User talk:Skoojal/Archive 2

I have undone a couple of your edits to Homosexuality and Christianity
Explained why on the talk page. Among other things, I don't think there is a consensus in favour of using the word "sodomy", which does not have a single agreed-upon meaning. Skoojal (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I used the term because that is the term used in the Bible. Many churches are against sodomy, not against homosexual orientation. Trying to suggest that one or more churches are against homsexuals, based on their interpretation of biblical referecnes is innacurate. The problem that the definition of sodomy is not well agreed upon is not my, or our problem. We should quote the scriptures, not make assumptions about all of Christiantity.

For instance "Throughout a portion of Christian history some theologians have viewed homosexuality as immoral." This clearly is not accurate. Through most of Christian History, Sodomy has been viewed as immoral, and some Christiant have castigated homesexuals based on that.

Then, redundantly the article gives again "Historically, most Christian churches have regarded homosexual behavior as immoral." Now, the churches that have been against homosexuals are against "anal intercourse" which is how they interpret "sodomy". The broad term "homosexual behavior" is too broad, as churches don't feel that men loving other men, or men kissing other men is immoral, only men performing "sodomy" on/with other men.

My point is that fundamentalist and conservative Christian organizations (the ones that show hatred and prejudice toward gays and lesbians) base that on biblical references, most of which are directly related to biblical quotes regarding "sodomy".

Furthermore you said " Historically, most Christian churches have regarded homosexual behavior as immoral. This position is today held by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and Evangelical Protestant churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention. On May 15, 2008, for example, the Roman Catholic bishops of California issued a statement explaining their opposition to the state supreme court ruling of the same day which effectively legalized same-sex marriage."

The Catholic Church dogmatic position is that homosexuality is "gravely disordered" and immoral. Now, Catholicism has not always felt that way, that has only been the position for five or six hundred years. SO, saying that they have "historically" regarded homsexuality as immoral is debatable depending on how long something has to be some way to be "historically" their position. HIstorically, for most of Catholic history, homsexuality was not considered "immoral".

Unlike many Christian denominations that oppose discrimination against gay and lesbian people in civil society, the SBC has gone on record as supporting it.

The SBC has never had a historically firm position, their position has continually gone through change, and at this time, just slightly more than 50% of Southern Baptists supported a resolution to "uphold a traditional view". Suggesting nearly half of southern baptists disagree.

In nearly half of the state conventions, a resolution upheld a traditional view of marriage or expressed concern for corporate support of homosexuality. State or national laws upholding a definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman were supported through statements passed in Alabama, Colorado, the Dakotas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico and the Northwest. In Colorado, a resolution opposed statute changes pertaining to domestic relationships.

Also, Catholics and Southern Baptists hardly qualify the statement "most Christian churches ..."

Atom (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That the definition of sodomy is not clear is a problem for absolutely anyone who reads that article. You'll probably find that most other editors agree with me about this. Homosexual behavior is a more suitable term. You may have a strongly held point of view, but getting the Homosexuality and Christianity article to reflect scripture isn't possible or desirable. Skoojal (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I apologize for stepping on your toes.  I don't claim to be an expert on the topic.  I am heterosexual, but believe that this kind of prejudice is wrong. I am also a Buddhist, not Christian.  I recognize that the issue is difficult for many Christians.  A large proportion of Catholics and Souther Baptists (chosen because you cvhose them in the article) are against this kind of prejudice.  In the case of the Catholic church, in the U.S. they may even predominate.  But, worldwide amongst Catholics that may be less true, and also the Catholic church is unique in that it doesn't matter what the congregatin wants, church dogma set by the secret brotherhood of priests, and ultimately the Pope is what rules.  They are a remnant of the roman empire, after all.  Amongsth southern baptists, the people of the church 'are the church, and although slightly more than half have decided that their prejudice is necessary, just less than half feel that this kind of prejudics is morally wrong.  Many, many other churches have the same controversy.

Regarding sodomy, reading the article the primary foundation of prejudice by conservative Christians hinges on bible verses that say that sodomy is wrong. There is apparently nothing in the bible that says that loving other people is wrong. There are a number of things in the bible, such as things in leviticus, that are completely ignored by conservative Christians, but they have chosen to not ignore sodomy. As the foundation of their prejudice against homosexuals is based on their decision to enforce the bible's rules against sodomy, and to interpret sodomy as anal sex, it is my belief that the emphasis of the article should be on that. If the interpretation of the definition of sodomy is ambiguous, then their justification for prejudice is ambiguous.

By leaving out the foundation of their beliefs, we relegate the article to only explaining the current stance of each church on homosexuality based on their policy and dogma. With most protestant churches that is a constantly shifting reality. The SBC alone, has argued about this and changed their position subtlely for many years, and is very likely to come out against discrimination against homsexuals in a few years. (Love the sinner, hate the sin -- their words). The Catholic church is not likely to change their cathechism anytime soon, especially with the bad man that is currently their leader. But, given that there already exists a great schism between U.S./European Catholics and the rest of the church on may positions it is quite likely that the church will swing from its ultra conservative stance currently towards reality in a few generations (once the current pope's influence wanes.)

In summary, if the foundation for their belief boils down to a literal interpretation of one or more bible verses that condemn sodomy, then we should not say in the article that they are "against homossexuals" or "against homsexuality" or "against homosexual behavior" when really, what they are against is sodomy.

Atom (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to the above: I do not see at as 'homosexual' for two men to love each other in a non-sexual way. It hardly makes sense to speak of something as homosexual unless it involves a sexual component, and 'homosexual behavior' is as good a term as any for this. Skoojal (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to open an old discussion, but the assertion that "sodomy" is the term used in the Bible is completely false. No such word is used in the KJV, and certainly no comparable word existed in the original text.  It is actually quite likely (and the consensus among most Jewish Biblical scholars) that the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah was brought about because the residents of those cities abandoned a time-honored tradition of accepting visitors into their home unconditionally (a rather important custom for a people traveling about in the desert, hmmm?) rather than anything to do with teh buttsecks.
 * As an atheist, I used to feel that getting Christians to change their mind about whether homosexuality was a sin or not was rather superfluous -- a bit like convincing the KKK to open up their membership to African-Americans :D After seeing For the Bible Tells Me So recently, I have changed my mind.  Not only is it critically important to speak out about this, but it is not clear that even a literal interpretation of the Bible prohibits homosexuality for anything but the ancient Jews (The oft-quoted section in Leviticus was laying down the laws of the Jewish people wandering the desert, not immutable commandments from "God".  There may be a passage in the New Testament that condemns homosexuality, but it's not clear from the text whether "God" was pissed off because of the homosexual sex per se, or if because the sex was taking place as part of week-long drunken orgies...)
 * (Sorry to butt in, I still had your page on my Watchlist from the whole mess with Whistling... who I notice hasn't been on-wiki in 11 days. I hope Whistling is okay... :/ ) --Jaysweet (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I just want to assert that the position that "I am not against homosexuals, just homosexual sex" does not in any way reduce the bigotry. "I'm not against African-Americans, I'm just against their skin being black.  You see, their ancestry isn't what's sinful, it's the color of their skin, and if they would just get it bleached...."  --Jaysweet (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Hi Skoojal,

I haven't responded to the comment that you left me on my talkpage but rather on Talk:Conversion therapy. I'll leave it up to you whether you want to continue any conversation there or on User talk:Conmalone.

Best, Conor (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason why I responded to you on your talk page was because the conversion therapy talk page is becoming unmanageably long. I've requested Dybryd to archive some past discussions to make it more manageable. Skoojal (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
Hey there,

I will certainly take a look at previous edits to Talk:Conversion therapy and see what others have done. I am more than happy to spend a few minutes retrieving previously deleted discussions and archiving inactive discussions that are currently taking up space on the talk page. I'll do that by the weekend. Thanks for bringing the need for archiving to everyone's attention. If you respond to this, please do so on my talk page or on the article's talk page as I'm not watching yours. Peace. Conor (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ownership
Hi Skoojal,

Taken from User talk:GeneralBelly: ''GeneralBelly, on Haiduc's talk page recently you wrote, '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.' If this was directed at me, let me reply: I don't try to 'own' articles. Skoojal (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)''

Thanks for your comment. That was a general request that I made that I made to a number of users for all edits to be assessed for ownership issues - my own included. I fully realise that I'm not immune to bias. I hope that clears things up. Peace. Conor (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about that, my proxy is running slow. I may have to reboot! :-D... anyways just ignore my welcome template. Ciao! -- Eric (mailbox)  04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Skoojal (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

template?
I see you've been working on the Sexual orientation article. I don't suppose you'd have time to look in on the Sexual orientation template, which is completely nutty and getting nuttier by the second? It'd be a real help.

Dybryd (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it, but no promises as to what I can do. Skoojal (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

just ran across this
Help:Archiving_a_talk_page Dybryd (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

see talk
Skoojal, I added something to the discussion of the primal therapy article.Twerges (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

thought you might be interested:
Not sure of what encyclopedic value there is in it (i've only read parts of it so far), but thought you might be interested in the book at this site (downloadable/updated version of a print book). It is a book by 2 of your fellow new zealanders about the nature vs. nuture debate. User529 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Neil Whitehead? I'm aware of him. I appreciate some of his points, but I don't find him reliable, any more than the other side is reliable. Skoojal (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Freud
Hi Skoojal - thanks for the 'call'. I like the work you have been doing to the Freud article - removing loads of drivel and a few WP:coatracks. More Wiki articles need this sort of attention. However I prefer to put my effort into main pages rather than getting sucked into dialogues on talk pages with "people with very fixed views". I am afraid I don't know much about people like Lacan (is it?) who were not the direct progeny of Freud. Keep up the good work Motmit (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing on Freud
Hi Skoojal. What is your issue with Lacan? I mean, really, every scholar who has any familiarity with the history of psychoanalysis in Europe (and particularly in France) can tell you that Lacan is an extremely important part of the narrative of Freud's legacy. Why are you so intent on deleting mention of Lacan? It seems particularly ridiculous when you are encouraging us to keep a reference to Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus, a work whose entire raison d'etre has been characterized as an attempt to undermine the predominance of Lacanian analysis in France. What is your agenda here Skoojal? It does not seem to be about improving articles here -- you seem specifically focused on effacing the Lacanian contribution (just like on the Foucault article you seem singlemindedly focused on discrediting Foucault in the most sensationalistic manner you can find). If you are really trying to improve these articles, can you please share with us why you think these things are improvements? Or, failing that, can you please stop doing this? You make plenty of positive contributions to the articles, but when other editors notice that certain of your edits fly in the face of what reliable sources have to say about the issue, you should recognize that you do not own these pages and yield to consensus. csloat (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no "issue" (I dislike that term) with Lacan. I repeat that, if you look closely at the Freud article, you will see that I have not deleted all mention of Lacan, and I have no intention of doing so. I am not actually encouraging anyone to keep the mention of Deleuze and Guattari's book there; I've simply decided not to remove it. The comments about that book you restored have little or no relevance to the article. I do not believe your changes are supported by consensus. Skoojal (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true you have left Lacan's name on lists where there is no explanation, but you have deleted it from the sections where the discussion should point to it. You have butchered the section on Freud's legacy specifically so you can get around having to mention Lacan -- it seems very strange.  And the consensus was pretty clear among those who participated in the discussion that Lacan is an important part of Freud's legacy.  So, can you please explain why you wish to erase evidence of Lacan's importance?  Thanks. csloat (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'philosophy' section was badly confused. It seemed to equate 'philosophy' with the humanities in general, which is wrong. Unfortunately, you restored that. If the section is actually about the humanities in general and not simply philosophy, then mentioning only Lacan and the Frankfurt School exaggerates their importance out of all proportion. Skoojal (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is easily fixed without deleting the entire section. csloat (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I never deleted the entire section. I simply removed questionable material. Skoojal (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're nitpicking - you know as well as I that you removed every sentence save one, leaving the section demonstrably inferior almost to the point of unintelligibility. There was nothing "questionable" about the material you deleted at all, as we have demonstrated throughout the discussion.  Again, all you need to do is fix the word "philosophy" if it bothers you, not butcher the section completely beyond repair. csloat (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am insisting on accuracy. I did not remove the section. The cut down section is perfectly intelligble - it was the longer version that was confused, because of the questionable material it contained. I do not know who the "we" you refer to is - please say who you mean. Skoojal (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not insisting on accuracy; you are deleting accurate material as part of some weird campaign against certain aspects of Freud's legacy. You have never shown what is "questionable" about the material you are deleting, and your vehement defensiveness about deleting it suggests ownership problems with the page. The "we" I referred to included all of those who participated in the discussion on the talk page, primarily you and myself. Hope this helps your understanding. csloat (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that I was insisting on accuracy, I was referring to your false claim that I removed the philosophy section entirely, as opposed to simply cutting it back. The material you refer to as 'accurate' is indeed questionable, as I pointed out in the edit summary when I removed it. The Freud talk page would be a better place to discuss all this. Skoojal (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You did not "simply cut it back." You butchered it, removing everything except for one sentence which seems lost without any explanation or discussion.  What you deleted may not have been perfect but you have shown nothing "questionable" about it except that you called it questionable.  This is the very definition of tendentious editing.  Cut it out. csloat (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have discussed this on the Freud talk page. If you want to discuss this issue, it would be better to do it there (and to get into more detail, as opposed to repeating the same vague, general claims you've made about my editing). Skoojal (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes we can continue there however you have yet to identify anything at all "questionable" about the material you removed, so stop pretending that you "have discussed this on the Freud talk page." And, frankly, my claims about your editing have been quite specific, not "vague."  Hopefully you will stop being tendentious now.  Thank you! csloat (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

stop edit warring with me
Skoojal,

Stop undoing everything I do. You're starting undo wars for no reason.

Twerges (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Twerges, I am not "undoing everything" you do. Please be clear about this. I have never even bothered to edit many of the articles that you have edited. I have given my reasons for the changes I have made, and remember, it takes two to edit war. Try asking other editors for their opinions about the disputed issues. Skoojal (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "try to be more civil"...


 * My post was perfectly civil.


 * "I have never even bothered to edit many of the articles that you have edited."


 * I meant recently.


 * "it takes two to edit war. Try asking other editors for their opinions about the disputed issues."


 * Whom would I ask? The other editors left after being booted or warned. I doubt randroide cares about this issue.


 * I don't wish to go through the entire procedure of requesting comments etc over this. I just reverted the introduction to how it was before I edited it.Twerges (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a formal procedure for asking for a third opinion. You could use that. Or, you could ask Randroide to find out what she thinks; how do you know what her view is if you don't ask? You could even try discussing the disagreements with me; who knows, I might change my mind, if you can give me a good reason for doing that. Skoojal (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template and Non-heterosexual
Please stop removing Template:Sexual orientation from articles, you've already done it to sexual orientation and homosexuality, they are there for a reason. And do not remove Non-heterosexual, that is a term use is sexology and was places on the articles for a reason. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So tell me what the reason is. I see no reason for the presence of that template. Skoojal (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Simon Levay.
Then next time ,don't come to a public forum and ask for help. That bit of material is NOT how articles are written. If it's not a reliable enough source to use in the article, then it's not reliable enough to include in the body of the article at all. Further, that's a self-serving link, disingenuous to 'cite'. Either find reliable coverage of it, or don't include it. It's a biased primary source. ThuranX (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're trying to say. Of course it's reliable enough to use in the article - that's what I did. It's essential that LeVay have the chance to respond to James's defamatory claims. Skoojal (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX: My understanding of WP:SPS is that one's self-published materials are indeed citeable when the SPS cited on the subject's own bio page and when the claim addresses what the subject thinks. This appears (to me) to be exactly what Skoojal did. Am I misunderstanding something?

In the way of disclosure: I have had no shortage of incidents with user:Jokestress, I am not involved in the dispute on Simon Levay. Although Levay and I work in related fields, I have never met him. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 01:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy
It encourages people to create the pages. Those were prominent people at the time, they need pages with detailed info on their ideas.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone seriously interested in creating a page about the people in question does not need such encouragement. The only people who do need encouragement are amateurs who do not know enough to do it, and who should not be doing it. That's one major reason why I have been removing such bad links from numerous articles. Skoojal (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Final warning for block
I hate to do this to you, but please stop editing Simon LeVay, in the manner that you have been doing, with less than reliable sources, or I will have to block you as violating edit warring and the living persons rules, and for vandalism. We must discuss the matter of how to source, and whether to include such controversy, on the talk page, before re-inserting it against consensus, as you have done. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Skoojal, please listen to Berian and ThuranX. What you are doing at that article is unacceptable - and it mirrors previously unacceptable behaviour at other biographies of living people.  Please address these concerns by editing in line with BLP and other site policies and standards-- Cailil   talk 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm listening. It's quite generous of you not to have blocked me already, in fact, because that was what I had been expecting. Skoojal (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy
I would respectfully ask that you please stop making wholesale reversions of my edits to this page. I understand that you think the article is too long. I'd suggest that you propose a way to split the article up into smaller articles, edit some of the lengthier quotations, or propose the removal of some marginally relevant material (the section on cultural references being a prime example). I take the position that the material I inserted is relevant, significant, and not POV. If my edits are completely unacceptable to you for some reason other than the length of the article, please let me know so that we can work it out. Thank you.

SCBC (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to just as respectfully ask you not to make such edits. The article itself says, in a box when you edit it, that it is too long, so this not just my opinion. As I said, you should have payed more attention to the comments of Dybryd, who was suggesting shifting the ex-gay material to different articles. Skoojal (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Freud article
I agree entirely - the article is a mess. I just made the most glaringly obvious cuts, seeing as nobody else was doing it. The problem with the article is that like so many of the most potentially interesting articles on wikipedia it is being used as a battleground, rather than as a report on the battle. Most of the people who have been editing the article seem to have been doing so on the grounds of their personal opinions about Freud, which are necessarily subjective, not always very clear and by nature unverifiable. Actually, it needs to be edited on the grounds of the very clear and non-subjective wikipedia guidelines. If this means cutting someone's carefully argued prose, tough. I don't care if someone argues something that I agree with. Wikipedia is not a publishing house for original thought but a way of organising already published material. Right now the article has a surfeit of Freud experts and not enough decent editors. I am trying to correct the balance. Lexo (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for telling us all that we aren't decent. Wikipedia does have policies about civility. Skoojal (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologise if I was rude. It wasn't my intention, but I can see from reading my earlier post that my tone was needlessly bolshy.  A lot of work has clearly gone into the article, but the work seems to me to have been carried out with little reference to wikipedia guidelines on good style, etc.  All I want to do, speaking as someone who has no version of Freud that I wish to promote, is put a little shape on the way that the article is being edited.  I mean, it's Sigmund Freud, it's not an insignificant subject.  But from reading the contributions on the talk page, I do think that we need to think about the article more in terms of representing the controversies and less in terms of trying to come down on one or other side of them.  I know more about writing a good article than I know about psychoanalysis, but I think I know enough about it to help make this article better, that's all. Lexo (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Red links
Please stop removing red links to notable topics. There is no reason for this, and there's no excuse. Rebecca (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to stop doing anything unless you give me a reason. Your comment above is uncivil. Skoojal (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on red links, specifically the piece that says In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article. They're there for the exact reason of encouraging users to create articles, and many of those you removed were to indisputably notable topics. Rebecca (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You should have explained that earlier. As a sys-op, that's your responsibility in this sort of situation. You should also know to be civil. Furthermore, that's a guideline, not a policy, as you incorrectly stated. The truth is that whatever it says, the only people likely to be encouraged to create an article by the presence of a red link are people who do not know enough to create an article. Anyone who does know enough and is interested in the subject will be sufficiently motivated to do so whether there's a red link or not. Skoojal (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been explained to you now, and that's what we do on Wikipedia when it comes to redlinks. If you persist in mass-removing links to notable topics, you will be blocked. Rebecca (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your explanation was misleading. The guideline specifically states that it allows for exceptions. It uses expressions such as 'in general', thereby granting that this can be done in some circumstances. Thus your statement that, 'there's no excuse' for removing red links to notable topics, in addition to being uncivil, was also false. Given that it's a guideline that allows for exceptions, the statement that 'that's what we do on Wikipedia' also appears to be false. Your blocking threat is excessive. Skoojal (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There may well be exceptions, given discussion - but we're not talking about cases where that might be appropriate. As you stated above, you merely don't like the guideline, and want to go and do your own damned thing. Let's look at the example you used of conversion therapy: all of the people you delinked were very clearly notable by Wikipedia's notability policies, generally having in excess of 15,000 Google hits, including a whole bunch of good sources should someone want to write an article. You don't get to decide that consensus, long-standing convention and Wikipedia guidelines can get stuffed, and as I said before, resuming mass-removal of red links across the encyclopedia without discussion will see you promptly blocked. Rebecca (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Try taking a look at the recent history of the Conversion therapy article. I restored the links to those articles (and I did it before reading your comment above, incidentally). I've actually just created an article for one of them. You're right that I don't like the guideline - but nonetheless, I'll take more note of it in future. Skoojal (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Rebecca (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice is gone now, I see. Sorry I didn't respond earlier - was having a nap. Rebecca (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, WP:WPMED uses redlinks as one way of prioritizing the list of potential new articles, so while I share your distaste for redlinks -- especially a sea of redlinks, and most especially a sea of redlinks in a list of names -- it's perhaps best not to delink them wholesale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh. Well, as you can see from the latest comments by DGG below, it seems I'm getting in trouble no matter what approach I take. Skoojal (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Lionel Ovesey
Thanks for starting it. That was on my list of bios to do down the road. Used to be you could start a stub without deletionists jumping all over it. I always try to rescue notable but endangered articles. I'll write up Ethel Spector Person soon, too. Jokestress (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Socarides
Replied on my talk -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Orientations
I reverted you edit to Sexual Orientation but i made it more clear to prevent confusion. Here is a dirrect quote from American Psychological Association article. this is the article i am referencing

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.  --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing the quote marks from around the definition. They're necessary to show it is a quote. I've used the definition given at the top of the source: "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes." Skoojal (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the to men, women, or both sexes should be removed because it contradicts However, some people may use different labels or none at all. To be more precise and to remain neutral it should say Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions. The whole part about to men, women, or both sexes would contradict, for example, asexuality, autosexuality, zoosexuality and would be un-nutral. What id your take on that? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The to men, women, or both sexes part should not be removed, because (a) that's what the source says and it's important to not misrepresent it, and (b) it does not contradict the fact that some people use different labels or none at all, which is a different fact entirely (it refers to self-labelling, not to underlying orientation or attractions). Skoojal (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion
Thanks for your opinion on civility and NPOV, but it is rather obvious to me that you are the one pushing an antigay pov and that I am simply attempting to better represent what LeVay found. Your long history of POV edits and edit warring was well as removing my new material makes civility hard with you, skoojal. C0h3n (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to really get the point. Antigay POVs are no better or worse than progay POVs here. The objective is neutrality. Your removal of comments by LeVay has nothing to do, in my view, with better representing what he found. And regarding my past history, let's just stick to the subject, shall we? Skoojal (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Disengagement
As a favor to me, I'd appreciate it if you didn't respond to C0h3n at Talk:Simon LeVay for a day or so. I'm hoping that if he isn't able to engage anyone in a stupid argument that he will actually do something useful, i.e., providing the text that he wants to include with an explanation of why he thinks it's necessary or appropriate. If it makes you feel better, please feel free to assume that all of the other editors at the page have enough experience enough to identify personal attacks, off-topic comments and other useless garbage without your pointing it out.

Ideally, he'll leave you alone for the next day or two, but of course I can't guarantee that. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, you're absolutely right about other editors being able to identify personal attacks, and the rest of it, when they see it, and I apologize for that part. As for not commenting on the talk page, I'll consider that. It depends on just what is going on there. Skoojal (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't help, sorry
I'm on vacation at a hostel internet cafe. Please go to User talk:DGG or WP:AN/I for help. Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I reiterate the advice given above--stay off that page for a few days, and do not respond to attacks. Let the other guys be the ones to get into trouble for NPA, if they continue with them. DGG (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

wikifying books
There is consensus that only for very few particularly noted authors are all their works notable--shakespeare, dante, Freud, Marx, etc. For others, each article has to be justified. please dont start wikifying links to unwritten articles. DGG (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That comment, along with some of your edit summaries (eg, 'Bibliographydon' t wikify links to unwritten articles', from the LeVay article), is completely confusing and offers me very little help in deciding what to do. As you can see from a discussion above, I recently got in trouble within an admin for removing red links. I managed to get out of trouble by restoring some of them. Are you now telling me that I shouldn't have done this? Or that I should have created the articles in each case before doing it? How does either the red link guideline or the book notability guideline support you here? The red link guideline says that creating articles first is encouraged; it doesn't say it's compulsory.


 * I'm not going to rush to undo your edits, but it's likely that many of the books you dewikified are notable according to the book notability guideline. The first of the five criteria for notability (The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience) should apply in most cases; the fact that the fifth ('The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable') doesn't is not relevant. If it was wrong for me to dewikify links to notable subjects, I'm not sure why it's right for you to do this. Skoojal (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are very few authors indeed all of whose works are notable. Write the article first, and if it is accepted, then the link would stand. But to put them in first is inappropriate. I think you;d have some difficulty showing that for any of the books, and certainly not for all. If you want to try, pick the most important --but my guess is hat you;'ll find consensus will be to merge with the article on the author. The guideline you cite, as applied to popular or academic nonfictional books, is probably much too loose, and if you try to apply it/ I think the reslut will be considerable tightening--or with consensus on the article talk page to change to a redirect.   DGG (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for admitting that your edits reflect your personal views rather than the guideline. I'm not going to undo them, I just wanted clarification on that point. The consensus you refer to may exist for all that I know, but it's not reflected in many of the biographies I've seen. Skoojal (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Personae
Hi, thanks for your note. I removed the TOC because I just thought that it did not improve the article. Instead, I converted it into a paragraph listing some of the topics that she tackles in the book. I dewikified leather because everyone knows what leather is and I thought that there is little to be gained by linking to the leather article.

I think that identifying Xianity with the Apollonian and vice versa is overly simplistic. Although there is something there --- the Apollonian is identified with the dominant, establishment, oficial culture, while the Dionysian is underground. And in the West, Christianity is the establishment belief structure and paganism has been driven underground. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think that there is anything to be lost by linking to the leather article? I hardly see the link as a problem. If 'everyone knows what leather is', why not have the article deleted? Regarding the bit about the Apollonian-Dionysian, my point wasn't about whether Paglia's views were correct, but whether the article reflected them accurately; it's not clear to me that it does. Skoojal (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Paglia Bennington
Thank you Skoojal. Hmose (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposals on Template talk:Sexual orientation
Hi, you've contributed to past discussions on the Template talk:Sexual orientation page and we are now in the process of noting which of several proposals might help resolve some current content disputes. Your opinion to offer Support, Oppose, and Comment could help us see if there is consensus to approve any of these proposals. It's been suggested to only offer a Support on the one proposal you most favor but it's obviously to each editor's discretion to decide what works for them. Banj e b oi   23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt that my opinion is worth very much here, but I'll probably comment. Skoojal (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)