User talk:Axon

Hi, I am a new comer here, and I found u at Queer wikipedians. I am now working mainly on Chinese verision about gay-related articals. And I think you can help me a lot. Hopefully we can be friends! :D --Gboy 04:07 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi there GBoy. Welcome to the Wikipedia. I'd be more than happy to help you with your work here. My Chinese is a little poor (i.e. non-existant) but I'm more than happy to answer your questions. I think wikipedia needs more intelligent discourse of gay-related matters. Hopefully we'll be seeing more of each other :) --Axon

Thank you! I found that there are so little information about gay in Chinese version that I am so shame of it. I am now planning to translate all the gay-related articles from English into Chinese.Gay can do things perfect too(much better sometimes) ! :D I am now looking for some info about crackdown on gay in any countries, I don't know if you have any? Thanks! :D --Gboy 07:53 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've been away for a while, so my welcome is belated -- sorry.

I've made some changes to reparative therapy, and I hope you will take a look at them. I've tried not to add any bias to the article, because I really do wish to write from the neutral point of view (see NPOV).

Whenever I edit an article on a controversial subject, I like to get feedback from other writers, especially those who disagree with my own views -- to ensure that I have not unwittingly led the article astray from neutrality. (I'm guessing you and I might be polar opposites on homosexuality; correct me, please, if I presume too much :-).

--Uncle Ed 16:20, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Ed,

Not at all, the article on reperative therapy needs a little structure to it.

I not a great believer in polar opposites and I'm not entirely sure, given what I've read on your opinions that we are completely opposed on all subjects. That said, we probably do differ quite widely on certain topics :) Ah well, wouldn't life be boring if we all agreed?

Anyway, thanks for popping along and making you thoughts known,

--Axon Thu Jul 31 11:44:10 GMTDT 2003

Hello - I think you may have meant to create Axon/List of homophobic articles at User:Axon/List of homophobic articles. Charles Matthews 17:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amnesty International

Axon, I appreciated your comments about my revisions to this page, and I agree with the thrust of your argument (we don't need to list every critical article in every magazine). I have some ideas about how to revise but I'm holding off because the last time I made any changes it prompted a small and irritating reversion war. When I get to it, I think the revision to the Criticism section could read more like "Criticisms of AI fall into two major categories- "availability bias" which suggests AI has more ability to collect critical information from societies that are more open and free while the worst HR offenders prevent AI and other NGOs from collection information, and "political bias," alleging that AI preferentially focuses its criticisms in such a way as to promote an ideological viewpoint.

Something like that- but anyway like I said I'd prefer to let it sit for a little while.

Kaisershatner 16:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kaisershatner, thanks for you remarks. I've looked at the history of the page, but I have to admit that there are a confusing array of reversions and edits going on. I think the best idea - rather than waiting for one side to 'win' an edit war - would be to focus efforts of all parties to come together on the AI talk page to discuss our concerns. Perhaps you could describe the controversy on the talk page and ask for comments from the other editors in a more friendly way?

For example, I've just left a comment about the strong bias of NGO monitor. As I noted, there are plenty of other sources of criticism for AI out there other than NGO Monitor which, whilst purporting to be neutral, is actually, whether rightly or wrongly, biased against all human rights NGOs like AI. Certainly, there are moer respected sources criticising AI out there. --Axon 17:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The" in article titles

We generally don't put "The" in article titles, partly because it looks better to link to the United States than to The United States. The main exceptions are the titles of literary works, films and newspapers (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, The Lord of the Rings, The Godfather, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, etc.). A good indication is that if the definite article wouldn't be capitalised in the middle of a sentence it probably shouldn't be in the article title. Proteus (Talk) 16:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Homosexuality and Morality pages

I originally found your page by accident from following a note you'd left at someone else's page, leading me from there to happen on the pages you have an interest in, but I was really amazed at the Homosexuality and Morality page, as well as the nasty tone of the annoyed person bickering at you in the talk page to defend his continual re-adding of what looked like highly doubtful, unscientific "research" into a connection between pedophilia and homosexuality by a supposed pedophilia activist in Europe (Edward Brongersma -- don't know who the other two listed are). You indicated you had seen this research as well? The wiki entry for Edward Brongersma doesn't even say anything about what his profession is! It simply calls him an "advocate."

Were the so-called "researchers" involved scientists or psychologists or just cranks pushing an agenda? Were they writing about "studies" in their immediate neighborhood or dealing with people from all over the world? It appears to me that some of the bias involved is that of a particular country's attitude toward pedophilia being one associating it with homosexuality. I have always my whole life (in the United States) heard stories of pedophiles being typically some old uncle fondling a young girl, not usually a same sex situation; most people I knew growing up years ago did not associate the term with same sex behavior.

So to me, it is inaccurate for someone to foist on the world through an encyclopedia the views of one locale about some connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. The only connection that has made it in recent years in the U.S. start to be more associated with pedophilia than the previous associations of old man abusing a female child are the new stories in the past few years about Catholic priests committing pedophilia with young boys. Perhaps we should then associate religion with pedophilia?

I really found some older versions in the history file of that page to be quite offensively written regarding bias towards homosexuals; thank goodness it was updated and I do wonder a bit why to even have the topic (why not a "heterosexuality and morality" page as well?). I have also recently run across some references to "studies" emanating from a couple of European countries (Denmark is one) used by antigay conservative U.S. politicians to justify saying that extending the right of marriage to homosexuals would lead to more divorces and fewer marriages among heterosexuals, which seems a ridiculous assertion. My point is that there are some seemingly unscientific, oddball "studies" overseas on a number of homophobic subjects; perhaps there is so much freedom over there that they are having a backlash. Sorry to ramble but I didn't have a way to drop a message in your email box, where I'd have preferred to put something long like this. You didn't make your email accessible. Mine is. Glad you worked on helping the point of view of the topic. And no, I don't care to add to the discussion over on the topic talk page; I just wanted to speak with you directly for a minute about it, not create a public record of a few thoughts. My user page (and thereby my Email this user link) should be accessible through your history page if you'd like to reply. My work editing here as a newbie has nothing to do with this subject though; I just found it strange to see what happened there and wanted to say hello.-B

Bias, phobias, and lack of intellectual honesty in certain articles

Hi,

Thanks for chipping in on the Homosexuality article. I am trying to keep my temper with people who do not practice intellectual honesty, but "some people's children" are getting my goat. I hope we can work together to pin some of the dodgy critters down. (Maybe a pro wrestler's "sleeper' hold would help.) ;-)

It may be Robert S. de Ropp who tells a story about his childhood in an English "public" school. One of the priests who helped run the place both played the music for daily religious observances and was the health teacher. He frequently admonished his charges that to maintain proper hygiene "You must powder your organ every day." The day after one trying class with this individual, when everyone assembled for morning devotions, it was noted that the organ console had been liberally dusted with talcum powder. Somehow I think we have at least one graduate of that school, or perhaps the organ player himself. ;-) (Actually, this story is more pertinent to the penis article than the homosexuality article, but, anyway...)

I can deal with people who would die rather than run naked out of a burning building, but I have trouble with people who tell me there is a non-existant law about something. How to deal with people who have learned to be artfully dishonest is a big question. I used to hang out with residents of a therapeutic community, and their approach was to get somebody into an encounter group and blast away their defenses. Unfortunately, that won't work in a Wiki environment. So curing the individual is impossible, and damage control becomes the order of the day. I guess we both need to walk around with fire extinguishers.

Best, 金 (Kim) 17:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not at all, although one has to suppose that the Homosexuality article will always be a magnet for these kinds of edits. There is little that can be done except to argue ones case sincerely, take nothing to heart and remember ones own dignity most of all. It looks worse for those rush around on Wikipedia editing without thought even though it sometimes seems the opposite.

I especially enjoyed your story about the priest and the talcum powder. :)--Axon 17:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Atheism and Rationalism

you should then accept that lack of evidence is not evidence of non-existence

I do with all my heart. However, I could not say "there is no evidence" in the article, just because I coundn't find any within half an hour on the internet. If I had found a statement "there is no evidence" in a theological or medieval encyclopedia somewhere, I would have inserted it with a clean conscience. As it is, I simply avoided the issue by saying there is hardly any testimony, trusting that if this is wrong, it would be corrected. I am well acquainted with the Middle Ages, and if there had been any atheist movement, I am almost certain it would have caught my attention before. I am therefore quite confident that I am right about this. But I am open to the possibility that I am missing something. I implore you to help me find a case of medieval atheism, as I would be delighted to find one. I imagine it would be possible to find some atheistic statements, not in theological literature, but maybe in popular plays, or courtly poems. Such would be valuable evidence, but they would most likely be attributed to villains and not represent anybody's actual beliefs.

I think you should stop treating me like I didn't know what I was talking about. dab (ᛏ) 14:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You claim to be a rationalist but you do not seem to behave like one. To make the edits in the article that there is no medieval atheism or that atheism was not persecuted by the Inquisition, you need to provide supporting references. I'm willing to concede that there is a lack of evidence for pre-Enlightenment atheism, perhaps such evidence would be impossible to obtain but I strongly disagree that it is a) impossible for atheism to have existed and b) that the lack of evidence directly indicates lack of existence - apart from anything else, one can imagine that any atheists that did exist were very much forced to keep their ideas to themselves. You yourself admit that weak atheism existed during this period.

John Miller in his excellent BBC documentary The History of Disbelief actually makes reference to this very subject, if I recall correctly. I shall be attempting to get hold of a copy of the documentary or a transcript to confim this one way or the other.

Despite you overly emotive pleas you have still failed to address my concerns and provide any evidence. Why are you responding here and not on the Atheism talk page? Why are you ignoring my comments and remarks and simply cherry picking those remarks you would prefer to respond to? --Axon 15:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Why do you keep reverting my edits? What did I delete or change that was even remotely NEUTRAL? Is denigration more neutral than criticism? Is this: "In this case, the common experiences of immigrant communities of unemployment, rejection, alienation and violence have combined with Islamophobia to make integration particularly difficult. (See article by Tariq Ramadan in links.) This has led, in the United Kingdom, for example, to Muslim communities suffering higher levels of unemployment, poor housing, poor health and levels of racially motivated violence than other communities. (See paper by Maleiha Malik in links)." objective and neutral? Or is it more of an attempt to explain why islamophobia is wrong? And what about the external links? should they only include those who represent a anti-islamophobia point of view? Another thing is, why do you mention that I edit as an "anon"? Does it matter? I can registrer if it makes you feel better? BTW, I just reverted the page again to the more NEUTRAL version.

Sorry, who are you again? I think you can imagine why I reverted your edits: just check the comments, they're pretty self-explanatory. --Axon 16:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am user:207.44.192.52 I understand that you consider the old version of "Islamophobia" more neutral, my question was: WHY.

Because, apart from anything else, that version is the correct version: not only are you an anonymous user making highly controversial edits but you have exceeded the three reversion rule. --Axon 17:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please refrain from making any false accusations. I did not go beyond 3 reverts nor did I violated any "three reversion rule". Please look at the edit history again. Anyway please remember: this articles title is "Islamophobia" not "why Islamophobia is wrong". A section with the title "criticism of Islamophobia" would be allright for me, and MAYBE some of the trash I deleted could be included in that section. To present criticism of Islamophobia as facts is not neutral and ofcurse NOT acceptable. The critics of Islam MUST be presented in a fair way, and to claim that "Muslim communities suffering higher levels of unemployment, poor housing, poor health and levels of racially motivated violence than other communities." because of anti-islamic criticism, is ofcurse not acceptable. Anyway, why did you remove the external links I added? Do you think the external links should only present the one side of the discussion? And what about "denigration"? Is "denigration" a more neutral word than "criticism". user:207.44.192.52

Do you think the page as I had written it on Nov 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Islamophobia&oldid=8021453) is unacceptably biased (in either direction)? Certainly the Muslim-hater BSveen changed it to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Islamophobia&oldid=7966748). Any thoughts? GCarty 19:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, will mark next rev's --Germen 17:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why was Islamophobia kept ("important issue", "notable" were reasons given) yet Arab dictatorships and Ameriphobia were deleted because "too POV"? Seems like obvious political bias, ie. Lefty Wikiadmins are promoting anti-American views and rigorously deleting anything critical of anti-Americanism. ~

Thanks for the tip about signing. Neologism? It has been used by Front Page Magazine (FrontPageMagazine.com | December 17, 2001), appeared in a major American newspaper (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20041004-103823-3308r.htm) and even appeared in the venerable New yorker magazine in 2003(http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/030310fa_fact)! The New yorker = rightwing neologism? I'll have to write and tell them. As far as calling it racist, there is plenty of content that is openly racist, but people prevent deletion because they claim it's useage is a fact. (Again, double standards: arguments used for deleting one article are ignored to protect another. ) ~

As is clear from the Talk:islamophilia page, the introductionary paragraph of islamophilia was very POV. Please state your arguments for NPOV. Besides, please stop vandalising my contributions. --Germen 15:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Gay

Please vote your opinion of template:gay. Thanks. Apollomelos 19:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adraeus

Axon, please e-mail me. Thank you. Adraeus 18:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eliminiating "Homosexuality" from Homosexuality?

"I think the point is not whether the editors of Wikipedia find the term offensive or not (that would be original research), but that a wide group of people do consider the term to be offensive, and a number of people purposefully use the term rather than, for example, gay, because many gay people find it offensive."

from the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington's Glossary for school employees:

"Gay: Preferred synonym for homosexual." "Homosexual: Avoid this term; it is clinical, distancing and archaic. Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adj.). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred, at least in the Northwest." -http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-glbt-defined.html

from The Guardian style guide edited by David Marsh and Nikki Marshall:

"gay: synonymous with homosexual, and on the whole preferable" -http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/0,5817,184913,00.html

from Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language by Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern, American Psychological Association:

"Lesbian and gay male are preferred to the word 'homosexual' when used as an adjective referring to specific persons or groups, and lesbians and gay men are preferred terms over 'homosexuals' used as a noun when referring to specific persons or groups. The word 'homosexual' has several problems of designation. First, it may perpetuate negative stereotypes because of its historical associations with pathology and criminal behavior. Second, it is ambiguous in reference because it is often assumed to refer exclusively to men and thus renders lesbians invisible. Third, it is often unclear."

"The terms 'gay male' and 'lesbian' refer primarily to identities and to the modern culture and communities that have developed among people who share those identities. They should be distinguished from sexual behavior. Some men and women have sex with others of their own gender but do not consider themselves to be gay or lesbian. In contrast, the terms 'heterosexual' and 'bisexual' currently are used to describe identity as well as behavior."

"The terms 'gay' as an adjective and 'gay persons' as a noun have been used to refer to both males and females. However, these terms may be ambiguous in reference since readers who are used to the term 'lesbian and gay' may assume that 'gay' refers to men only. Thus it is preferable to use 'gay' or 'gay persons' only when prior reference has specified the gender composition of this term."

"Such terms as 'gay male' are preferable to 'homosexuality' or 'male homosexuality' and so are grammatical reconstructions (e.g., 'his colleagues knew he was gay' rather than 'his colleagues knew about his homosexuality'). The same is true for 'lesbian' over 'female homosexual', 'female homosexuality', or 'lesbianism.'"

"Same-gender behavior, male-male behavior, and female-female behavior are appropriate terms for specific instances of same-gender sexual behavior that people engage in regardless of their sexual orientation (e.g., a married heterosexual man who once had a same-gender sexual encounter). Likewise, it is useful that women and men not be considered 'opposites' (as in 'opposite sex') to avoid polarization, and that heterosexual women and men not be viewed as opposite to lesbians and gay men. Thus, male-female behavior is preferred to the term "opposite sex behavior" in referring to specific instances of other-gender sexual behavior that people engage in regardless of their sexual orientation."

"When referring to sexual behavior that cannot be described as heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual, special care needs to be taken. Descriptions of sexual behavior among animal species should be termed 'male-male sexual behavior" or 'male-female sexual behavior' rather than 'homosexual behavior' or 'heterosexual behavior,' respectively." -http://www.apastyle.org/sexuality.html

from the Newswatch Diversity Style Guide:

"gay: Preferable in all references as a synonym for male homosexual. Lesbian is preferred term for women. To include both, use 'gay men and lesbians. Best to use 'gay' as an adjective, not a noun, such as 'gay man,' 'gay woman,' 'gay people.' In headlines where space is an issue, gay(s) is acceptable to describe both." -http://newswatch.sfsu.edu/guide/g.html

from User:Hyacinth/Style guide. Hyacinth 18:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ILGA

Hello, sorry about the minor-edit war on ILGA. I don't mind the removal of an ANTI-gay stance, but I'm not entirely certain how the ILGA article WAS anti-gay. Unless you think the (over?)concentration on the pedophile groups was itself anti-gay. That part of the article was I think written by a (I think) pro-pedophile and has been watered down to remove POV, and as it stood I think it needed changing. It made the ILGA article a mouthpiece of a partisan viewpoint (NAMBLA-ish). But trying to minimise the reporting of causes of the ILGA/UN crisis is itself POV - homosexual simply means same sex attraction. It is perfectly possible for there to be a homosexual pedophile. Homosexual does not mean confident and happily out Edward and Ben living together in a super flat overlooking central park... :-) But anyway, sorry again lmno 18:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RFA: thanks

(William M. Connolley 19:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Just a note of thanks for your comments on mu RFA.

Homosexuality and psychology

Hi Axon: You deleted the statement "The overtly secular National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality is the only professional body to endorse reparative therapy." from Homosexuality and psychology with the summary "deleted POV: NARTH is not considered a "professional body" by all". Please explain why you consider the whole sentence to be POV. I can see that the adjective 'overtly' may tend towards POV (I sought a succinct way to acknowledge that NARTH claims to be secular and ecumenical but has critics who consider it to be dominated by conservative Judaeo-Christian interests) but I do not understand why the whole thing is POV. As I understand matters NARTH purports to be an organization for mental health professionals with a class of membership (Friends) for lay people. I am not a member of NARTH, its opponents or its allies. I hit this page through Special:Randompage and felt that the statement in this section about reparative therapies gave the erroneous impression of a single religious movement promoting these approaches. Hence my changes. Would it be better to restore the NARTH sentence and add the sentence "Some opponents of NARTH argue that its claim to be a professional body is misleading." or some variation thereof? --Theo (Talk) 00:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New LGBT noticeboard.

Hi, I've created a LGBT noticeboard for wikipedians to post issues and concerns. Please take a look. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 07:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm an idiot, sorry

>.< on the homosexuality and pedophilia page, I forgot to sign, sorry. I do not personally dispute that sentance, I just believe strong statements need strong back up--Tznkai 04:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. I was probably a bit abrupt myself. It's good people like you do call others on citation: without citation Wikipedia will never become respected. Axon 08:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Axon"