacerdotum a Papa Benedicto XVI (Anglice)

text: :Maybe we could have a section "De opinione Ecclesiae Catholicae" and "Opiniones aliae" within "Nexus externi"? But I agree, that a section with an uncommented POV shall be removed and that a definition should really be just a definition. POVs can follow later ... if ever ;-) --Roland (disp.) 18:20, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Yeah, we can also have an opinion of islam, and of buddism, and of "other christian sects which disacknowledge the bible in this regard, but declare that they don't believe in the one true catholic and appostolic church because it "doesn't adhere to scripture"." We can also have a section on the "pre-sexual liberation" view, and view of many non-western countries. Just to say that it is inordinary, and opposed to nature. Alexanderr 21:51, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Well obviously the 3rd example in the first sentence would be one that holds the opposite view, but still you get my point - I hope! Alexanderr 21:53, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reisman 

message: I can't get rid of it, but there is a biblical passage condeming homosexual actions,
replies: text: No (according to some Christian theologians) there isn't. IacobusAmor 22:02, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Uhmm, exactly what do they think "males that sleep together" means then? And what is that whole bit about them not getting into heaven any way? Interesting how some "Christian Theologians" are so off base ain't it? Alexanderr 22:08, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It means they're using a mistranslation and you're piling a misinterpretation on top of it. Because the passage comments on sexual practices and uses rare forms of Greek words, that's one of the most hotly contested phrases in the New Testament. The most convincing discussion I've read is that the writer of the letter is showing how good a Roman he is by disparaging what most Romans disparaged: men who took the "female role" while having sex with other men. In the culture of the day, male insertees were disparaged, and male insertors were regarded as "normal," whichever sex the insertee was. See J. N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982). IacobusAmor 03:13, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Rare forms of Greek words? It looks like in this passage the Greek doesn't mention the masculorum concubitores at all! As a result the King James bible ommits it too. See here and here. --Iustinus 19:05, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
which shouldn't be removed. And while I readded that it is against scripture I didn't re-add inordinata - even though it is because it is inordinary. Alexanderr 21:38, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: The article as it stands both subtly & blatantly endorses Christian fundamentalist propaganda, and in my opinion it ought to be pruned severely. Its point of view is not neutral. IacobusAmor 22:02, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :It isn't endorsing the "fundamentalist propaganda" and I'll tell you why, as I told roland. Everything after the comma is not talking about the act its self but about what it is against - namely the bible as I have outlined in my notation, and it is only a mirror through which to view the act (unless ofcourse if you believe morals are not relative and that the bible clearly shows us what is right and what is wrong. In which case you wouldn't be objecting would you?) Alexanderr 22:08, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Err that should be "only a window through which to view the act" not mirror. Alexanderr 22:10, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Re: "Everything after the comma is not talking about the act its self": homosexuality is a state of mind or being: it is NOT an act. The concept dates from the mid-nineteenth century. It would have seemed strange to our friends the old Romans.

text: :::Re: "but about what it is against - namely the bible as I have outlined in my notation": it is not necessarily "against" the Bible. And why bring biblical texts into the article right off the bat? And "qui est contra naturam," aside from being bad grammar (actio requires quae), in the context of an encyclopedia—where ignorance on the part of the editors is not ordinarily assumed—can be nothing but bigotry.

text: :::Re:"and it is only a mirror through which to view the act": I don't take your point here. I'll try rereading the article, but dinner beckons. Later. IacobusAmor 22:24, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Again, I think the definition is not the place for opinions. It would be so easy to fix that. --Roland (disp.) 22:17, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: :Fine I'll fix it and put it under a seperate heading. Alexanderr 22:21, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The current version is incurable without the deletion or wholesale revision of everything that follows the definition. Its first subsection recounts as fact the opinions of certain Roman Catholic prelates (while misspelling the name of their church) without pointing out where they go wrong. I haven't checked the analogous article in the English-language Wikipedia, but I'd be surprised if it were as maladroit as this. IacobusAmor 23:40, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Notiae 

message: I thought I had fixed that technical problem. --Roland (disp.) 22:14, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well the article locusta only has one note, and I'm not sure what is different between it and this one. Alexanderr 22:20, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :The problem seems to be fixed now, but it (the article) shows no edit since my last one...? Alexanderr 01:28, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: :Spoke too soon. It was fine while I was editing the article, but when I saved (even though I didn't edit the sections concerning the note it reverted. Alexanderr 01:29, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the notes are still doubled. What the heck is causing that? --Iustinus 19:38, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubled note 

message: Currently: "Homosexualitas est verbum quod inventum est circa annum 1870 ut designet statum mentalem hominum qui volunt commiscere coitu solum cum sexo suo." That's better, and perhaps saved by my volunt, but it probably remains too narrow. The rest of the article IMHO should be cut: the material that follows the definition is way out of proportion to the whole. Read the article on the same subject in the English-language Wikipedia (which I did after dinner), and you'll see how minuscule any reference to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, or to that of any other Christian sect, deserves to be. IacobusAmor 01:59, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Deserves to be is an opinion, and I frankly don't agree with you. Information should not be cut just because you disagree with it. I see no reason not to include infromation on such an important subject. Alexanderr 02:05, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::You missed the point: any substantial article on the subject—say, a text that's 5,000 words long—should spend several thousand words before it gets to religious doctrines. For an example of how to structure such an article, see the English-language Wikipedia. (Not that I agree with everything it says.) An article of only a few hundred words need not mention such doctrines at all. And religious doctrine is not necessarily information. IacobusAmor 02:54, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Well the article is that way because multiple users wanted to add that information. If you want to translate information concerning prevalence of laws against homosexuality, or the terminology or whatever else to put thing more into proportion no one is stopping you. In my opinion that would be the proper way to go. Not to go and delete information (which would make it more of a stipula). And religious doctrine in information, and important for those looking to examine their lifes or find out if something is a sin. Alexanderr 03:37, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Um, if there are indeed people who wish to examine their lives and find out "if somethign is a sin", then I don't think they'll be coming here. The thought of someone giving up homosexuality because they discovered on the Latin wikipedia that it was a sin is ludicrous. And just how much information about kashrut are we going to put in the article about pigs? I mostly agree that we should fix the article by adding, rather than by cutting, but please do have a sense of proportion here. --Iustinus 03:46, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: :Also why is circum in correct? Alexanderr 02:06, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::My understanding (which of course could be wrong) is that the form usually used with time & numbers is circa, and the form usually used with space is circum. IacobusAmor 02:54, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Honestly I haven't been following the edit history of this article, but given the nature of the Latin wikipedia, it seems perfectly justified to include the Bible quotation, and possibly some Catholic doctrine, matched by a section on Ancient additudes in general: I mean, it's not like the traditional Monotheistic animosity towards homosexuality in general was universal in the ancient world! So partizans on either side of the issue should have no lack of sources, primary and secondary, to quote or refer to. But IacobusAmor's point has merrit: why are we immediately launching into the thorny issue of societal reactions when the article is so short to begin with? I don't think we can expect anything as elaborate or proportional as the English article, but certainly we can expect to expand the intro. --Iustinus 03:35, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: Well as I have said before I have no problem with anyone adding information to the article, but to subtract it, especially inforamtion which I spent quite a bit of time adding and perfecting. That is upsetting. Its as if they'd prefere one sentence to anything in opposition to their view. Alexanderr 03:50, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitio 

message: I can't really stand to have this article have more content on what the church thinks about sexuality than what scientists and psychologists say. If you want to include the catholic bruhaha add what other people think, starting first with, err, actual scientists maybe? Maybe then move to psychologists, then get to the philosophers. Given that most mammals exhibit some form of homosexual behavior, I can't really see what natural laws homosexuality offends (though I have no more interest in its modus futandi than the church's). I also can't really see why one verse is worth fighting such a pompous crusade over. I repeat that I am not against the addition of the catholic perspective, as horribly primitive and malintented as I think it to be, but it must be in the context of the larger picture. As the article was, the definition was a part of the larger catholic picture, or so the content leads the reader to believe.--Ioshus Rocchio 03:50, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I personally am not going to add information on pro-homosexual philosophers or scientific theories because 1) I don't agre with the view point and 2) because I am most likely incapable of doing so without some miniscule bias slipping in, but that doesn't mean that you can't if you want to. Stop complaining and add information - just don't subtract. Alexanderr 03:53, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Alexanderr, since you seem to have energy to spend on doctrinal matters, why not go to the article Ecclesia Catholica [Romana]* and under the section De Fide insert the beliefs that need elaborating? The text as it stands, given the scope of the underlying outline of the whole article, could well use several thousand words explicating in detail each phrase of the Nicene Creed, the basic statement of catholic (with a little C) faith. (Or maybe the major Christian creeds—Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian—get their own articles; I haven't checked.) Maybe a priest will help you; it could be a useful spiritual exercise to work with a priest in exploring the historical & textual meaning of each phrase. Such an explication would be extra helpful to Vicipaedia because articles on other Christian sects could be linked to it. After that, the section could benefit from discussion of the more obscure and less important doctrines, like the one under recent discussion. Just a suggestion!

text: :*Romana should be part of the title. At least that's what a Roman Catholic priest told me, years ago, because it makes sense, as he said, to distinguish this catholic church from the other catholic churches. IacobusAmor 12:08, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::IacobusAmor, I'd like to help with the categories concerning certain saints, and the catholic church, but frankly my latin isn't good enough, and I don't think I am well enough informed in the history of the Nicene Creed to contribute anything important. As for getting a priest to help me, I doubt it'd work. I mean they have a lot to do, why waste a day working on wikipedia? Alexanderr 13:33, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::It had occurred to me that a priest might want to help one of his charges understand the church better. After all, you could have a calling to the priesthood yourself, but you haven't realized it yet, and he could aid you in your spiritual journey. IacobusAmor 16:50, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: ::P.S. I know that Roman is part of the title, but the Roman Catholic Church is commonly called "the Catholic Church" or even just "the Church". Also while I'm unsure if this is true I read somewhere that Roman was added by the protestants during the protestant reformation to try to contradict the "catholic" part of the name. Alexanderr 13:33, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::En:Catholic explains the naming issues pretty well. But I don't see the point of mentioning Catholicism specifically. All Christian denominations have at least traditionally felt the same about homosexuality, and have cited the same bible passages.  Now, admittedly, were the article longer it would be an excellent idea to have subsections for Catholicism (quoting the Church Fathers) and Protestantism (quoting the Reformers, who surely mentioned homosexuality at some point as well) and so on, but for now I think we should keep it simple and talk about traditional "Christians" generally. Heck, given that traditional Judaism has had pretty much the same view (and, I presume Islam as well, though surely not quoting the same prooftexts), it might make sense to refer to "Monotheists" even! --Iustinus 15:31, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::What might make sense would be for someone to translate this paragraph from the English-language Wikipedia (links disappear). As you see, the situation in Judaism is variable:
replies: text: :::::"In brief, Hinduism has taken various positions, ranging from positive to neutral or antagonistic. Sikhism has no written view on the matter, but Sikh (Punjabi) society is generally ultra-masculine and conservative; toleration of any homosexual behaviour or orientation is bound to meet outrage or strong disapproval. However, other Sikhs believe that Guru Nanak's emphasis on universal equality and brotherhood is fundamentally in support of homosexuals' human rights. Confucianism has allowed homosexual sex with the precondition of procreation. Abrahamic religions have held varied views of homosexuality, depending on place, time and form of same-sex desire. Islam regards love and desire for beautiful youths (adolescent men or boys) as a natural temptation for all men, sexual relations however as a transgression negatory of the natural role and aim of sexual activity. [27] Buddhism traditionally did not concern itself with the gender of the beloved. Contemporary Western Buddhists and many Japanese and Chinese schools hold very accepting views, something that is traditionally allowed when the relationship does not impede the birth of a child, while other Eastern Buddhists, possibly since colonial times, have adopted attitudes that scorn the practice. Christianity has traditionally condemned deliberately non-procreative sex, and while attitudes have in some sectors (e.g. Anglican Church, liberal Protestantism) been liberalised, the majority of denominations still view homosexual relationships as sinful. Judaism, depending on the movement, is either liberal, conservative, or neutral on the subject. The Orthodox-Jewish tradition generally views homosexual sex as sinful, and homosexual attraction as out of the norm, while Reform and Reconstructionism are often fully accepting of gay attraction and sex. Conservative Judaism doesn't view attraction as sinful. Homosexual acts are just thought of as being equal to breaking any other of the mitzvot and therefore equally sinful. This movement, however, does not admit openly gay Jews as rabbis, nor does it perform commitment ceremonies. It is very open to it, and because of the movement's belief in an "evolving Torah", the issue is very big in the movement today. Native American religions generally grant gender-variant individuals honoured status for their perceived spiritual powers. Shintoism, Discordianism, and Taoism regard homosexuality positively. Religions collectively termed "Pagan," including Druidism and Wicca, are also accepting in general. Ancient Germanic religions were however condemnatory towards homosexuality and their common law in Scandinavia harshly punished homosexual activity."

text: ::::Unfortunately, I won't have time to do anything substantial on any topic for weeks. IacobusAmor 16:50, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I should point out that I am pretty much aware of the situationin Judaism being a Jew myself (Reform). But I was referring to the traditional additude, mainly of the Orthodox (but if I'm not mistaken, even Reform Judaism was not entirely accepting until relatively recently).

text: :::::In theory, the summary paragraph is a good idea, but really given the large body of Catholic literature in Latin, I am inclined to side with Alexanderr here, give them their own section. --Iustinus 18:29, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: :::Oh wait, I see now: this pertains to the "missing links." OK, well those are, sorry Ioshus,

text: ::Don't be sorry. I don't have anything against inclusion of information, just as you said, provided the article is long enough and comprehensive enough to warrant it.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:19, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::good links for inclusion, provided the article is long enough to merit it. Can we find Benedict's encyclical in Latin though? --Iustinus 15:34, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Drat! It's not an actual encyclical, and there doesn't seem to be a published Latin version. Curses, foiled again. --Iustinus 15:42, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I know it's rather sad. I noticed while browsing the Vatican.va website that quite a few bits don't give latin translations...still I feel that the information is valuable. Is it possible you can issue an unofficial translation of a few of the more important lies for inclusion in this article? Alexanderr 15:50, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Lies? What?! I thought you accepted what the church has taught! IacobusAmor 16:50, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: :::::P.S. When is the article going to be unprotected?

text: :::::P.P.S. Why isn't there a template up saying that it is protected?
replies: text: ::::::I am working on a major overhaul right now. It may take a while, though, as I'm meeting someone in half an hour. I don't think I'll be doing an "unofficial translation" of Zenon's instructions, but in a later draft I might conceivably do a summary. Do you know what the copyright status of the catechism text is? Surely it cannot be too strict, since I'm sure they want it propagated. As a template... do we have one already written? --Iustinus 16:10, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: ::::Yes, Iustine, we have  and  for sysop restriction, and then for registered users respectively. You can see semi-protecta on Chilia.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:54, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Well I didn't quite mean an "unofficial translation" more of a "best of" or a summary as you put it. Alexanderr 16:24, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bible 

message: Well that was pretty petty, and probably would lead someone to believe that the subject matter (namely homosexual relations) is fictional. Also the whole "won't stand for" bit is pretty egocentric - a stumbling block for wikipedia. Alexanderr 03:55, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think it was petty. Right now the majority of the article is about what the catholic church thinks about homosexuality. That seems to fit pretty neatly into a mythologia category to me. I'll be honest, a big part of the problem is that I have to scoff at an entity who doesn't know what to do with paedophiliac priests, but thinks consenting homosexuals in love are doomed for tartarus. It's laughable.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:23, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Well even if you don't acknowledge it it was a petty act, and your justification of it is just as petty. It contains information about a real subject, and real beliefs about the subject, and doctrines of the church aren't mythology by any stretch of the imagination. If I posted that on ANY muslim article I'd get reverted so fast it'd make your head spin. Its just another example of the last exceptable bias - anti-catholicism. And as for the priest scandal maybe you haven't heard it wasn't the cardinals, or the pope who were involved, and really how many of the priests do you think would go to their superiors and reveil that they did that? Oh and if you were to read the second link you'd see that the church is handling the matter. Alexanderr 04:38, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I'll resist the chance at an easy joke there. Honestly I think the mythologia category should go on every religion page. Including saints, prophets, books, verses, muslim, christian, hindi, greek/roman, all of it. It's all a bunch of stories...some are more popular than others. This is why I try to stay away from religious matters on wikipedia. There are passionate opinions about rather trivial matters and the encyclopedia suffers as a result. I think this page (forget the rest of the world), in its incipient stage suffers from the addition of catholic doctrine. You think it suffers without it. One of us is bound by his faith to his deity and the doctrines of its wordly followers (which, i might add, used to admonish on the flatness of the earth), the other by scientific evidence and professional opinion (which, needless to say, proved the world was round). I can't see what's so bad about people in love having sex that this article needs to talk about it for anything more than it is. Like Bloodhound Gang says, we ain't nothing but mammals.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:52, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Honestly I think both of you need to get off your philosophical high horses.

text: :::BTW, Ioshus, you will notice that la.wikipedia.org has historically gone the other way: instead of marking both Christianity and Paganism mythologia, it has evened things out by marking them both as religio (e.g. religio Mesopotamena, religio Germanica). Given that you feel they are the same, that compromise should work for you. --Iustinus 05:01, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Yes, that works fine for me, as I said I try to avoid religious articles, so I may have missed the memo on the correct category.--Ioshus Rocchio 05:13, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
[edit conflict]

text: ::Well I personally believe that to catagorize any main stream religion as mythology is very offensive, and you should utilize a religion template instead of mythologicial one. Anyways as for our bindings I am bound by my religion and my deity 'tis true, but you are bound by more than you think. Because despite any scientific background you are bound by your opposition, maybe even hatred, of religion. And while I don't know your reason for thinking nothing is homosexual "sex" it is probably more than just reasoning, because you not only removed every link you disagreed with, and took a very egocentric view, which by the way I'd reason is usually not your style, with the statement "I can't really stand to have this article...", BUT then went on to classify the whole article as mythologia, and attack my relgion as a whole, because I disagreed with you. Alexanderr 05:05, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::We are moving away from the article, so I will respond on your user page.--Ioshus Rocchio 05:13, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::The tradition in anthropological writing of the past few decades has been to avoid the term mythology in favor of the term religion. Scientific observers (and editors of general encyclopedias) don't usually take a position on the truth or falsity of religious beliefs: beliefs get reported as beliefs, but not of course as facts. The believing itself is a fact, and in a write-up it may be reported and analyzed at pertinent junctures in the text, but it's not reported as a scientific truth: it's reported as "what the X people believe." In the article under discussion, "what certain doctrinaire Roman Catholics believe" about the topic would perhaps be pertinent in a discussion of current & past social & political conditions, but in any well-proportioned article it shouldn't be the first thing out of the box. (The Latin term for the condemnatory word "disordered" appeared in the original first sentence, and after I'd taken it out, it reappeared.) As Ioshus has subtly pointed out, agents of the Roman Catholic Church used to persecute and kill people for arguing against what we now know were falsehoods—but that's hardly the first thing a responsible article on, say, astronomy would mention. IacobusAmor 11:31, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Er, of course we still use mythologia to discuss ancient Greek and Roman religious stories. Hard to avoid that usage, no? --Iustinus 18:31, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythologia 

message: I have locked the article for now. I have some ideas on how to fix this article, but I don't have the time to implement them at the moment. Later tonight, or tomorrow I will try to write up a new version, then you can tell me what you think. --Iustinus 05:21, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh! I had written a good deal of new stuff, when my browser crashed. Dammit. I may just have to do this tomorrow. --Iustinus 06:51, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State of the article

message: Well I knew Ioshus was an admin, but I wasn't thinking that when I first saw that the page was protected, and while I felt that the reason for it being protected was invalid - yes there was one rvt on my part, but me and Ioshus had taken it to the talk page, and were in the process of discussing. I didn't even revert him when he added the mythologia category, but instead tried to talk to him and explain how I felt about the action (namely that it was petty and improper) and make him examine his actions! But I was atleast satisfied that no one but Iustinus could edit. Now I find that Ioshus can edit, which makes me feel as if the article is being "protected" from me! It really seems one sided, and it prevents me from translating any of the information from the en.wikipedia. Alexanderr 17:02, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I changed nothing since it was protected other than put on a protecta template, which you asked for, and replaced categoria:mythologia with categoria:religio, which even that might go once the article is beefed up. I have also not reverted your edits which, as we have discussed, I find much more improper than mine. Relax, bud, no one is trying to keep you out of the loop. On the contrary, it seems we do alot around here to help you improve your work, and your latin.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:10, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Further still, the protection/deprotection status of the article has nothing to do with what you can and can't translate, go here Usor:Alexanderr/what i'm translating to put in the homosexualitas article when it is unprotected.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:12, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I wasn't saying that you abused your administrative powers (can't think of a better word now), but that it seems like I'm the only one except for IacobusAmor with whom there really wasn't a debate such as with you. And while everyone has been helpful time and time again (I'm not denying that) I do feel kind of cheated on this issue. Anyways I'll go play in my little sandbox... :( Alexanderr 17:18, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, Ioshus is an admin, so I can't stop him. I know it isn't fair, but that's the way the wiki crumbles. It was perhaps symbollically bad of him to add the template, but honestly I don't think that should bother you very much. As he said, it's nothing more than what you asked to have done. --Iustinus 17:25, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: Of all the things in the world for which I am guilty, and the list is quite long, I really don't feel me adding the template was improper symbolically or other. Had Iustinus known about the template he would have put it up himself. A large part of being an admin is helping with technical issues regardless of POV. As I said, I just did it because it was asked for.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:00, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Okay, Ioshus. I wasn't trying to insult you, or blame you for adding a template. I just could't understand the reason why an article would be protected if you can still edit it. Alexanderr 18:03, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Alexanderr, there is also the fact, that Ioshus has been able to edit the article and did not  do it. You might consider to see it from that point of view. He would have been able to protect it, too. That he added the template is not an edit of the sort we are talking about. I hope that we will stop editing an article in the future while it is disputed. Even without a technical protection. — I mean edits of the sort we are talking about ... --Roland (disp.) 18:39, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I don't know if I didn't say this before or not but I DO NOT believe that Ioshus did anything wrong. He did an excelent job of not editing the article. He only added a template which I requested. I DO NOT believe that Ioshus did anything wrong. It was simply the fact that I seem to be the only one left out of the loop that bothered me. I still want to edit, and get to work, adding definitions or what not, but its protected so I'm forced to wait. Alexanderr 18:43, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Hey, I'm out of the loop and don't give two hoots. I say open it up and give the guy a chance. However, why not put in a bunch of headings (with no texts as of now) to show the general outline of the article—and to put the doctrinal interpretations in their proper place? (That would be approximately the place where you'd put the philosophy of phlogiston in an article on Ignis, and the theory of the humors in an article on Medicina.) IacobusAmor 18:54, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: ::::Maybe we should have a template like :en:Template:Inuse. Maybe this would be more appropriate for such situations. --Roland (disp.) 19:16, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
OK, I can't find some of the sources I wanted to use for the ancient civilization section, so I'm going to have to take a brake here. It's only unfair that I remove the protection for now, but Alexanderr, I would appreciate it if you limited your edits to the section on Catholicism (which is your expertise anyway) for now. --Iustinus 19:36, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine, but can I create (or more accurately) translate new sections from the english? Alexanderr 19:43, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: :Would you mind waiting, til he's done what he has started? Homosexuality has been around forever, another few hours won't kill it. =] In the meantime, I'll translate that opening paragraph for you.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:46, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ::To clarify that's just to avoid overlap, you may start something he had intended on doing anyways.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:47, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecta!?