User talk:Haiduc

Other user pages:

• User talk:Haiduc/sandbox
• User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2004
• User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2005
• User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2006
• User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2007

Troilus

Thanks for the latest piccy. It is good to have an illustration in a different medium. I'll have to work out where to fit it. Pity that they didn't have the EUphronius on display so that we could get a better image.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Herodes Atticus

Hi Haiduc. First of all, I wish you a very happy new year! May fair-haired Apollo serve you goblets filled with Castalian water.

I'm looking for sources about Herodes Atticus pederastic loves, especially his three alumni, Achilles, Memnon and Polydeukion. Do you have some pointers? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm presently writing the fr: article, hence my question ;-) Thanks for the ref. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexuality

Hello Haiduc, This is an old (2005) discussion of yours: Talk:Heterosexuality. You gave a link to reviews of Rocke's Forbidden Friendships on a second hand book site, and (naturally) it is gone now. It's not really important I think, but when I'm hitting on it, probably more people will. Could you revive the link somehow? It's a very interesting and surprising study, that merits more attention. Soczyczi (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"As for the picture, de gustibus. But - to be fair - the tagged text needs to be sourced before being restored."

Do you mind explaining this edit summary further please? Reply on my talk page. Caden S (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Davidson delete

Our article on The World, The Flesh and Myself leaves no doubt that the man involved was convicted of child sexual abuse, and there is no indication that the child involved is not dead. That is a serious WP:BLP issue. The child should not be named. I think your idea of using initials instead of names is an excellent one. MB83 (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perugia

Nice find. When I visited Perugia the Museum was undergoing the usual, never-ending, "rearrangment" works, and could be visited only partly. So if you have more about it to upload, that would be great. Best wishes. --G.dallorto (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Islam, H

The problem here is that none of this is sourced. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered sometime in January 2008 (UTC). SatyrBot (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ming Dynasty

No, no Puritan slant was intended. Hi, I'm PericlesofAthens, but if you're a member of ChinaHistoryForum, you might know me as Non-Han-Nan-Ban. Recently, at ChinaHistoryForum, I began a thread about the late Ming gentry's heterosexual love with courtesans and homosexual love with singing boys and male servants. You wouldn't happen to be referring to that, would you? I own Timothy Brook's book (obviously), and I don't know if you've noticed, but I've included in the "Literature and arts" sub-section of Ming Dynasty a small mention at the end of one paragraph about the gentry pursuing courtesans to reenact the heroic romance of late Ming novels and literature. Don't know if that will satisfy you or others when it comes to sexuality in Ming China, but it's a start. After all, I might start a sub-article for Ming Dynasty about culture and include all of that info in it. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

All good suggestions, but the problem is where to mention sex in the late Ming? I can't think of a single current section where the topic of sex (even a random sentence that links to another article) is warranted for inclusion and wouldn't break from the section's topic. Maybe I could include it in the "Urban and rural life" section? Since it was the upper class gentry of the late Ming period who engaged in liaisons with female courtesans and male singing boys and the like, it could fit in with the theme of urban life. What do you think?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed your concerns by adding a couple sentences about the topic to that section. I hope it suits what you wanted to see. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the entire point that Brook is trying to make. Pederasty was such a rare fetishized taboo that only the richest of the rich would use it to flaunt distinction and status; even though it was widespread in the late Ming, not every gentry or merchant or official engaged in this, as it was originally not a mark of distinction but of moral decay. Brook writes: "This fashion was accordingly differenlty constructed than courtesanship: more daring, repugnant to sexual norms, indifferent to ideologies of self-cultivation and loyalism. While it may be that the expression of natural homoerotic desire could only burst forth with the peculiar erosion of Confucian norms in the sixteenth century, those norms paradoxically ensured that pederasty was a sexual fashion beyond emotional reach of most people, and for that reason rich in social credit." As Brook makes emphatically clear in the next paragraph, pederasty ceased to be a demarcation of high social status after the fall of the Ming, as many old writers in the mid to late 17th century looked back on the era with nostalgia, when having sex with boys proved one was so incredibly rich that taboos were meaningless and anything could be acquired because it was a statement of rarity and power.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to give the impression that there weren't documented cases of homosexuality before the Ming Dynasty, it's just that during the late Ming it became more accepted amongst the elite.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty

You should be more careful, if you put articles or categories in the section pederasty. I found some mistakes and wrong articles there. GLGermann (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

i think people should only in this category if it is absolute clear, for example a love affair in young years with 19 or 20 years with somone who is 13 or 14 is no hint for pederasty. GLGermann (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Albanian pederasty

An editor has nominated Albanian pederasty, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian pederasty and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 06:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation

I have nominated Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Dethme0w (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cathal O'Searcaigh Page

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cathal_Ó_Searcaigh, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

"pursuing a slanderous agenda against a living person"

Hi Haiduc, you left the following message on my talk page:

"You would be well advised to desist from leaving spurious material on my talk page, and from pursuing a slanderous agenda against a living person, or anyone at all."

This is quite comical My single contribution to the Cathal Ó Searcaigh page was a sourced quote from his defender, Maire Mhac an tSaoi. The source is backed up with the actual audio from the radio program she appeared on.

I'd be delighted if you could explain how repeating someone's exact quote is "slander". I have to come to the conclusion that (a) you have no understanding of legal terminology whatsoever, and/or (b) you are throwing around threats in an attempt to intimidate other editors of the page. Not a tactic that will work.

P.--Paul Moloney (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

images

Hi, some images that you uploaded have been removed from commons. e.g. commons:Image:Julius Caesar Italian marble 19th c..jpg . Some of them have been listed at commons:User talk:Haiduc. If you dont already have email enabled on Commons, it would be a good idea to enable it so you are aware of these events before the files are deleted. Regarding "Image:Julius Caesar Italian marble 19th c..jpg", by Maxwell Wolf, which was marked as "free requiring attribution", do you have (or can you obtain) some form of evidence that the copyright holder has granted it under this license. If so, please let me know, or forward the evidence to permissions@wikimedia.org so that the image can be restored. If you need the help of an admin to correct any of these deletions, I'll be happy to help. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolution near (?) on how to entitle Tony Sandel's lists of books portraying sexual attraction to children

Please visit Talk:List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males#Requested_move. Tony has accepted a proposal for a new title that may put to rest objections dating back to late 2006. Your input in the next few days would be appreciated. You participated in earlier discussions of this question and related questions about that work. SocJan (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very constructive participation in this discussion. My idea of "child" has been similar to what I take yours to be -- pre-adolescent and (at the latest) early-adolescent. But dictionaries, including Wikipedia's, clearly cast a wider net. I think the only hope we have of getting a title that all can agree upon is to put aside our own preferred uses of words and refer instead to official definitions whenever we can -- preferably, definitions found in Wikipedia. It was private and divergent interpretations of "pedophilia" and "child sexual abuse", as I read the record, that were causing most of the controversy on this page. So, against my usual reservations, I've come around to acception "sexual attraction" and "children" as closer to what the article is about, if still not perfect.

As I have said on the Talk page, the only currently available alternative appears to be to bring back the "pedophilia and child sexual abuse" title; but that choice can be expected to trigger renewed endless debate over which books can reasonably be put on the list. A consensus title is probably going to have to be one that few of us really love but most of us can agree is acceptable. SocJan (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[Response to your message on my Talk page:] As attractive as "minor" at first seemed, the Wikipedia definition of the legal term "minor" proves too broad for our purposes. Have a look at Minor_(law). Here are two quotations from that entry:

"In law, the term minor (also infant or infancy) is used to refer to a person who is under the age in which one legally assumes adulthood and is legally granted rights afforded to adults in society. Depending on the jurisdiction and application, this age may vary, but is usually marked at either 18 or 21."

"The age of consent for sexual activity is often lower than the age of majority, frequently using a graduated scale based on the difference in age between the participants. There is an absolute minimum age, however, varying from state to state, below which a minor may not consent. The lowest age for a legal marriage also varies by state."

Few people would consider 18- to 21-year-olds to be appropriate subjects of the article, since late adolescents are commonly thought able to consent to sexual interest from an older person (and, indeed, in many States individuals even younger than 18 are legally entitled to marry without parental permission).

"Children", despite its problems, continues to appear to me to be the best choice. An introduction to the article could quote the Wikipedia definition of "child" and thus clarify the age range covered by the article. SocJan (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Babur

Do you watch the article Babur? Would his relationship be classified as "historic pederastic couple"? Or was he "bisexual"? I'd value your input. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Erastes - Eromenoi

I am curious to know why you decided to delete the GLBT templates from the erastes / eromenosn articles. Haiduc (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Because these articles are about the ancient greek pederasty which used to take place and have no relation with the modern meaning nor with the rights of gay or anything else. Also ancient greeks were not transgender or transexual the way it is refered and at last the template itself has no referance to the ancient greek pederasty - it is simply irrelevant. Dimboukas (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Masturbating satyr, amasis painter.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Masturbating satyr, amasis painter.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Aleta ^Sing 04:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (I don't have anything to do with this deletion request. I'm just letting you know, in case you didn't already.) --Aleta ^Sing 04:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Light-years beyond the mortals' grasp

Hi Haiduc. Before he betrayed us with 2010: Odyssey Two for money, Arthur C. Clarke used to be my idol. I even corresponded to him in the 1990s. Now that he is dead, his ex lovers might start to speak out. Be patient. If the ephebophile claims are true, my educated guess is that sources will be forthcoming in the near future. Clarke was a far way beyond mankind's grasp in many ways. Maybe that's why the Clarkives are to be published in 50 years... Cesar Tort 21:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pederastic filmography

Hi Haiduc

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pederastic filmography, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedrastic filmography. Thank you.

I hope you agree on this.Tony (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Tony

Haiduc: I have read the AfD discussion. I can't see any way to contribute to it. I should have looked more deeply into this subject before chiming in on the Talk page of the article itself. My "chime", fortunately, was not in the "right" place (the AfD discussion) to make much difference and anyway I have deleted it. (I can't really see that I did any great harm. Am a little puzzled by the tone of your message on my page.) Still -- I'm sorry; my apologies. SocJan (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD discussion

I looked at the AfD discussion and there seems to be no consensus. I will not be able to contribute to it, as I have no opinion of whether or not to keep. Sorry to see that you and the german lady disagree. Understand though that the german wikipedia and the english are quite different when it comes to standards on what constitutes an article. Overly specific lists or inconsise titles would probably not be accepted. It could be that she is reacting based on what she knows about the conventions there.- Gilliam (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevant AN/I

An Incident report pertaining to you and PetraSchelm has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent, serious personal attacks by User:PetraSchelm --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Staphylus

I saw your edit here to Staphylus, you listed the reference for your addition as the Suda could you te;; me how you obtained this information from this reference? A quick search on line failed to confirm the assertion of Staphylus as the eromenos of Dionysus. In fact most references place the relationship between these two as father and son, not as lovers. Jeepday (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Response at my talk. Jeepday (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Response at my talk. Jeepday (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bacchá

With respect to Bacchá, you were absolutely right. My "hot cat" finger got a little too hot, and I definitely wouldn't have made the second edit had I realised yours had intervened. Sorry for my flippancy in responding on my talk page. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Haiduc. You have new messages at Mysteryquest's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A question several decades old

I just wrote a brief addition to our discussion. However, since I had my mind on anthropology, I remember quite some time ago an old friend of mine from the Anthropology Department of a school on the West Coast mentioned to me a very interesting tribal culture. The name of this indigenous people quite eludes me and has for some time, but I've always had an interest in finding out more about them. Would you happen to have any knowledge of pederastic relationships in indigenous cutlures? TheGreenSerene (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the very informative article. It is just what I am looking for and solves a question that has been lingering with me for quite some time. I am very grateful. Incidentally I've met Bruce Rind a couple times over the years. He always does interesting if sometimes controversial work. Unfortunately my reasons for the exclusion of Verne will have to wait for another time but I've added a brief comment to our main discussion.TheGreenSerene (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

The term "vandalism" shouldn't be applied lightly, per Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. Accusing Petra of it is just ammunition in her bandolier. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And thus the prophecy was fulfilled. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unacceptable comments

The comments you made to Petra, I quote " While you are welcome to be whatever you are, I based my opinion about your probable gender on the pugnacious tone of your dialogue and your interest in articles dealing with male homosexuality. Such qualities do not a feminine countenance evoke, at least not in my mind" is completely unacceptable as you well know, having been here at wikipedia now for many years. I knowm you have done some good editing but continue on in this vain and I will be forced tot ake this gropos incivility further. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about but do hope you follow your own advice and refrain from attacking others in such a horrible way in the future, that is all. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep your deranged harassment off my talkpage

Rind is famous for announcing that "Adult-child" sex is the "neutral terminology" that should be used instead of CSA if children report "no harm." But that is beside that point that you have absolutely no business posting any ridiculous "warnings" on my talkpage. Consider youself lucky that we just laughed at your pathetic display of pique yesterday instead of adding it to AN/I report (but the diff has been saved for the user conduct RfC against you that is probably inevitable). Thanks for understanding! Cheers,-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So you are entitled to behave in that way? J-Lambton ^T/_C 07:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm

I think that she misunderstood your response to me, after you misunderstood it as a response to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pedophile_topic_mentorship#Jovin_Lambton_in_the_24_hours_after_his_IP_sock_was_discovered_and_he_was_blocked_for_making_a_legal_threat

J-Lambton ^T/_C 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you clearly misunderstood that, to his credit, he wants no part of your trollery, because he's a grown-up. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. We'll wait for an answer. It appears that I'm not the only one objecting to your habit of manipulating the truth for your own ends. Now, a reply to yourself becomes an attempt to recruit. How lower are we going to get? J-Lambton ^T/_C 23:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We have an answer on my talk page... J-Lambton ^T/_C 02:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Greek love

Further to our exchanges in ForesticPig's talk page. What is extremely bothersome to me is that most people in NorthAm cannot distingish between child abuse and a healthy relationship of, say, a 16-year old Giton with a 25 year-old Encolpius, even if Giton wants the relationship (the Satyricon is the first novel ever written, and even today it's misunderstood). I am a sort of psychohistorian and believe that, because of its childrearing methods (including the erastes/eromenos institution), the Greeks were far more advanced than other peoples: something that explains the culture's genius. Such institution was not abusive since the teen lad was not forced to do sex. But he could have a lover (sometimes he could even pick up a coeval; and nobody would call abusive a relationship between two boys in their early teens!). It's weird that present-day people consider legal and moral a marriage of a teenage woman and a man in his twenties but at the same time all same-sex unions are considered abusive and shameful. This surely has to do with the fact that most pederastic relations in the present are, in fact, abusive (e.g., priests in the Catholic church and other kind of sexual predators). But these perverts have nothing to do with a stable relationship. Very few can understand properly Greece and Rome without grasping what pederastic Eros meant to them. Huge subject for a talk page and almost impossible to edit objectively in the wiki because of the amount of genuine child abuse in today's world, including sex abuse. But we may discuss it in a VIP forum (e-mail me if you are interested). I doubt however that most wiki editors may be able to think clearly through this subject. They're confusing abuse with relationship: and I won't engage in arguments with any of them ever. —Cesar Tort 14:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have not had time over the past couple of days to contribute anything. My main concern, like, Cear Tort above, is the double standard, according to which, say, a middle-aged rock star who cavorts with teenage groupies is perfectly normal, but as soon as this is transferred to a homsexual context it is defined as a form of child abuse. This is just concealed homophobia. However, I do think that you do try to over-egg the pudding sometimes. Paul B (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Over-egg the pudding? I've not tried that hard in such articles. Anyway, I have responded to Haiduc in my talk page. Cheers! —Cesar Tort 03:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Re the merge debate

I read Dover's Harvard study long time ago and just vaguely remember the main stuff. Those guys who want to merge the two articles... wasn't the erates/eromenos institution abolished by a Christian emperor? If so that sole fact is powerful enough to keep the two articles separated since (has a scholar stated it?) that institution was pivotal in the Greek and Roman personality: a kind of marriage between adolescents and post-adolescents (light-years apart from the real molestation cases by priests we see in the press almost every day...). —Cesar Tort 15:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't let the bastards get you down

Hey Haiduc,

I stumbled upon the (latest) controversy on the Pederasty article, and have rolled back the asinine changes some other editors made. Seriously, why on earth doesn't Wikipedia establish an intelligence test to determine if somebody is fit to edit? Those attacking the article now are clearly unable to reason at anything more than a schoolboy level (and that would be elementary schoolboy). This is why I rarely edit here anymore--too many idiots pushing their ideological agendas at the expense of any real scholarship.

You know how to contact me if you need any further support.

Yours,

Jeff

sockpuppetry

I think you should consider the idea that some af the editors who recently appeared on the articles are sockpuppets. At least two are very new, and it seems odd that their immediate edits are virtually all related to the Pederasty articles. You may want to have someone check that out for you. Jeffpw (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Of interest.

Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite ban of User:Burrburr et al.

A fair deal of his damage to Wikipedia's LGBT coverage remains. I've only fixed up to Nuttingmutt so far. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

In order to encourage constructive discussion and a useful edit--discuss cycle, I instigated a Wikiquette alert upon you [3]. Feel free to reply. Phdarts (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Attack

What has happened to the Pederasty article is unfortunate if not unprecedented. This group are obviously acting together, and their agenda is also obvious. There are so many non-sequiturs and basic fallacies which parade under a (thin) guise of academic respectability, that one can hardly begin to unravel the knots - though you have made a good fist of it in the Talk pages. I am sorry about my long absence, during which time I lost (through computer failure) much data including my Wiki log-in details, hence the identity adjustment. Like you, I am much pressed for time, though I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before).

The current clique is clearly not susceptible to reasoned argument, since they insist on viewing the subject from a modern standpoint with the all the distortions of terminology and current social theory. I still may throw in the odd spanner and will certainly follow your own strategy with interest. Wikipedia is of course 'democratic' in essence with all the uncertainties that brings to bear on exceptional writers like yourself. With best wishes, D. (Domniqencore (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

My many thanks

Dear Haiduc,

I wanted to publicly acknowledge your kindness to me in this difficult time, and let you know your words have given me great comfort. You are among the editors I respect the most on Wikipedia, and I am honored to consider you a friend, and that you think of me so, too.

I am emotionally not equipped to deal with the ferocious attack on the Pederasty article at this time. You know I would be in there if I could. I actually reverted myself this morning, because I was afraid I was not stable enough to remain objective.

It is my hope that after the funeral I will be back at work the following Monday, and will quickly be able to return to general editing on Wikipedia. Until that time, know that I wish you success against the Goths and Vandals. Jeffpw (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Your input on Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#Inclusion into category Modern pederasty? - request for comments would be appreciated. Banjeboi 11:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs

My own source - apart from the 'fair assumption' that modern pederasty cannot be openly practised today (due as much to social disapproval as legal sanction) - was the ref already used viz. My Genes made me do it Whitehead [4]. This ref has already come under fire in the recent melee, but I believe it is an excellent source on a number of topics (incl genetics), clearly written and well-referenced. The particular phrase is under the heading 'Variations in Homosexuality', but there is also a little further on (under 'Western Model) the following:

The usual historical homosexual erotic attraction has been toward young boys, but there appears to be little of that among the modern gay community. However,

there is significant interest in young post-pubertal teenagers, as far as is possible in

Western countries, which universally proscribe it.

(My bold highlight)

There is also the Afghan 'ashna' relationships which apparently re-surfaced when the Taliban lost power, though the custom again may have since gone underground. Then there are of course boys' schools, and other youth organisations, which might be argued to employ 'male mentoring' or even Platonic affection, and may still have a remnant of the once thriving homosexual culture among the pupils/members. Impossible to document of course. Even in Asia, where there is undoubtedly more freedom in this regard, there are large amounts of discretion - most of what we hear about are in any case 'commercial' transactions that have been exposed (often with the assistance of Western agencies).

I shall keep this question in mind, but the 'secret practice' should stand. Domniqencore (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as the ashnas, there has been a new (old?) twist to their story, which will have to be integrated into the discussion. Check out this link. Haiduc (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! I picked up the 'Western' jargon of the article (and one other) and looked up IWPR, which explained the position of the writer and the tone of the presentation. Predictably the 'authorities' are virtually powerless to intervene....as you suggest, it is an old tradition like the Kandahar ashna. Perhaps the Afghan Human Rights Commission would concentrate on the 'abuse', and preserve the tradition! Domniqencore (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: You may be interested in this further example of the transitions taking place in a country previously known for its tolerance and acceptance. See 'Tiny minority of farangs' [5] Domniqencore (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder to what extent the Westerners have brought this upon themselves, with their money, their cameras and their diseases. Nothing wrong with becoming a monk. Haiduc (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Domniqencore (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you up to finding a ref for that contested last sentence? Or should the 'abuse' issue be omitted here? Either way you can't win, it seems. Domniqencore (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Lasciate ogne speranza . . ." I do not see how that paragraph can be rescued - who will hazard to speak for Western society??? Haiduc (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The LGBT Barnstar
		I have come across a lot of your work, and admire your dedication and diligence. Good stuff! Contaldo80 (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hurray!

Three cheers for you, three cheers for scholarship, and three cheers for the fight against the dumbing down of Wikipedia! Let the Goths and Vandals protest all they will--they probably haven't been laid in 20 years! Jeffpw (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Edited to add the Sophists are now gutting the article out of spite that they lost on AFD. Jeffpw (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And now User:FCYTravis has deleted it, in spite of its surving AFD. Jeffpw (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to the LGBT talk page for a list of places this is now being discussed. It was restored in a censored version, and is now at deletion review. Jeffpw (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Human Sexuality Barnstar
		Haiduc, your patience and willingness to help educate so many on and off-wiki through scholarship and research to improve articles is worth much more than a simple barnstar but please accept this on behalf of all who look to Wikipedia for knowledge about sexuality issues. Banjeboi (Benjiboi) 00:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Offer

Hi, Haiduc.

I intend only to be helpful in the review of Historical pederastic couples. I know you're going to get a lot of flak on that talk page, and it seems it will be interspersed between my comments. I would like you to know that I will continue to address the issues of the article to assist you and the improvement of the article. Since I rarely have anything to say, and even rarer still to respond to the passionate yet (what appears to me) to be uninformed comments, I'm going to restrict my responses to what I have brought up in the review. Good luck. --Moni3 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My tone

In the event that I have given offense, I apologise. My only concern is for valid, encyclopedic content. Please do not hesitate to inform me in the future if you feel I am phrasing myself poorly, or veering beyond the remit of what is expected of an adminstrator or an editor more generally. - brenneman 03:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I found your tone belligerent and belittling, proof of which is that you misrepresented my edit. It is very easy for a person in your position, who has a bit more authority than other users, to perhaps get carried away with that power. Please notice it when it happens, and remember that you are here to serve and not to rule. I also see my role here as one of service, and I do so in a domain which gets people's hackles up. I hope that is not what is happening to you. Haiduc (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your response puts me in the awkward position of backing away from an apology. While I re-iterate that I'm open to input with respect to my tone, I cannot accept any suggestion that I'm "carried away with [...] power." Further, if there is even the slightlest evidence that I've been aroused by any of the material being discussed, I've yet to see it.

In areas where there has previously been heightened levels of tension, editors have been known to use smear or innuendo as tactics to "win" a content dispute. Suggestions of bias or admistrator misconduct, particularly ones as spectacularly unfounded as the above, could easily be perceived as an attempt to do just that. It is a dissapointment that you could not afford me even enough respect to say "Please notice it if it happens".

I don't believe there is anything else to discuss that would not be more appropiately placed on an article talk page. If you'd like to continue this thread, please leave a message on my talk.

brenneman 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It is terribly poor manners to throw an apology in someone's face like that. It really reduces the incentive to show contrition for one's mistakes. That sort of thing really should be encouraged, not discouraged. Chillum 05:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored Material

I restored a bunch of deleted material to the Bacon article (much of which you contributed to late last year). It is bound to be reverted by the "owners" of the article, so you might want to have a look and weigh in/keep an eye out. Cheers! Smatprt (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Problems with a recent citation

Talk:Pederasty#Pederasty.23Australasia

Haiduc
I'll be opening dialog on the adminstrator's noticeboard very shortly regarding your recent edit to the pederasty page. While it is of course possible that A) I'm mistaken, or that B) You've made an innocent mistake, it appears at this time that the material you've contributed bears little or no relationsip to the material that is cited.

Citing wrongly is, short of deleting the main page, one of the worst things an editor can do.

This, combined with the recent discussion at historical pederasty, makes it appear that you are unable to examine sources objectivly. I'm totally indifferent to the reason for this, and I hope that you're able to seperate my concerns from any of the highly personal conjecture that has occured elsewhere. My only concern is the end result of reliable encyclopedic content.

I'd ask, not as an adminstrator but as an editor, that until some consensus is reached either on the noticeboard or elsewhere, that you add no further material or cite any further sources. Again, this is simply a request with no enforcement provision on my part. I will, however, tell you frankly that if I had come upon this without having been involved in the articles I'd probably have blocked you until you issued assurances that you understood why there was a problem and were willing to work with others in solving it.

brenneman 05:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Christ, Haiduc, you're getting attacked by all sides lately. I'm glad you have an even temperament, as lesser editors would be exploding left right and center at these attacks. Jeffpw (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the section above, I'm beginning to take quite personally the agressive smear of any editor (or adminstrator) who attempts to edit these series of related articles. I've taken great pains to be as even-handed, concilliatory, and fair as possible. If anyone is able to provide a diff where I have been otherwise, I'm happy to stand corrected.

(Now I'm pulling out the ban hammer) Short of providing evidence of this nature, the innuendo and attack has to stop. I'll be repeating this on User talk:Jeffpw as well, so there can be no mistake: If you, Jeffpw, do not stop creating a hostile atmosphere, I will block you for disruption. I hope that there can be no misundertanding here. Anyone is free to defend a viewpoint, or criticise edits or adminstrative actions. Mine, Haiduc, anyones. No one is free to baseless attack other editors.

brenneman 05:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Brenneman, you are not here to take anything personally. You are here to help write an encyclopedia, and to maintain order as well. Unfortunately you have already fallen short of the standards you are expected to maintain, as I previously tried to point out to you. I very much look forward to your opening up a dialog since I obviously have no way of managing you, that is a matter that must come from your peers or from above. Haiduc (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• My apologies, Haiduc. But now that I am under threat of a block for suppporting you, even though I have been entirely civil (to my mind, at least), I simply must withdraw from any further discussions for a while. I'm confining my edits to old film star bios for the time being. Intimidation works, especially when one is feeling vulnerable. Know you continue to have my emotional and moral support, silent though it may be. Jeffpw (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jules Verne

This is the second time you have restored material to the Jules Verne article contrary to the current consensus, both times without any attempt at discussion. Please stop, as such actions can be considered as disruptive if perpetuated. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

Hey Haiduc,

(Do you speak Romanian? If so, cool username!)

After seeing your posts on the LGBT board (kudos), I thought you might be interested in looking at Talk:Conversion therapy and perhaps examining any ownership issues that might be more apparent to someone not involved in editing it.

Cheers,Conor (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

In reference to Talk:Jean Cocteau, please "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Modern pederasty

I have nominated Category:Modern pederasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. User529 (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Pederasty

To counter the idiotic intrusions and continuing interference with the balance of the article, there is a good case for more direct reference to the Pederasty section of the 'Encyclopedia of Homosexuality' which (as you will know) deals objectively with the realities of the subject and its associated prejudices. I fear however that the citation-mongers are quite unscrupulous, and will remove anything which they dislike or is politically incorrect, or keep demanding more citations when the quoted references are comprehensive enough - if they took the trouble to read them in context. Do you know Percy's 'Reconsiderations about Greek Homosexualities' which expands on his Pedagogy study and has all kinds of unexpected refs incl.(for example) an exposure of nonsensical interpretations of behavior depicted on vases? Domniqencore (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Recall

My adminship is always up for review. I actually invented the category, and have consistently been an advocate for responsible adminship, which is why your hysterical cries that I'm drunk with power are in fact quite humorous to me.

The criterion for my recall is the lowest possible hurdle: If five users in good standing ask on my talk page for me to step down, I will.

brenneman 03:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your latest inappropriate comment on my user page has joined the rest of the examples of "responsible administratorship." Haiduc (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I take that comment to mean that you will be asking to have me recalled? As I've said, the process is utterly without barrier to you: Place a note on my talk that you're asking me to step down, and wait and see if four other editors step forward to support you. If you

• Refuse to ask me to step down, and
• Don't give a damn good explanantion of why you're not doing so, then

you need to stop making these claims I'm being a bad admin.

I really have tried to be nice. I've tried to be patient and kind and responsive. I've ignored to the best of my ability ancillary bad behavior, and attempted to adress only those issues directly related to contributing material. I've even had a good laugh at the snow-storm of abusive e-mails I've been receiving. But you now need to either take steps to correct the problem as you see it (i.e. brenneman = badmin -> try to recall him) or have your continued attacks considered as disruption.

brenneman 04:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, if you do take that step, I will sign on the page, and I haven't a doubt others will, as well. I certainly felt intimidated by this admin when he used the phrase "ban hammer" in relation to me. So intimidated I stopped posting on any of the topics he referred to. I admire your courage and fortitude in continuing to deal with this situation as civilly as possible. Jeffpw (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to encourage editors not harass them, I find this behavior from admins quite alarming. Banjeboi 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Playing "Tag" for lack of better word

Hello. I see we've been playing "tag" on the Byron page. Rather than having a ceaseless back and forth there, let me explain to you the reasoning behind my alteration. First, several of the lines I removed have been lacking references for over a year. Second, unless Murray stated that he was specifically trying to cover up Byron's bisexuality, we should not be making this inference, especially as no one has seen the manuscript in question. It is very likely that this may have been one of his reasons, but there could also have been others and it's not our place to speculate. That Byron was bisexual is not in doubt, but we must take a balanced approach. Thanks in advance for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtpbe (talk • contribs) 03:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Regarding your quite incivil edit summary here which reads, in full, "RV cat deletion; Nandesuka, I strongly advise you to desist from trying to erase the history of pederasty from Wikipedia": The most appropriate reply I could think of was to drop by your talk page and ask "Are you still beating your wife?"

I hadn't noticed that I had deleted the category, frankly, because I was more concerned about your edit-warring material back into the article without discussion. Despite your misguided fantasies as to what my motivations are, I have no particular interest in the history of pederasty being included in or excluded from Wikipedia. What I am interested in is having a well-written, properly sourced, encyclopedia that conforms to Wikipedia's content policies. I will propose to you that your sloppy sourcing has done more to damage the "history of pederasty in Wikipedia" than any minor editing I have done. At this point, I assume that any source you cite is cited incorrectly, summarized inaccurately, or simply doesn't say what you claim it says. This assumption is based on the fact that, every time I have gone to the library to check up on a source you've cited, that source has not said what you have claimed it said.

If this state of affairs upsets you, then stop being so sloppy with your sources. Nandesuka (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that you perceive my edits to be part of "a campaign to oppose...documentation of pederastic history in Wikipedia." This perception is precisely the misguided fantasy that I refer to. An additional misguided fantasy is that my rôle as an administrator somehow disqualifies me from vigorously editing articles. I have at no time blocked you, protected a page that you are editing, or used any other administrative tool. In other words, in terms of the articles we have worked on together, we are editing as editors. I think you should be extremely concerned by the amount of consternation that your misuse of sources has caused among disinterested editors. We accomplish our work here through consensus and collegiality. That you react to all criticism (for example, your failure to have read the source in question in the Jules Verne article) as proof of a sinister anti-history-of-pederasty conspiracy being organized by shadowy evil figures whose only motivation is politics and hate) does not, in any way, strengthen your position.

I have no doubt that if I looked at your last 100 cites I would find some -- perhaps even many -- that are perfectly accurate. The problem is that in my semi-random samples of your cites I have found and documented enough that are utterly wrong (and here I include especially your mischaracterizations of Butcher and DeFord) that we have gone beyond a single honest mistake: you have a pattern of getting things wrong. Extending good faith, we can posit that perhaps I've just been unlucky in finding your more egregious mistakes first. But that you've also (I will stipulate) done lots of good work doesn't cancel this out. You are editing in a sensitive and controversial topic area. Wikipedia does not shy away from addressing controversy, but it is incumbent on us to do more than usually get it right. Your sourcing must be impeccable and beyond question. Your response to my criticism so far has been to try to shoot the messenger whil defending indefensible mistakes. I would be overjoyed if, instead, you simply made your work criticism-proof by making your citations impeccable through correctness. Nandesuka (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

PT Section in Harvey Milk Article

I noticed you added in a sentence "Milk was one of the people taken in by the charismatic San Francisco Housing Commission Chairman Jim Jones". I think in some respects this is true, but it is probably not fair or neutrally phrased to state that Milk and others were "taken in" by Jones. Milk clearly never supported the Temple's revolutionary suicide, and I'm also not sure he was "taken in" by their political stances. In fact, I think there was likely convergence on many such stances, and this went for others as well.

Also, whether or not Jones was "charismatic" is in the eye of the beholder. Some felt he was a great magnetic speaker. Others saw him as sort of a grotesque tacky figure. In either case, it's probably not necessary to introduce such labels in the article.

Finally, to be perfectly frank, any editing of this Milk article is a nightmare. There is one editor who has wholesale deleted the entire section repeatedly even after edits to accommodate his wishes. After these repetitive deletions, he then actually repeatedly makes accusations of an "edit war." He started an Rfc on the issue, got no consensus (in fact, most wanted to keep the section) and he's continued to just wholesale delete the entire thing repeatedly. I already tonight deleted it down to just 3 short sentences, and I can't even say with certainty whether he'll restart the same repetitive delete/accusation dance he had before. Accordingly, just to get the sourced facts to stay in the article, they must be stated as neutrally as possible. Mosedschurte (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)