User talk:TheDecanome

Your continued vandalism of Platonic Love
Websters dictionary defines Sublimated as;

sublimated Main Entry:1sub·li·mate

Pronunciation:\ˈsə-blə-ˌmāt\

Function:transitive verb

Inflected Form(s):sub·li·mat·ed; sub·li·mat·ing

Etymology:Middle English, from Medieval Latin sublimatus, past participle of sublimare

Date:15th century

1 a: sublime 1 barchaic : to improve or refine as if by subliming

2: to divert the expression of (an instinctual desire or impulse) from its unacceptable form to one that is considered more socially or culturally acceptable

— sub·li·ma·tion \ˌsə-blə-ˈmā-shən\ noun'''

The use of this word and the following passage from Platonic Love is accurate. In order to change information within the policies of Wki, one would have to have a source from where their information comes from or it is original research or a personal point of view and is unacceptable for use in a wikipedia article. Removal of sourced material from an article without using the talk page and participating within the consensus of the community shows editing in bad faith. Any editor, regardless of being a registered member of wikipedia or not may remove uncontroversial, un-sourced or sited material. However, another editor may add it back even without an in line citation if they believe the information is valid, but both parties run the risk of the information eventually being deleted and replaced with prose fully referenced.

The subject is valid, although the body of the article is poorly written and the scope of the article not fully complete or even completely accurate. Too much emphasis of the sexual relationship between men and boys is not truly the accurate description of Platonic Love. The article does rely to heavily of the subject of pederasty. While the correct link to the ancient greek form of this was placed within the word, it was not proper to use the word without the reference to the ancient Greek form definition.

Simply put, the article is not about pedophiles or sex with boys and needs a good copy edit to bring the article up to an encyclopedic tone and accuracy, yet we all must remember that there are proper ways to go about making changes at Wikipedia. I ask that you consider that editing in good faith will achieve far more than simply ignoring the community and doing as you wish.

I have researched the reference used for that statement which makes use of the word sublimate, that you have questioned and it is used by the author of the book that was referenced in nearly the same way. The use of the word, the sentance and it's inline citation is accurate and appropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi I like that you took toe time to write here but I didn't even know about the talk page until you mentioned it. I don't like that you accused me of vandalism when ignoring others when I was writing my response in the comment lines. That should be clear. You talk about bad faith but looks like you showed the bad faith even against the evidence. And the definition I was talking about is the Nr.2 you put up above. That's straight from Freud with the thing where the id's impulse needs to be sublimated into something society will accept. In this article that means the unwanted sexual impulses for boys is sublimated into platonic love. Before Freud this idea of sublimation didn't exist. So that's my problem. The article says that this is the original meaning of platonic love but in fact its a Freudian idea.--TheDecanome (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No2 definition is what I am refering to as well. I do not understand how you got your conclusions but I am not trying to discount them. The mention of "Good faith/Bad faith" is a wiki term from Assume good faith. Since you haven't received your welcome on your user page you may be unaware of Wikipedias guidelines in regards to removal of sourced information and the use or original research (OR) or pushing a personal point of view (POV). The article is accurate and researched well enough to retain the information as it appears with the in line citations, however your contribution can be made and probably properly sourced, In fact, it is common that many of these terms have origins in modern times. Such is the case with many of these articles. Another problem is the association or confusion with the modern concept of pedophilia and, as you stated, "the unwanted sexual impulses for boys" Sublimation may not have been a word untill Frued, but the concept is not new, and the use there was consistant with the reference or citation from a University Publication that is a reliable source.


 * Your continued reverts without discussing your changes and understanding the way articles are edited with consensus could only be perceived that way. As a new editor I would recommend taking a few moments to familiarize yourself with the basic editing policy here at Help:Contents/Getting started. I believe if you type something onto your user page your may receive the automated "Hello" with the Wikipedia Greeting that will make editing here a bit more enjoyable.


 * I am currently in the middle of bringing this entire subject together with the relevant Wikipedia pages and the correct background on the subjects. I am currently disputing Greek love as being OR, POV and misleading, by being far too weighted with refernces to man-boy love and NOT being referenced to match the claims.


 * So please, understand the subject is not about the unwanted advances of and adult towards a boy. The idea of Platonic Love is something else, but in an attempt to work with you in good faith I am showing you the direct link to the editors citation (it wasn't me) which is from the Univerity of California book "Homosexuality in Greece and Rome" By Thomas K. Hubbard. Here is the page with the reference; |page. Looking at it again I think I can see why there is some confusion, A rewrite being more specific and less overencompassing should be made.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

While you were speaking of something diferent, this conversation made me realise that the references did not match the claims and the use of man-boy was incorrect to those references. The authors never said that. It was the sublimated part that I was eying out and didn't even notice that the core part of your edits (removing the refernce to man-boy) was actualy the right choice.

Conversing in a civil manner has advantages. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree
Pederasty is an intergenerational love relationship. That is NOT covered anywhere else. Nor does it say anywhere that topics need to be lumped under umbrella terms. Why not get rid of "boyfriend" and "girlfriend"? They are already covered under any number of other entries. Haiduc (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is integenerational but it is is 100% covered under same-sex relationship. All pederastic relationships are same-sex ones. That makes it 100% redundant. Boyfriend and girlfriend do not fall 100% under any of the other categories. Besides you can have same-sex boyfriends or girlfriends.