From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Any connection with "Uranus"/"your anus"? Or is that an entirely irrelevant homo-nym? —Ashley Y 20:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that's the reason it didn't stick! My question is: How could the term have "already gained currency" before Ulirch coined "urning", as the article states, if the Brits started using it "perhaps as early as the 1860s" and Ulrichs wrote "urning" in 1862 and published in 1864? ntennis 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The origin seems to be Plato's Symposium, specifically the discussion of Aphrodite Ourania vs. Aphrodite Pandemos. Haiduc 04:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's what one website has to say: "[Ulrichs] coined the term 'Urning' (Uranian) for such a person. This was a reference to Uranian (Heavenly) Eros who governs principled male love, whereas the Pandernian (Vulgar) Eros governs heterosexual or purely licentious relations." (This, I think, is ironically the source of our modern dichotomy "Platonic" vs sexual love). Ulrichs himself acknowledged Plato's Symposium as his source. However, this article as it stands suggests that some folks in Britain arrived at the term "Uranian" (meaning homosexual?) prior to Ulrichs, but unfortunately this claim was not sourced by the anonymous editor who added it. I find it perplexing, because the phrase "perhaps as early as the 1860s" suggests that there is no direct evidence for the British use of the term until after the 1860s. Yet Ulrichs published the term "Urning", defined as male-male love, in 1864, and was using it even earlier. So I suggest that unless a source can be found that we credit the invention of the term back to Ulrichs. ntennis 13:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Not my specialty, no objection. Haiduc 17:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
OK now done. I'm happy to be corrected should a source be found. ntennis 04:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Kaylor's claim (in the quotation that was added) seems to accept as obvious that Uranian was not an uncommon word in English in relation to Uranus and Uranian Aphrodite. It can be found as early as Shelley's "Milton's Spirit" (a fragment, first published in Rossetti's edition of the Complete Poetical Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley (1870):

I dreamed that Milton's spirit rose, and took
From life's green tree his Uranian lute;
And from his touch sweet thunder flowed, and shook
All human things built in contempt of man,--
And sanguine thrones and impious altars quaked,
Prisons and citadels ...

(Welland_R, 7:11, 23 December 2006)


How is this pronounced?

Is it pronounced like earning? or oorning? (oo like in cool) or uhrning? --Josh W 03:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be pronounced in exactly the same way it would for something relating to the planet Uranus: "Yuranian" (see OED). (Welland_R, 6:12, 24 December 2006)

Other uses of the term 'Uranian'[edit]

It is seems fair and appropriate to give a detailed account of the origin of the term 'Uranian' as used in gender-focused and gender-related literature, but that is not by any means the only place where the term 'Uranian' is used, and reference to any dictionary in wide circulation will verify that. I have in the past attempted to include other definitions of 'Uranian' from dictionaries, and the additions were rejected. My Point: In the occurrences of the term 'Uranian' in the English language, how often does it refer to sexuality in literature, and how often does is refer to astronomically-related phenomena, or to unconventional or technically-oriented mindsets?... and most significantly, to such genuinely ethically controversial issues as pedophilia?

Is this someone's idea of a practical joke to slant Wikipedia to define 'Uranian' only as its usage as a literary term attached to sexual issues? Sometimes such biases only fuel the culture-war arguments of overly-powerful Religious Fundamentalists trying to create a fascist theocracy in the USA.

I believe it is in the best interests of Gays and Lesbians to both: 1) acknowledge that 'Uranian' is not (as dictionaries indicate) exclusive to literary/sexual terminology (and in fact most frequently refers to astronomically-related phenomena), and 2) more clear distinctions are made between homosexuality and pedophilia, so that the warped stereotypes of the sexually-repressed and culturally-ignorant Religious Fundamentalists are not served and reinforced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC) I have logged in. This last comment on the need for to SPLIT THE WIKIPAGE 'URANIAN' INTO VARIOUS PAGES SPECIFIC TO ITS SPECIFIC, CONDITIONAL USAGE is from me, Blake Finley, M.A. Linguistics, and director of the Uranian Institute, which has no problem at all being identified on the same page with homosexuality... but I'm sorry, pederasty is most often a manifestation of psychological coercion and abuse, and is best not identified with anything except itself for what it is.... noting also that statistics show that pedophilia is more common among heterosexuals than homosexuals, all though perhaps not as widely publicized in sensationalist media or ideological propaganda which seeks to scapegoat and slander and harass gay people.

Other pages with 'Uranian' as part of the title[edit]

At this time, there is already a separate page for Uranian poetry, and it seems logical to me that much of the information currently on this page should be moved to that location so that it is not confused with the astronomical or astrological senses of 'uranian', and perhaps clarified in relation to the mythological muse Urania (for whatever similarities it may or may not hold). The problem, of course, when the almost universally illegal objectionable issue of pedophilia comes into question, its is most likely that most astronomers, mythologists, astrologers, and gay people do not wish to be generalized in the same category. There may even be some astronomers who will object strongly to being categorized together with astrology Thus the separate entries for each specific definition of uranian seems appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranian Institute (talkcontribs) 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Uranian Institute (Blake, right?). Thanks for pointing out the other uses of the term Uranian. I've shorted the disambiguation links at the top of the article as per wikipedia convention. Another option would be to create a disambiguation page, rather than links - this is not dissimilar to what you are suggesting. Personally, I don't feel that a separate page is warranted, but I'm happy to discuss it further and be persuaded otherwise.
According to the wikipedia manual of style, article titles should be nouns. The other meanings of Uranian as an adjective (or adverb I guess) refer either to the planet Uranus or the muse Urania. There's also a feeling on wikipedia that dictionary definitions should not constitute articles (see Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so "Uranian means of or relating to the planet Uranus" does not warrant it's own article here (although it would on wiktionary).
The article as is stands is certainly not about Uranian poetry and should not be merged there. There is a stronger case for merging that article into this one, although I'd prefer to keep them separate. Nor is the article about pedophilia! It really refers to a 19th century notion of homosexual/gender-variant identities. ntennis 04:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

'Uranian' as a noun is also currently, as of 2007, and for the last 30 years at least, used to refer to uranian astrologers, an increasingly large percentage of astrologers: 'the Uranians'. Among them are people of various sexual orientations, yet this is not their characterizing quality.

In addition, the Uranian Institute, which has a high internet profile, is located in San Francisco, widely reputed for its gay population, but the Uranian Institute does not deal with gay/lesbian issues per se.

Perhaps most importantly, is the point that as we go to authoritative references, including dictionaries and encyclopedia, we will find far more references to definitions of 'Uranian' as correlating with Greek mythology and astronomy.

I had my most vehement objections to the content of the Wikipedia article in its first draft, which did seem to emphasize pedophilia as a salient correlation of 'Uranian', and in the times we live in, such phenomena are Politically Loaded, not to mention morally objectionable to many people, including most gays and lesbians of my acquaintance.

So I am not sure what your motive is for making the gender-focused definition of Uranian consume the overshadowing proportion of the article on 'Uranian'.

Why can't you move over a little and at least give more space to longer-established, possibly more-widely, and still-used definitions of the term Uranian, instead of giving definitions from the past, and covering only one aspect of the term, the lion's share of the article?

Also, it seems to me that there needs to be some sort of third-party observation and arbitration on this discussion, to create some sort of reasonable compromise with greater detachment and objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranian Institute (talkcontribs) 22:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to the Wikipedia regulation specifying that entries must be nouns and not uniquely adjectival?

I am noting that this article has been substantially modified to leave out references to pedophila and pederasty, although references to those topics were abundant in the article several days ago, for some unknown reason.

It does seem, based on an overview of academic references, that implication of gender issues by the term 'Uranian' is marginal in terms of overall English language usage, and the article should continue to be prefaced by references to other, more frequent and more current standard usages of the term. This does not discount the legitimacy of the historical gender/literature context of the term, but Wikipedia standards for PROPORTION in articles demands that other definitions of the term are given equal representation, either in terms of volume of information, or initial mention before a more marginal use of the term is elaborated upon.

I OBJECT STRONGLY to the continual removal and/or minimization of definitions from standard language references to the more commonly used definition of 'Uranian', so that the gender/historico-literary term is represented vastly out of proportion. user:Uranian Institute 04:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Too jumbled[edit]

Rather that engage in a push pull with the German construction on one side and the British on the other, would it not be better to first disambiguate and then have separate articles for each?

Also, recent scholarship, both McKenna and Kaylor, place Wilde (and Hopkins, as per Kaylor) in the Uranian orbit. That needs to be discussed here. Haiduc (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Urning in modern German?[edit]

I got into a discussion with a buddy about whether Urning was a derogatory word. I asked a German relative of mine and she did not know of the word. Is it obsolete in modern German? Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

the "development of classification scheme" section[edit]

Is so, so poorly written. It's practically incomprehensible. It also doesn't cite any of Ulrichs' specific works, which I'm assuming it's based on. Even without the sources, I feel compelled to try to improve the clarity, but I might have to give up because I can't even figure out what the original writer of the article is trying to say. Someone who's actually familiar with Ulrichs' work should definitely take a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh nevermind, the whole mess was written by one user on July 7 who seems to have a history of inserting original research. I'm just going to take some initiative and revert the whole thing to to the shorter initial version here:

If anyone wants to check out or (and I advise against this) reinstate the long, incomprehensible mess, you can find it in this version: I believe the author has issues with Ulrichs' understanding of "sexual types" and is using the article to place Ulrichs' theories in the context of a wider western understanding (which wouldn't be that much of an issue, if he cited articles about those positions, and cited Ulrichs' work at all) and also inserts critiques and judgments of Ulrichs' theories (which is not appropriate). There's also a lot of discussion of stigmatization that I'm fairly certain was NOT a part of Ulrichs' work in any way. Even if it wasn't so poorly written, I'm pretty sure the content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


Wiki bravely banned me some time ago, but I see I am no longer logged in. Uranian astrologers are so named to cover their pederastry? You really should make a comprehensive survey of the crap you put out and purge the worst of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It should also be known that the application of "Uranian" to homosexuals came directly from early - and rather simplistic - 19th century astrological delineations of the planet Uranus. Which some astrology textbooks still cite, and which could be used as references, but, dang it all, I forget that Wiki's policy prohibits "in universe" referrals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)