Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 11

< Talk:Homosexuality

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexR (talk | contribs) at 02:53, 13 December 2004 (== Who counts as being homosexual ==). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:53, 13 December 2004 by AlexR (talk | contribs) (== Who counts as being homosexual ==)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Nature and Nurture material merged elsewhere

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)

Vandalism

It seems that there are certain articles, like, say, this one, that vandals are unable to keep their obnoxious hands off of. I was wondering - is there any way to block anons from editing particular pages? That would, at least until they start to register, slow down the vandalism that happens at least once a night, every night, on this and other (usually related) pages. -Seth Mahoney 17:11, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way to block only certain users from editing certain articles, but on the bright side, although it's a pain, vandalism usually gets discovered and reverted immediately. Today's vandal was blocked for his efforts. Exploding Boy 18:53, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's goodish news. As far as vandalism getting discovered quickly, yeah, but that's not really such a bright side. Anyhow, yeah, I suspected it wasn't possible to work that kind of voodoo on the wiki (or it would probably have been done or at least deliberated by now). Thanks for confirming. -Seth Mahoney 19:01, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Funnily enough, only this morning I was thinking that it would be good to have a limit on the number of edits one can perform without having a user name. I'm not fussed about everyone using their real names (obviously), but I think there should be a limit of, say, 5 edits of any size to any article on the Wiki for anons. It wouldn't stop vandalism totally, but it might stop the people who go on rampages, or who vandalise single articles multiple times or groups of articles. It's much, much easier to track vandalism by people who have user names. Exploding Boy 19:09, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Are you talking about limiting the number of edits per day, per week, or the number of edits forever? Either way it should be pretty easy to implement. -Seth Mahoney 19:40, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ever. I think you should get 5 (anonymous) tries -- see how you like the Wiki and whether you want to be part of it, then you have to register. Exploding Boy 20:03, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I can dig it. Though maybe either an increased or unlimited number of edits in the Talk space, so that people who don't want to register can at least make requests and suggestions. Of course, that could lead to vandalism of the Talk space, but I don't think that's such a big deal. -Seth Mahoney 22:27, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

It seems like a general anonymous limit would create the opposite problem. Instead of edits we don't want appearing in the Wiki, edits we do want wouldn't appear. It certainly is possible to have a per-page prohibition; the question is, how much time and effort is someone willing to put into implementing it, and what will be the performance impact? -- Beland 02:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is possible? Very cool. The deal with this page is it gets a lot of vandalism, it seems especially between 10:00pm and 7:00am PST. Maybe it would be possible to restrict edits to registered users during those hours. It seems like this would be a lot less work than reverting the vandalism that sometimes happens multiple times a night, unless I guess its a lot of work to set up the restriction. -Seth Mahoney 07:39, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how it would be a problem. It's quick and easy to register. It takes about a minute and requires no personal information. Anyone willing to contribute and with something useful to add will surely be willing to do that. Most people who do contribute regularly have registered user names. Exploding Boy 17:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

There are actually quite a lot of anon editors who do not want to register for an account. It seems to me that restricting their access in order to prevent vandalism is an overreaction. The best way to deal with vandalism is to revert. This page does get vandalised a lot, but then an awful lot of people have it on thier watchlist. I have it on mine, even though I've never edited it, I also have George W Bush for the same reason.

Technically you idea has problems too. Dial up users, users behind an ISP cache proxy, and users of public computers in schools libraries, universities etc share the same IP. There is no way to tell which particular person is editing in order to count their five goes.

Finally, the fact that this page gets vandalised a lot means that this page must get viewed a lot. For this reason it is vital that this page is as good as possible. Allowing a large number of people to edit ensures quality and NPOV. Allowing anyone to edit is the main strength of Misplaced Pages, it does mean anyone can vandalise, but this has always been easy to correct by reverting (and temp blocking the IP if necessary). If you find it a drag to keep reverting vandals, don't do it - someone else certainly will. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 08:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Organizations that view homosexuality as a curable malady

What exactly is the point of adding so many of these organisations? I mean, it is not exactly as if these links would add that many information on the matter. Shouldn't one or two links do just as nice, if we need any at all. (Personally, I'd remove them all and add them elsewhere, say, on "reparative therapy" or "homophobia" or something.) Or have these links just been added as a "compromise" with the gay bashers? -- AlexR 18:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why these links were added, but I agree that we should trim the list. Not only that list, but the whole external links section actually. We don't need so many "Organizations that view homosexuality as an affirmation of character and/or unchangeable trait" (what a heading..) links, and we don't need so many external links in general. The problem is that people see such a heading and add just another (hopefully useful) link to it, which itself is not a bad thing. But after a while the external links section gets way too big, like the one for this article at the moment. --Conti|✉ 19:43, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I can guess why these links were added. Following and supporting someone else's example, I put them in their own space just so their intent was clear. I agree that they aren't necessary, and I would be fine with removing the lot of them, or moving them to reparative therapy, which I'm sure this article already links to. -Seth Mahoney 19:46, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ancient Greek

Do the homosexual practices which were widely accepted and honored include the homosexual practices between women, or just between men? --Yacht (talk) 05:31, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Have we no article on the island called Lesbos? 金 (Kim)

Plato

I deleted the reference to Plato because in The Laws, Plato condemns homsexual acts.

"...the crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature and a capital surrender to lust or pleasure". Laws 636c.

What happened in the earlier dialogues, was a literary license. Plato was not homosexual.WHEELER 16:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to back that up? Just because Plato decries homosexuality (although you quote fragment does not seem to explictly verify this) does not mean that he did not partake or enjoy it himself. --Axon 12:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some of what happened in the earlier dialogs concerned people who were alive at the time, no? Characters mentioned in the Symposium put forth their ideologies as a way of having a serious discussion about eros and the erotic. Socrates was approached for sex by a young man named Alcibiades (sorry about the spelling, my book is not available right now). They slept under the same cloak, and Socrates is praised for maintainign incredible self control in not submitting to the younger man's manipulation. (It was something like, "It is too late to go home now. Can I sleep over?")

How would we know whether Plato was a homosexual? How would we know if he was a heterosexual? The issue is rather like whether some soldier is to be called a "killer." Sometimes we know that somebody has done some act, but we don't know whether it was done because duty demanded it, because survival demanded it, whether there was strong internal motivation to do it. In that society, it would have been even more frequent than in the U.S. when Kinsey made his survey for a young man to have tried homosexual intercourse. From what we know about sexual behavior when it is not being put under cultural/ideological suppression, people will do things that may be only moderately satisfying to themselves in the absence of a more rewarding opportunity.

One way to begin to answer the question would be to examine the total number of homosexual interactions that Plato had and compare them to the total number of heterosexual interactions he experienced. Of course we have no evidence on this score. As far as I know, we do not even have a statement or even from somebody else saying, "Plato made it with ..." The other kind of evidence that would be persuasive would be an autobiographical writing in which Plato explained his own sexuality as best he could. But there is no such work unless there should happen to be some telling incident recorded in his Letters.

What seems clear in the history of his writings is that he was more condemnatory of the behaviors typical of young people in his old age than he was when he was beginning his writing career. It is not unusual for people to become more authoritarian in attitude the more they reach the age and status in society that would make them an authority figure. 金 (Kim) 00:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The usual rule is that if someone wants a historical personage to be placed on a list of this sort, then positive confirmation of their homosexuality needs to be presented - otherwise the lack of any supporting evidence would automatically disqualify them from inclusion on the list. AWilliamson 03:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is a rule that has been promulgated for Misplaced Pages users? Just curious. 金 (Kim) 06:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think there is considerable opinion that Plato was a homosexual: a quick Google reveals multiple hits on this topic --Axon 10:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A Google search will reveal numerous sites promoting literally any idea imaginable. The procedure I've seen used in other Misplaced Pages pages of this sort - and the only reasonable procedure - is to either present solid evidence from the original sources which would prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt, or present the consensus view among (in this case) ancient Greek scholars - which hasn't been done. AWilliamson 03:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is a rule that has been promulgated for Misplaced Pages users? Still curious. 金 (Kim) 04:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it's just mr. Williamson's own Point Of View. He's trying to protect his pet, catholic saint Joan of Arc, from anything that has to do with cross-dressing, occultism or homosexuality by clinging to his own interpretations of so-called "established record" of history. Thus preventing anbody else to interpret the known (and unknown) facts and keeping his pet "clean". Switisweti 12:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that Google is officially considered a useful tool by Wikipedians for determining opinions on such things. Obviously, a considerable number of people consider Plato to be homosexual and numerous references in his own works would seem to back this up. The burden of proof now lies with Wheeler and AWilliamson to prove that he is not, otherwise I think it would be appropriate to add him back in. Controversies over his homosexuality more properly belong on the Plato page. --Axon 13:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear from AWilliamson. After all, he is the one who has asserted that there is such a rule. Asserting the existence of a rule is a good way to put a stop on somebody. So, I repeat: are you saying that there is a rule that has been promulgated for Misplaced Pages users? Or are you making the rule up by yourself? Still curious, and still waiting. 金 (Kim) 18:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who counts as being homosexual

Detailing the realities in any given case first, and deciding what to call it afterwards, works better than categorizing somebody as an X first and spending months or years arguing about whether 'e is "really" an X and whose definition of X is the correct one. Is a person who takes a pumpkin from a neighbor's garden to feed his children a thief? Is a person who takes the occasional piece of office stationery for personal purposes a thief? Is the person who always rounds up when making sales tax calculations a thief? Is the person who rewrites the tax laws so that his firm saves a few million a year a thief? Probably the stock definition is somebody who makes it a regular practice to take the property of others in preference to earning a living. But different people will weigh and evaluate evidence in different ways. Sometimes people will agree on the facts but not on their interpretation. Is somebody who releases American bison from fenced in pastures and drives them to freedom in some large national park a thief or a freedom fighter? The law may put the person in jail. People on the other side may say that 'e did not break the "Thou shalt not steal!" commandment. What is important is that we record such things as (a) 'e was photographed cutting the fence and driving the bison upon multiple occasions, (b) 'e proudly asserted on national TV, "I freed those poor buffalo brothers, and I'll do it again next chance I get." (c) 'E was caught in possession of bison steaks in his well-provisioned deep freeze. (f) 'E ran a wholesale meat business. (g) Most of the bison that disappeared from confinement were recovered from the national park. Deciding whether such a person is or is not a thief will clearly depend on one's point of view. 金 (Kim) 19:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stating that a historical person indeed was X is very often a rather daring enterprise. In fact, stating it as a fact might be decidedly POV, especially when X is a concept that is of rather recent origin, and might therefore not even have existed at the time. Homosexuality does, according to many people, qualifiy as such.

In many cases, we can at least clearly state that a person commited homosexual acts, although we still cannot state with any certainty that they felt as homosexuals in the 20th century sense of the word, unless we have clear documentation of that or at least something similar, which AFAIK is very rare. ("Gay" and "Lesbian" are even more complicated concepts which IMO also rather belong into the 21st century.)

If we do have no documentation of homosexual behaviour -- and, as I already mentioned in my last edit comment, not all behaviours that are occasionaly labeled as an indication of a homosexual orientation are all that useful to determine such an orientation ("prefered to paint/write about men/women", misogyny or misandry, or cross-dressing or gender-variant behaviour come to mind) -- then labeling any person as homosexual is clearly POV. What we often can state in such cases, though, is that these persons are often reported to be homosexual, or that there is a debate about them having been homosexual, or that there are indications of them having been homosexual, or similar, but as I said, we cannot say that they were homosexual. Not in the Misplaced Pages, at least. -- AlexR 02:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)