User talk:Haiduc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Other user pages:
- User talk:Haiduc/sandbox
- User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2004
- User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2005
- User talk:Haiduc/Archives 2006
[edit] Queer as Folk
While the show may contain a subplot about a pederastic relationship, it is not primarily (or even to any level of importance) about pederasty. Therefore, the "pederastic film" tag is inappropriate and, given that the show is about gay people, a little offensive (although I'm sure no offense was meant). Treybien 15:18 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding Ishq
ur comments regarding Ishq.
When u love some one with some intetions (sex,money,lust,any sort of lust) then it is called as "Muhabat", "Piyar". when u do nt hav any intention just love then it is Ishq. God and his messangers are the one u can love regardless of any (lust,sex,any other intention). lemme knw if u want more information,may be i can send u some links
Khalidkhoso 10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Metaspheres
Once again removed your comments from the LGBT noticeboard. I restored them, and am about to warn him again. He threatened me after the last warning, so I am curious as to how he will react to this one. :-) Jeffpw 21:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Happy New Year to you, too! The ball's going to drop here in 55 minutes. Jeffpw 22:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy New Years to you both. I actually made the second revision of the posting, and Jeff reverted it as being from Metaspheres. I can see metas point. I think all postings on the board should be as NPOV as possible, and brief. I don't want arguments and discussions to happen at the board. There's no point in diffusing the effort. I wouldn't like it if a group of bigots had a board with POV postings about "the LGBT activists are pushing their agenda and ignoring the facts", etc... So can we leave it as a dispute and not imply the way we would like the dispute to be resolved? Even if someone is 100% correct in their position, discussion isn't productive if everyone digs in their heals. -- Samuel Wantman 23:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying that, Samuel, but that was actually the third revision. In any event, I still strongly disagree with anybody removing another's comments on a talk-page if they are not vandalism. In fact, Wiki has a policy against that. I would appreciate it if you would discuss that sort of change with a user before doing it, and give them the opportunity to make the change (or not) themselves. Jeffpw 00:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Samuel, you are right about the neutrality. As for the pattern of abusive edits by Metaspheres, which is what deleting another user's post is, there is no excuse. And changing a post should be done with the strikeover function, if at all, even by the original poster. I'll take a look and modify accordingly. Haiduc 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- He's done it yet again, and states he is reporting you and me for harassment, for your statement on the noticeboard, and my warning him to stop deleting your posts. Jeffpw 09:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- His harassment report was just dismissed. You can check his talk page for the message, but it says we were both remarkably civil towards him. Jeffpw 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
 Issue II - January 1, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. |
|
[edit] a resource for you
have you used this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gay-Life-Culture-World-History/dp/0500251304/
gay life and culture, a world history, by robert aldrich
looks like a treasure house... cheers... Leskey 23:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. It looks interesting, I have ordered a copy. Haiduc 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Replying to your query
I haven't gone anywhere as of yet. However, until this situation is resolved, I will be restricting my editing to the Rfc and Arbcom. Once it is settled I will make a decision about remaining. Jeffpw 11:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Haiduc, I noticed your good words to Jeffpw. You might not be familiar with GMS508 but this is another good user who's troubled by the same situation. =) — coelacan talk — 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
I'd like to offer my help on an article you're working with MetaSpheres. Leave a message on my talk page if you would like some. Nina Odell 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Can I ask your help?
Hey, I was wondering whether you'd be willing to help me with a small judgment on an article. If you look at the article on US Senator Lindsey Graham, you'll see someone has added some material about his sexuality. I feel it should be removed in its entirety or substantially altered due to NPOV concerns (the amount of space in this article this issue occupies makes it look like a tabloid article and not an encyclopedia, and I fear serious political motivations for the inclusion of this material.) and that these claims are non- or poorly sourced claims and hence might be libelous. Could you take a look (it's a very small article) and tell me what you think should be done? I'd be very grateful! Cheers! Chuchunezumi 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shudo
Thank you for creating this category. As homosexual relations with young men bore particularly significance in pre-modern Japanese society, and was truly quite separated from today's modern (Western) morality regarding pederasty and pedophilia, I thank you for separating this away from that whole field. LordAmeth 20:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gymnasium (ancient Greece)
Thank you for your input on this article. I noticed that the article is currently rather poorly sourced, and was hoping that since you apparently know about the subject that you might be able to add some sources. As such I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Thank you. -- Ec5618 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Leo's sexuality
Yeah, that sums it all up tidily. Thanks for removing the "German Doctor". He really is terribly intrusive! If you feel inclined to call the article I created on Leonardo and Salaino "by any another name" I'm sure it will smell the same. see Two Gentlemen of Firenze.
--Amandajm 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" Romeo and Juliet.(miss quoted in a well-known Australian humorous poem called "The Play" by C. J. Dennis.) Two Gentlemen of Firenze for Two Gentlemen of Verona... --Amandajm 05:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Michelangelo
Thank you for the kind reference to my edits on the Michelangelo page, and thanks also for the inclusion of the poem, which well illustrates the issue. Best wishes, JNW 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Latest developments
Greetings Haiduc,
Am appealing to you, as a veteran Wikipedian, to try to help Dr Stoehr. We are obviously dealing with an even more inexperienced Wikipedia user than yours truly and if I were to do it would be a true case of the blind leading the blind. I was going to appeal to my own Wiki mentor, but as you know the background to this I think you are the one! Sorry for presuming ypou have the time for this and to lumber you with it, but it'll look good on your wiki cv!--Technopat 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
|
Issue III - February 1, 2007 |
|
|
Announcement: If someone requests help or feedback on an article, please try your hardest to help them out if you are able. Thank you.
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. |
|
[edit] SatyrBot and Pederasty in Ancient Greece
Hi, Haiduc! I thought I was pretty good about removing only when appropriate - did I remove the cat from an article that it belonged to?
The bot only ran in oversight mode, so I was personally reviewing each article before tagging and/or making any changes to the page. If I made an error, please let me know - and I apologize in advance if I did! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Haiduc - I've replaced the cat for Aeschines and Parmenides, which are the only two in the Category:Pederasty in ancient Greece that I removed. Do you know if I should put back:
- Category:Pederasts on Tsunayoshi Tokugawa
- Category:Victorian pederasty on George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston
- Those are the only other two I removed.
- As a side note, before I removed the cats I read through all four of these articles and didn't see in them anywhere any indication that they should belong in the various pederasty categories. For instance, Aeschines has no mention of lovers, relationships, students, tutors, boys, or anything remotely connecting him to pederasty in ancient Greece except for his attack on Timarchos. While I respect that you know more than I in this area, and that you have verifiable sources and all, but for those of us without that information, it might be helpful to state in the article something about why they're in the category.
- Sorry for what must have seemed an arbitrary and wholesale removal, but was really just me removing a couple articles that I *thought* were incorrectly categorized. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] sexual objectification
I submitted a photo to sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please? Talk:Sexual_objectification#Request_for_Comment--DavidShankBone 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
If you add the link back into the John Bosco page, I'll report you for 3RR. Take it to the discussion page where it belongs. --evrik (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia article on Homosexuality
Hi Haiduc. You reverted a change I made to the article on Homosexuality, specifically the removal of the third paragraph which is restated later in the article. I removed it from the introduction because being placed in the introduction gave it—I believed—an undue weight in the article. Given that the anthropological perspective stated is only one of the various ways of talking about homosexuality, it seemed strange to place it in the introduction, particularly as the idea of homosexuality as expressed by these anthropologists is pretty far from normal usage. They suggest three models in societies - one egalitarian, one gender-structured and one age-structured.
In contemporary use, you could argue that each of these three categories could be equally well used about heterosexual relationships (one where partners are equal, one where they are confined to gender roles and one where there are large age differentials between the partners, the latter being normally what we call paedophilia). There is no such passage in the introduction to the wikipedia article on heterosexuality however. I would suggest its presence in this introduction makes it see like homosexuality is an societal construct (which is debatable), that anthropology is the right way to explore it (which is highly debatable) and that it in some way is conflatable with completely different axes of identity - dom/sub, masculine/feminine, age-differential and the like. Particularly with regard to the age-differential aspect, I note that there is no written piece in the heterosexuality article which gestures towards heterosexual paedophilia (by far the more common of the two).
My suggestion was to remove the paragraph from the introduction, where it took on the apparent characteristics of notable truth, and to leave the exact same subject material in the section on anthropological views of homosexual relationships later in the page, where it could be contrasted with other interpretations and categorisations from other discipliens.
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation (second nomination)
Haiduc, since you're mentioned rather prominently in this AfD, I thought I'd make sure that you knew about it. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Now, I wonder, Haiduc, how did you manage to miss the massive open tasks template and the specific request to post AfDs at WP:DSSG near the very top of the noticeboard to place Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation (second nomination) at the bottom of the completed AfDs list? ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD
Hello Rlevse, I see that you and the others involved in the Scouting portal have steered clear of the AfD on Baden-Powell. Is that a wise choice, considering that if this article is dragged down the material will have to find a place in the main article again? It seems to go counter to the work that we and others did on this subject a while ago. Regards, Haiduc 05:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't steered clear of it, I was just watching how it was going. I did see at least one other member of our project vote on it. If it is deleted, the material, in full, going back in the article, would cause the same problems as before. I'll see if I can gen up some interest.Rlevse 10:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- PS-I hate it when things keep coming up for afd/cfd don't you? Anyway I've contacted our active members to look this over and vote. I see three have already done so. Take care.Rlevse 10:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] John the Apostle
I'm afraid I don't see the reference you referred to in your comment to the above article. I have however now added the references section at the bottom for references. If you were referring to the List mentioned at the bottom of the section, you should know that wikipedia does not consider other wikipedia pages as good references. John Carter 18:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thought you'd like to know the content you added to the article above has been deleted by an anon. Feel free to restore it. If you do so, I will also help to ensure that the content remains. However, I repeat that I think it might be a better idea to create a Queer readings article which would help assert the notability of such content as well, and possibly, at least initially, perhaps add some of the content there. Then, as that page becomes big enough, it would be very logical to transfer some of the content to other pages, and make it much less likely that such unwarranted deletions of content take place again. John Carter 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:LGBT Coordinator Election NoticeThis is just a quick, automated note to let you know that there is an election being conducted over the next 7 days for the position of "Coordinator" for the LGBT WikiProject. Your participation is requested. -- SatyrTN (talk • contribs) |
[edit] Recent edit to Jesus
While I agree Homosexual readings of Jesus and John is a valid subject to link to ... hoo, boy, is that gonna stir up a hornet's nest. :) Justin Eiler 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Secularism
Haiduc,
The "formulation" you mention is not mine at all, however I do not find it either biased or snide (please explain). Both recent occasions I have reverted changes to the word "extreme" I have cited the same two reasons. I fail to see the POV issue the change addresses (which still hasn't been clarified) and I feel that the word change alters the meaning of the differentiation between the two types of secularism. The other edit to which I am referring here is this one. The intended meaning of extreme is not "broad", but something closer to "stronger" or "harder"--that is "more" in a qualitative sense. Saying that it is "broader" implies that it is more general. This isn't the case. Your wording, in my view, also suffers from a similar problem. One could interpret it to mean that the apparatus and expression of secularism is "restricted" to a smaller social domain in the first sense and more extensive in what it encompasses in the second sense (which I would agree with). However, one can just as easily interpret it to mean (as i did at first) that secularism in first sense is more specific and the second more general, or even that it less common and more common respectively. What the original formulation tried to convey was something like this. The author of this paper, Barry Kosmin (a sociologist who runs an institute dedicated to the study of secularism) uses the terms "hard secularism" and "soft secularism"--and not moderate and extreme (or weaker and stronger) ... although those terms do come up in his essay. I don't agree that your formulation makes the nature of this differentiation any clearer (and as I stated I see no POV). I'm sorry if you interpreted my revert as because "I say so", but that is really not what my intention was/is. What do you think about the essay I referenced above? Can you explain to me how the original formulation was POV? This what I have yet to understand. Thanks.PelleSmith 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I think those qualifiers are not exactly the same as Kosmin's, and I see your point. People may associate "extreme" with "extremism" so it can and probably does lead some readers to think that something like what you described is implied by the use of the term. Basically I was being stubborn in insisting that there is nothing inherently negative about the phrasing. Point well taken. I also like the idea of not using a qualifier perhaps. Maybe I can link a reference to the Kosmin essay above the two definitions and we can let the descriptions speak for themselves in the entry--without any qualifiers. Of course now I feel mischievous not having this conversation on the talk page of the entry, but besides that how do you feel about such a solution?PelleSmith 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DYK
 |
On 20 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Homosexual readings of Jesus and John, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--Yomanganitalk 10:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have this article watchlisted, Haiduc. I will revert vandalism as necessary. Jeffpw 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
 |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| Changing those pederasty categories looks like hard work - you deserve this! SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Howdy
You didn't say too much about the NAMBLA/LGBT organization issue; what were your thoughts? I honestly am torn on the issue, and I had hoped we'd flesh out a general, flexible definition of what constitutes an LGBT org., but I don't think many people wanted to bite into that apple. By the way, if I implied during our Ginsberg discussion that you are a pedophile, I did not mean to do so. When I re-read my comments, I thought you would have had a valid reason to take offense, and I apologize. --DavidShankBone 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- there was a compromise: take the LGBT organization category out, but place them in the "List of LGBT organizations". I thought that was a good compromise, actually. I agree, that gays need to accept the past, and that our movement went through quite a few growing pains. When I asked Ginsberg about the issue in 96 (he made me follow him in the bathroom and talked while he pissed) he down-played the more insidious (right word?) side of NAMBLA and made a reasonable argument: a kid at 15 or 16 knows what he (or she, and since women mature faster sexually, especially) is doing. But once you pass 15, it starts to cross lines. I personally don't know what a mature sexual being finds attractive about gangly, goofy teens; I can't relate. But one of the most brilliant pieces of comedy, literally, is a piece in the Dave Chappelle DVD "Live at the Filmore". It is entitled, "How old is 15 really?" I swear, it is not only hysterical, but perhaps the most brilliant piece of comedy I've witnessed since Richard Pryor. I would even say it's educational. That segment of his routine runs about 15 minutes, and at the end I would say most people would walk away with a shift in perspective. You should check it out. --DavidShankBone 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Regarding the NAMBLA "compromise": there is now opposition to the article being placed on the list of LGBT-related organizations. It's as if the only tags they want on the article are pedophile tags. Well, this is a controversial issue, and people tend to get hysterical. I suppose, too, that people can feel good about themselves, thinking they have fought pedophilia by refusing to classify this article properly. But in the end, we are writing an encyclopedia, not taking a position on the issue. It's situations like this which cause me to lose faith in the masses' ability to reason. Jeffpw 05:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- there was a compromise: take the LGBT organization category out, but place them in the "List of LGBT organizations". I thought that was a good compromise, actually. I agree, that gays need to accept the past, and that our movement went through quite a few growing pains. When I asked Ginsberg about the issue in 96 (he made me follow him in the bathroom and talked while he pissed) he down-played the more insidious (right word?) side of NAMBLA and made a reasonable argument: a kid at 15 or 16 knows what he (or she, and since women mature faster sexually, especially) is doing. But once you pass 15, it starts to cross lines. I personally don't know what a mature sexual being finds attractive about gangly, goofy teens; I can't relate. But one of the most brilliant pieces of comedy, literally, is a piece in the Dave Chappelle DVD "Live at the Filmore". It is entitled, "How old is 15 really?" I swear, it is not only hysterical, but perhaps the most brilliant piece of comedy I've witnessed since Richard Pryor. I would even say it's educational. That segment of his routine runs about 15 minutes, and at the end I would say most people would walk away with a shift in perspective. You should check it out. --DavidShankBone 04:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Apologizing
This is late in coming, I should've done it sooner. I'm sorry about my hostile behavior towards you and general rude and wanky twuntness re: Talk: Selim Ahmed (Dahoum). I could've been civilized or else thought before I typed and hit "save page". --Jaguara 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Leonardo
Hmmph! I'm very cross with you for readjusting the Personal life and leaving in my hidden comment which said that the info was beyond dispute. In fact, I've left a nasty message to that effect on the discussion page.
Can you have another look at the passage and see if it really needs more than it has now.
You can't possibly win. If you write the apparent facts blatantly you're slammed for that and if you write it discretely, then the language is criticised. Good luck!
--Amandajm 12:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] All my own way
No, it's not entirely like that! I just want the bloody argument to go somewhere else. For the survival of the page, because it will get swamped with sex-life again. There is no doubt that the matter is significant. One only has to look at J the B to know that it's significant. He never painted a woman looking that sexy. Hey! mebbe its not Mona Lisa at all.... maybe its actually Melzi Lisa.... now have you thought of that?
--Amandajm 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Female portrait
I put up the pic of Beatrice. I also put up the pic of Salai in costume. I was trying to find a good reproduction of the pic of him in profile which shows his realy stunning features. When I get a sufficiently good reproduction of it, I will include it. Or else the John the Baptist picture. It is not my aim to make the man appear heterosexual. I would just prefer that the parties who insist on arguing the case did it at another venue.
I can understand that there are people who find it distatseful that he probaby had sex with underage youths (whatever that means). I find it distasteful myself. But there is no point in denying that it happened or that it was generally socially acceptable.
As I see it, the reality of his sexuality either has to be very much understated or else proven at great and tedious length with a million inline references and a pic of Salai's butt being chased down the street by rampant dicks. There is no way of satisfying those people who will rail at any suggestion that anyone admirable is anything other than heterosexual.
I also suspect that if you put your name to any further edits to the particular section, they'll just be deleted immediately.
I might have a look for John the Baptist.
--Amandajm 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] not quite right
As I've said before, I don't want the page to simply turn into a forum for trying to prove or disprove the nature of the man's sexuality. Because when that happens, every time it happens, the sexuality swamps everything else and, rather than writing about the love, what is revealed takes on a pornographic intensity. It's as bad as those ghastly long-distance photos of people's cellulite and facelifts that you get in magazines.
I've made it clear what my reasons are for not wanting this to happen.
On the other hand, if the evidence indicates that Leonardo was homosexual, it is inappropriate not include the fact in the article. Kids have as much right to that information as anyone. In a general way, they need to know that to be homosexual is an OK way to be. But that doesn't mean that the article needs lurid descriptions.
Leonardo left us with an image- the very beautiful and enticing painting of John the Baptist. I really think that image says a great deal about the nature of the relationship.
To make it clear, (which I thought I had), what I find objectionable is the sexual exploitation of children by those in positions of care. For me, it's hard to draw a neat line between pedophile and pederast sexuality. However, when I look at the painting of John the Baptist, I don't see an eroticised picture of a pubescent boy. What I see is a young man who is old enough to decide for himself what direction he would like the relationship to take.
If indeed the relationship between Leonardo and either of his aprentices was physical, do we really have any idea how such a relationship came about and how old the boys were at the time, or is it speculation? There is a considerable ethical difference between a man having sex with a ten year old and a man having sex with a 17 year old. The insistance on the pederast (rather than homosexual) nature of Leonardo's relationships calls this into question.
--Amandajm 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comments have been taken on board. I agree entirely that to say that the relationships were sexual in nature doesn't convey fully the nature of the relationships, in the light of Melzi's statement. I can't do any serious editting of anything for about a week because of the limitations of my laptop. --Amandajm 12:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sparta
Hi Haiduc. The reference citing Xenophon and Aristotle has always been in the ref tags. I changed "affirm" and "is of the opinion" to "writes" in order to add precision. If there is something else please refer to me in my talk page. There's already an open debate in the article with a new editor who is a bit of a pain due to his lack of experience. So I would prefer to discuss more serious issues separately until that one is done. Miskin 22:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It was me who cited Xenophon and Aristotle but I referenced Powel because when you asked me I didn't remember in which primary work it was mentioned. I needed a secondary source which cites them and I randomly found Powel the same way you did. I don't remember reading his analysis, since I was only interested in citing Xenophon and Aristotle, and I didn't have the slightest intention at being fraudulent. After listening to this however, I understand how this comes off as a manipulative edit, and I'm sorry. I'm going to look for the primary source in order to avoid the implication of Powel supporting Xenophon's and Aristotle's view on the topic, after all mainstream scholarship probably does not. I would like though to present the views of the ancient writers for the sake of NPOV. Miskin 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LGBT WikiProject newsletter
| The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
[edit] Marcel Schwob
I was recently made aware of an edit you made, saying that Marcel Schwob died of syphilis due to anal intercourse with a minor. Do you have any evidence to substantiate whether Mr. Schwob did indeed contract syphilis or engage in pederasty? Ral315 » 10:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Britten
Hi - I see you've put Britten's Children in tne Modern Pederasty category which seems to be a list of individuals not books etc. Wouldn't it be more logical to link from Benjamin Britten? Tony 10:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Tony
-
- thanks for your reply. I certainly don't want to end up fighting either. We need to run with broad interpretations of the 'words' that are our focus - 'pederasty' for you and 'pedophilia' for me. I don't know about you, but I get a bit proprietorial about articles that have lots of my man hours in, then someone comes along and tries to put another slant on them. I love the average Wiki editor, but there are some less-than-helpful people around. In a spirit of co-operation you might want to check out the edits I did on les amities particulieres. There were various references to pederasty there which didn't seem appropriate. I know the book and movie well (the movie in the original French too!) and there is no sexual activity portrayed anywhere. It is strongly implied that priests do fancy the pre-pubescent boys and also that there may be sexual goings on too. Are you happy with that? If not, please revert my edits. The word homoerotic was also used in the article for the relationship between a 14-year-old and an 11-year-old and I didn't think that was appropriate either. Tony 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Tony
[edit] Request to join discussion
Hi Haiduc :) I was hoping, if you had a little free time that you could possible toss your two cents into the dispute I've been having with Jolb over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants#Categorization_dispute? Thanks in advance :) --Thoric 02:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus and John
You're probably right. I think I got a bit overanxious here. CaveatLectorTalk 03:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
