User talk:SouthernComfort

Welcome!

Hello, SouthernComfort, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing!

This is a bit late, I'm afraid, and you'll know all the above — but better a later welcome than none at all. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Khosh Amadeed

Dast e Shomaa dard nakoneh. Zahmat Kesheedeed.--Zereshk 14:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Your message

I'll try to look in on the articles tomorrow (I'm falling off my chair at the moment, and need to get some sleep). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

Agha, sharmandeh...

I was away at a conference (and part of the organizing team), and didnt have good access to the internet.

I guess the only way to deal with ignorami like Zora is to keep on providing documentation and references until she stops pestering the page with her Pan-Arab nationalism (she calls us nationalist!!!), and goes back to editing Hindi Movie pages, where she belongs.

Luckily, I will be visiting Tehran in 3 weeks, and I have lots of friends at Miras e Farhangi Organization, not to mention that the Deputy of The National Library of Iran, is also my former teacher.

dahanesho servees meekoneem. Fekr kardeh mitooneh alaki har chee khaast zerrrrr bezaneh.

By the way, User:Refdoc was a big help in such issues. I dont know where he's disappeared into.--Zereshk 03:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Wiki headline style

You've been changing headlines to cap words after the first word. I used to do this, and was informed by an admin that the Wiki style is to cap only the first word, unless it is a word that is always capitalized. Just so you know. Zora 09:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I found the source of Haiduc's Identification of "The Wine Boy"

The World History of Male Love He copied his translation of "the poem" verbatim from that site, this despite the fact that no poem about Shah Abbas is specifically mentioned. There is no source given for the translation, which could possibly be copyrighted. Other quotes referring to man-boy love are all unsourced. Here's a sample, from the main page:

In the Moslem lands, famous Iranian and Arab poets such as Hafiz i-Shirazi and Abu Nuwas praised and rued the charms of boys (whom they sometimes plied with wine and seduced). Sufi holy men from India to Turkey sought to find Allah by gazing upon the beauty of beardless youths. Storytellers enshrined gay love tales in the Thousand and One Nights. Artists like Riza i-Abbasi amused kings and princes with exquisitely wrought Persian miniatures and calligraphies. Mullahs and censors railed against male love, but men of all walks of life, from Caliphs to porters, delighted in it and all looked forward to being attended by "unaging youths as beautiful as pearls" once in paradise.

The original has multiple links to Persian artists and poets, all of whom, we assured were out-and-out pederasts. I find the whole picture painted above very dubious. I'm very skeptical that any of the paintings depict homosexual love, with the possible exception of the Shah Abbas one. But even there I don't think it's a cut-and-dried case. My Arabic teacher from Iraq told me that when he first came here as a teenager his uncle had to pull his and his brother's hands apart when they were walking around the mall, telling them that they couldn't do that in America. It was something they were used to doing at home, but which seemed "gay" to Americans. Something we might consider "homoerotic" can just be a normal sign of friendship, affection or filial piety in the Middle East. Maybe the old shah is hugging a boy. So what? That's no proof that he's gay, although I have to admit it does look that way in my eyes. I left it alone on the Commons site because of the ambiguity, but I removed from the "Homosexuality" category the photo that I mentioned on Zereshk's page because that is clearly a woman with breasts. --Jpbrenna 04:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Same-sex love in the Middle East is not the same as the physical intimacy in eastern countries. But one fades into the other. And it is not only in your eyes that Abbasi's painting looks homoerotic. Much of the art of Islamic countries has homoerotic subtexts. Look at the rest of the pictures on that site you discovered, and read some modern critical treatments of Arabic, Persian and Ottoman literature and history. Haiduc 03:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

To be fair...

I've been reading some more of the stuff on that site, and most of the translations are sourced, except, generally the ones in image descriptions, and the main page.

Shah Abbas I and Persian homosexuality

Considering that we have gone from your deleting my attempt to initiate discussion to, now, a response that ignores the substance of my comments, perhaps we are making progress. Persian homosexuality has been a topic of discussion, both in Persia and in Europe, since antiquity. You will find a couple of relevant quotes from historical material in my response at User talk:Zereshk's page. Also you will find there references to back up the use use of the Abbasi painting and dedication text. Please respond to the argument, and desist from repeated attempts to remove valid information without debate on the merits. Haiduc 12:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort,

Unfortunately, on the case of the two lovers picture, my knowledge is very limited. But I will find out about the picture in person when I visit the Reza Abbasi Museum in June.--Zereshk 13:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry my use of the greeting offended you. Your religious affiliation is none of my business, and I will restrict myself to western conventions henceforth. My knowledge of Iranian culture is strictly academic, gleaned through reading history and literature. Thus my contributions to the Wikipedia reflect the work of others. In that vein, I note that Louis Crompton (University of Nebraska) states in his well-received work that "...we know boy love flourished spectacularly in Islamic Persia, inspiring a very substantial literature." There is an enormous amount of material on this topic out there, for anyone interested in informing themselves. But I am not here to re-invent the wheel, nor to try to convince you of anything. I am simply reporting on the work of others. The picture you deleted is interpreted as I stated in at least two modern historical works. The contemporary comments about Persian sexual customs which I copied on User:Jpbrenna's talk page are also part of the published record, and I intend to include them in the appropriate articles, among which the one on Shah Abbas I. It is your prerogative to present materials refuting those historians' assertions, and their interpretation of the Abbasi painting. But is is not your place to remove academic material you disagree with. That is not our role here.

Why am I interested in pederasty? I am interested in the history and anthropology of same-sex love, and it is impossible to study that without studying pederasty. Out of that interest comes my desire to make the historical findings of scholars available to the general public. I see my role as that of educator. I am sorry if I offend your sensibilities by bringing up delicate aspects of Iranian history. I do not do it out of mischief, or to disparage. On the contrary, I have tremendous respect and appreciation for the little Iranian culture I have been able to study. But I think that the best way to express that respect is not to cosmetize the past but to present it as accurately as we can. Haiduc 02:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

While you may be right about restricting the comments of art critics to the articles on particular artists, in the case of the Shah Abbas I portrait the interpretations were made by historians and thus belong in the Shah Abbas I article itself. I will think of some appropriate formulation for broaching the topic there, eschewing any "spin" of my own. I do not see my work here as propagandistic, and would welcome very much any opposing points of view that you may be able to dig up, as they would immensely enrich the discussion. It has been my experience here that the correct way to deal with controversy is to report both sides of it.

As for your earlier comment that there is already a picture of him there, I would suggest that we find as many as we can, as each one is likely to illuminate some other aspect of his reign and personality. Here is another fascinating picture. Haiduc 11:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Please respect WP conventions

You will be aware that the debate shows there is no consensus (indeed their is a minority) in favour of Slrubenstein's proposal. This is not surprising - the overwhelming majority of English-speakers in the world use BC/AD. Since you know of the debate, I am surprised that you chose to make changes that clearly go against the grain. You will also be aware that making changes such as the one you did cause widespread offence. For example, one change in one exam paper caused questions to be asked in both houses of the NSW legislature, and for the Minister of Education to have to note that the change should be made. Please do not make changes such as these in the future. Kind regards, jguk 06:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I find changes such as the one you made to be deeply offensive - and as noted above, so do many others. It is also showing complete disrespect for the reader (saying, let's go with what US academia uses, rather than what the world uses and what you understand). If you disrespect the reader, you lose him.

It would be a disaster if Slrubenstein's attempt to equate NPOV with Political Correctness ever gets through - we will lose editors and readers. Political Correctness causes widespread offence as it attempts to publicise a highly liberal minority view on the majority, and as it accuses lots of good people of causing offence when any intelligent person sees there is no offence. Slrubenstein, unfortunately, is very good at teaching people to be offended by things where no offence is intended - and where no offence has previously been taken. He would be better advised to teach people to avoid divisions rather than to find them where previously there have been none.

Anyway, the WP convention is not to make changes such as the ones you made, precisely because of the anger they create. Kind regards, jguk 07:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi SouthernComfort, I should like to make a couple of comments on your interaction with Jguk on this subject. You are not the first to have run counter to his strong POV on the subject of BCE/CE (see Common Era and Talk: Common Era). Despite all the recent debate, (and please forgive me if I am repeating something that you know) Wikipedia policy is quite clear on use of Eras in articles:

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.

Working with Jguk on this subject can be challenging. However, if you hold him to the policy, you should be able to retain the high ground. It is up to the first author of an article to determine the dating system(s) to be used and there must be consistency with each article. If you need any assistance, let me know. Sunray 14:37, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub - under the policy, you should not make the changes you are making. Kind regards, jguk 15:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply, BCE/CE

Surely you have read my proposal, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate and know that (1) I completely agree with you and (2) many some people might hate me and attaching my name to your cause will might not help you. If you look at the votes and comments in favor of my proposal, you might find more effective allies. But here is my advice: the Wikipedia: Manual of style makes it very clear that BCE and CE are equally legitimate as CE AD. In other words, from the perspective of style, no one can criticize you because BCE and CE are absolutely acceptable at Wikipedia. My arguments were not over whether they were acceptable but the NPOV standard. However, I think you are arguing something a little different from NPOV, you are saying that because of the content of the article in question, BCE and CE are most appropriate and BC and AD are inappropriate. I think that is a valid and strong argument that you should press with confidence. Don't say you categorically object to BC and AD, but do explain (as you suggested in your comment to me) why you think that on this particular page, in this particular context, BCE and CE are appropriate. And remember, according the manual of style they are absoluelty permissable. Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of slightly editing Slrubenstein's post. I think that his effort to establish a new policy was creditable. He put forward a strong case and argued it well. What he ran into was an entrenched set of attitudes that will be very slow to change—though change they must. We all have our own bêtes noir and strongly held POVs. Developing a respect for one another and learning to work together is basic to the Wikipedia way: There's no them. Sunray 16:32, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Thank you Sunray, you are very kind. SouthernComfort, do not let Jguk bully you. When he says there is no consensus, he is correct only to the extent that "there is no consensus that BCE and CE should be the only NPOV dating system at Wikipedia." But this does not mean, neither logically nor in terms of official Wikipedia policy, that all articles should use BC and AD, or that one is not allowed to change BC and AD to BCE and CE. If Jguk is claiming this, he is lying. According to the Style Manual you have the right to use BCE and CE. Moreover, our policy is for editors to be bold and make changes they believe will improve the article. Of course, you may have to explain how the changes you make improve the article. But you have the right. When Jguk writes "the WP convention is not to make changes such as the ones you made, precisely because of the anger they create" he is simply lying. He is playing a kind of "chicken" with you, to ignore the fact you are offended and perhaps with good reason and instead to keep shouting how offended he is, until one of you quits. You told me that you were working on the List of kings of Persia, right? And I assume that these kings were not Christian and did not believe Jesus was Christ and Lord? If so, it is perfectly appropriate for you to use BCE and CE, and as I and Sunray have made clear to you, perfectly permissable. You have a good reason for using BCE and CE and I urge you to follow your convictions. If Jguk continues to harass you, just be careful not to make personal attacks and not to violate the 3 revert rule, and if he refuses to accept your edits, ask for mediation, or go to the Arbitration Board. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Oops

I created this from your post at the top of the page: Pahlavi (disambiguation) I cut it instead of copying & pasting. I'll put something linking to it in a second. --Jpbrenna 05:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Pahlavi

New section because for some reason, I couldn't edit the old one.

I would liked to have moved the alphabet article to "Pahlavi alphabet." The problem is, I'm not sure about all the redirects. Since Middle Persian had none (it redirected to Pahlavi), that was no problem. I think we are going to have to go through the (rather long) list of "What links here" and look at the articles to see if it is appropriate that they link to the alphabet article.

All three of the articles are going to need some work now that I've chopped the old one up. I just did some stuff to tide us over.

--Jpbrenna 05:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Current policy

The current WP policy is not to change an article that uses one date convention consistently from BC/AD to BCE/CE (or from BCE/CE to BC/AD). That is a consensus that has been built up over time. I know you do not like that policy, but please stick to it until such a time when there is consensus to change it. As you will have seen from Slrubenstein's recent attempt to cause further angst and unnecessary division on the matter, it is unlikely that there will be consensus for anything else for the foreseeable future. Kind regards, jguk 13:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)