User talk:Strichmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Recent edits

Hi. I have reverted your edits in two articles which refer to paedophilia. Pro-pedophilia activism is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If you wish to contribute to the debate, then please sign up and contribute at [1]. Tony 09:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Tony

Rather than randomly accusing me of "pro-pedophilia activism", perhaps you would care to be reasonable and explain which changes you disapproved of, and why? I have simply improved upon some of the descriptions of novels, which were incorrect. Strichmann.

Well let's not start fighting. Actually you just started editing 'Loving Sander' without participating in the discussion that is going on right now. I will go through your edits one by one in the other article. Most of the content was mine, but naturally not all. Tony 14:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Tony

Hi, please see WP:3RR, read it and stick to it, SqueakBox 16:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings! I have considerable sympathy for your attempts to bring some more neutral POV to various articles, notably ones that mention pedophilia and child sexual abuse. You will discover that people contributing to those pages believe themselves to be far more neutral in their work than in fact they are, as betrayed by their infrequent citations of supporting sources. I think it fruitless to engage them in debate based on your own reading; they will never agree with you. Far more sensible is to demand that they adhere to Wikipedia basic rules. For example, some works of fiction are in fact categorized by content by the Library of Congress. An author who intends his or her book to be about pedophilia or child abuse will not be unhappy if the Library of Congress agrees to note this content. Nor will I, when a Wikipedia article points out this categorization; nor should anyone, I suppose, even if he or she disagrees. But these folks want to go far beyond what the Library of Congress or any other reputable categorizers of fiction have done so far.

Several of your comments on this subject strike me as insightful, reasonable, highly cogent, and well-stated. I just want you to know that you are not alone in finding some of this stuff alarming and un-Wikipedian. Someone else has said that it's like producing a police report on every work of fiction. Thanks for sticking up for FICTION and joining our small chorus protesting the application of legal definitions to events in works of imagination. SocJan 03:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the genuine welcome SocJan. I have been following the pages for some time, and decided to offer some input. I have found your comments extremely valuable. Guy Davenport's work has always been simultaneously intriguing, beguiling and charming - though more often beguiling to me, it has to be said! I have yet to obtain the full version of Wo Es War, though that is certainly a goal of mine. Guy's passing was a tremendous loss, though of course he lives on in his work. It is great to have people like yourself, with the intelligence and insight to help make the nuances of his writing available to the rest of us! I look forward to working with you on these pages. Strichmann 14:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adult-child sex

Hey, your opinion on what's going on in the most recent two threads on the talkpage for Adult-child sex would be appreciated. --Tlatosmd 07:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction (boys)

SocJan: Until someone with more authority than I steps up to nominate the article for deletion, I have proposed on the discussion page that all plot summaries not referenced by third party sources be deleted. Do you have any thoughts? Thanks, Strichmann 08:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Having given this some thought for a few days, I have decided that I favor a more selective approach: I think it is fair to challenge any OR summary that strikes one as POV and then delete it if, in a reasonable amount of time, no defense of the summary (in the form of a properly referenced secondary source) is forthcoming. Deleting all unreferenced summaries seems a bit too sweeping, but deleting summaries that any editor feels are clearly POV or otherwise inadequate seems completely reasonable. SocJan 10:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Following our discussion with Will, I have deleted the OR, POV, and irrelevant "plot summary" for Finistere. One way to test the adherence of editors on this troubling page to Wikipedia standards is to take them at their word when they describe what they think Wiki rules mean, and how they believe themselves to be adhering to those rules, and then ask that they be consistent. SocJan (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks SocJan. I have to say that what I find most disturbing about these lists is the manipulation involved. Where an author clearly never intended to create a 'pedophile' character, or to describe 'child sexual abuse', to twist his/her work to fit into labels that (in any event) have no clearcut acceptance or definition, is not only trite, but hugely disrespectful - both to the author in question, and to the readers, who should be respected enough to decide for themselves what a fictional work means to them. Strichmann (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more, so I have focused lately on DEATH IN VENICE as a "test case". I think that soon the preponderance of the discussion will favor deleting D in V from the "pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction" page.
We could use more voices in the discussion, however, which I hope will lead to a much more fundamental critique of this problematic Wikipedia article. Care to review what's been said and make your usual clear and concise comment?
On the general subject of lists: you will find that in the discussion of the PandCSA article I point out that elsewhere in Wikipedia someone has an unsourced and unsupported list of "bisexual British authors" or some such -- on which Nigel Nicolson's name remained for more than a year until I removed it last week. I propose that any article consisting essentially of a list of people or objects asserted to share a common characteristic ought to be held MORE rather than less stringently to the rule that everything should be sourced properly. SocJan (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse in Fiction, latest

I've just copied the article to a sandbox at my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SocJan/Sandbox , giving it a far less POV introduction and a new title along lines that others have suggested. Please have a look, see what you think. Your comments would be most welcome. SocJan (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

Again, welcome, SqueakBox 16:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Many thanks for the effusive welcome. It is certainly a friendly place. My question is: why is this page suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? It is neither notable, nor are there any secondary sources. I would be grateful for your thoughts on this. Strichmann 17:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think these user pages are good places for us to communicate with each other in semi-private, without having to expose our email addresses to the contentious world. 'Hope that's at least a partial answer to your question, immediately above!  :) SocJan 03:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Likely sock

It is my judgment that you are a likely sock, of Voice of Britain/Mike D78. If you want an apology it would want to come from the user(s) who have proven time and again their unwillingness to accept being banned from wikipedia by continuously re-incarnating as socks, it is these user(s) who are poisoning the atmosphere. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My heartfelt apologies as RCU has cleared you. Hope you appreciate that it is the banned user who keeps returning who is the problem who created the situation. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very sad to see you go

Hey Strichmann! I'd be very sad to see you go. I apologize for my own one-week downtime, I was moving with no internet access. Of the three users you mentioned, I only find one to be an actual problem, and with each good editor going away, he gets more chances of pushing his POV. I saw us being on a good way when I left a week ago, especially because of your contributions but also because higher numbers of good editors might actually do a thing or two, also by turning to higher WP authorities with enough support from our peers. --Tlatosmd (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: As you said you intent to indulge into the sources I brought up, and because of your nick also I assume that you do speak German, I highly recommend you to start with Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg as even on an international scale, she is most fundamental both for prejudice studies (including homophobia, mysogyny, racism, anti-Semitism, etc.) as well as for all sexuology and Queer Theory because sexuality, especially deviant, is still the most controversial and prejudiced issue in Western culture and history, and in Western culture all prejudice-fueled hostility and discrimination towards specific social groups are based upon insinuation of lecherousness and sexual deviance, aka "sexualized" malice, be it openly or by means of a number of ethnocentric, cultural connotations of these with subcontextual overtones of sexuality, among those connotations being evil magic or witchcraft, sickness, diseases and epidemies, madness, and physical ailments and afflictions (just think of lecherous "negroes", the blood libel allegations of Jews ritually murdering Christian children but also fornicating them, witches closely connoted with sodomy that also the Templars and heretics were accused of in order to get rid of them most efficiently, or the perceived grave physical dangers of masturbation, to give but a few examples from Western history).
  • 1.) I'd recommend you to start with her most fundamental work on all these issues, being Tabu Homosexualität - Die Geschichte eines Vorurteils dating from 1978.
  • 2.) Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's chronical of eleven millenia of human and Western history in Tabu Homosexualität is complimented especially by Angst und Vorurteil - AIDS-Ängste als Gegenstand der Vorurteilsforschung (1989), which beside equipping the reader with a basic and profound understanding of prejudice studies especially related to sexuality adds a few more aspects such as regarding the cultural influence of STDs prolonging Ancient and Medieval religious and moral attitudes of epidemies and destruction being divine punishments for carnal sins.
  • 3.) To a lesser degree Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's Big History of Queer, so to speak, is also complemented by Vom Schmetterling zur Doppelaxt - Die Umwertung von Weiblichkeit in unserer Kultur (1990).
  • 4.) Having progressed as far, you might optionally turn to Mannbarkeitsriten: Zur institutionellen Päderastie bei Papuas und Melanesiern (1980) which beside being one of the few truly unbiased Western studies into human sexual behavior culturally labeled as "deviant" represents Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's turn towards anthropology (including primates) and general sociobiology.
  • 5.) After these three or four reads, you are prepared adequately to read and do justice to her 1985/88 work which I've described as pivotal to the article we tried to improve. The problem with that latter work is its brevity as was required due to the fact that for this subject, she only was given enough space for an essay in a regularly published journal, however it wasn't necessary to re-write what she had already done so profoundly in 1978 and what is required for a full understanding of her 1985/88 work. Thus already her second footnote in her 1985/88 work maintains that one ought to first devote oneself to Tabu Homosexualität before one might tackle her later work.
Sufficiently educated by Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg's fundamental Big History of Queer, you may begin to turn to authors such as Bernard, Brongersma, Sandfort, and those many other sources I quoted that more directly deal with our subject. --Tlatosmd (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Great to finally see you back, at least in that RfD! :D Did you look into any of my suggestions yet? To give you another taste, the way I see it especially with Tabu Homosexualität and Angst und Vorurteil, Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg dwarfs Hannah Arendt's The origins of totalitarianism, Norbert Elias's The civilizing process, Adorno's & Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment, Max Weber's Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism, Sigmund Freud's Three essays on the theory of sexuality, Totem and taboo, and Civilization and its discontents, Michel Foucault's Madness and Civilization, Mircea Eliade's The Sacred and the Profane, Konrad Lorenz's Behind the Mirror, Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt's Love and Hate: The Natural History of Behavior Patterns, as well as Jared Diamond's The third chimpanzee and Guns, germs, and steel on their very own fields. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - though I'm not sure that my blood pressure can cope indefinitely with the anti-intellectualism that appears to characterize many editors' approach to these topics!
I have followed up on a number of your original suggestions. I am currently wrestling with post-Foucaultian critiques (Baudrillard, etc). Thank you for the additional references...these are very much appreciated, and will be added to my (ever-expanding) list... Strichmann (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution near (?) on how to entitle Tony Sandel's lists

For evidence that progress may actually be possible, now and again, even in these contentious regions, please visit Talk:List_of_works_portraying_adult_attraction_to_young_males#Requested_move. Tony, the article's principal author, has accepted a proposal for a new title that may put to rest objections dating back to late 2006. Your input in the next few days could help establish a consensus. I've thought that your voice was one of calm reason, in the past, and calm reason may actually have a chance of being heard here.

Sorry about some of what you have gone through (I've read the posts above). I fear that Wikipedia includes some editors who are afraid that forces of evil are everywhere. Myself, I have more confidence in the vision of cooperative, positive, collaboration in the asymptotic march toward a source of informed objectivity (a goal that will always be a challenge, one we should enjoy rather than gnash teeth over) that led Wikipedia's founder to create this remarkable (if sometimes massively frustrating) enterprise.

I, too, hope you will persist (taking breaks as needed -- that's how I've managed my blood pressure.) SocJan (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)