text:
Talk:Homosexuality and morality

Untitled

 * A small minority believes that children are capable of consenting to homosexual acts with older men, but all major pro-homosexual groups have rejected that view.

I attempted to remove this POV line but it seems to have been reverted. This is a very serous allegation against the gay rights movement and, in my opinion, there is no proof to back it up. AFAIK there are no gay rights organisations that support paedophilia. In fact, there have been several scientific studies that discount any link between homosexuality and paedophiliia. What is really being discussed are paedophile-rights groups seeking to align themselves with the more popular gay rights movement.

Content here has repeatedly been added alluding to the links between gay rights and paedophilia throughout wikipedia. This issue now appears to have mentions already on several other page. There have already been attempts to describe homosexual morality in terms of other, unrelated sexual perversions and there seems an intent on emphasising this link throughout the wikipedia.

I have no issue with this topic being discussed, but I take objection to the wikipedia being used to bring this up whenever and wherever possible giving it an emphasis the facts do not support. This issue is already much discussed in this article, so what purpose, other than as a POV attempt to discredit the gay rights movement, does this serve?

Similar things have already been done: for example, reparative therapy now has mentions in several other gay-related articles throughout the wikipedia. Taken in isolation, these are not necesarily POV, but given widespread coverage it actually comprises a larger bias throughout the wiki. --Axon Sun Aug 3 11:49:02 BST 2003

 * Your above paragraph borders on slander, for example, the claim that "there have already been attempts to describe homosexual morality in terms of other, unrelated sexual perversions" is complete bullshit, and you know it because I already told you so above. These alleged "attempts to describe homosexual morality" were links in parentheses referring to controversies surrounding the moral question and definition of consent.

 * Your own POV clearly shows through in your repeated attempts to whitewash this article from any connection to and mention of pedophilia. Since this connection is made by those who criticize homosexuality on moral grounds, it would be a gross violation of NPOV not to say so. Similarly, it is a fact that there are many groups and individuals who openly advocate gay rights and the "right" to have sex with children, primarily boys, as even a cursory look around sites like http://www.boylinks.net will reveal. It is also a fact that the gay rights movement has some common history with these groups. That does not mean that homosexuality and pedophilia are related, and nowhere was it implied that this is the case.

 * However, for a moral discussion of homosexuality it is important to distinguish between the existing points of view, including minority views. Doing so helps your cause, not hurts it, since in the sentence you are trying to remove it is clearly stated that no mainstream gay rights group holds this position.—Eloquence 11:06, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

 * First of all, I dismiss the claim that I have been "white-washing this article". Like everyone else here, I strive for NPOV and I've maintained other paragraphs on this page relating to the links between the gay rights movement and paedophilia. Yet, despite my attempts to discuss the issue with you and others you still seem to be wading in yourself despite the conflict you know will arise. As you can see from the above talk, my favored tactic is to appeal to people's reason rather than wade in and revert myself.

 * However, my ability to make this article NPOV, is hampered by those who would seek to emphasise their own personal crusades wherever and whenever they possibly can. As I mentioned, this issue already has much more discussion on this page than it merits. You've already had a forum to mention this issue on this page, and many others. Its inclusion here is fallacious, POV and does not really help the article.

 * Previous versions of the particular sub-section have related the discussion to zoophlia and other sexual perversions, including at one point, I seem to recall, a mention of rape. I have to admit, I don't know whether Eloquence in particular added these links, but their inclusion has sometimes been defended. I apologise if you didn't add these mentions, although I don't believe I did attribute these to you in my talk above.

 * Finally, please lets keep this civil. --Axon Sun Aug 3 12:26:56 BST 2003

 * Your past actions of removing large blocks of text without seeking discussion, and of engaging in edit wars instead of striving for compromise, are not very helpful and exposes you to the criticism that you are trying to establish a particular point of view within this article. Your assertion that I "wade in" is hardly useful either -- obviously I will continue to edit the page itself, and I have always explained my actions here. Instead of insisting on removing text before that has been properly discussed, you should try to find consensus first if you do not wish to alienate others. Within Wikipedia, removing text is a lot more controversial than adding it.

 * Your assertion that including a discussion of the links that have been claimed between pedophilia and homosexuality as a moral argument against the latter would be off-topic here is incorrect and not supported by any logical argument but merely by rhetoric. No discussion of the morality of homosexuality would be complete without mentioning these highly emotional arguments -- homosexuals try to seduce/"recruit" children, are predominantly perverts etc. However wrong or incorrect, NPOV dictates that these views must be mentioned alongside their exact opposite.

 * I added links to zoophilia, age of consent and pedophilia in the context of the discussion of the meaning of consent, as an attempt to better distinguish the many views on homosexuality within a sexual belief spectrum. I can accept the argument that these links were somewhat off-topic, but you appear to exhibit an almost Pavlovian response whenever someone even mentions words with negative connotations within the general context of homosexuality. The claim that I tried to "describe homosexual morality in terms of other, unrelated sexual perversions" is complete nonsense. Please do not make similar false claims again.

 * I can acknowledge that given the particular emotionality of issues like pedophilia, that discussion should not be interspersed among more abstract moral arguments. I have therefore created a new section specifically devoted to moral arguments that are based on linking homosexuality to such highly emotionalized behaviors. As always, I am willing to cooperate to improve that section, but I cannot tolerate irrational removal of large parts of text.—Eloquence 01:03, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

I think the arguments you have been pushing on this and other pages have demonstrated your own bias on this matter. I've tried my best to normalise what you have written and remove some of the more biased sections of this piece. Whenever I have tried to discuss this matter you've shown yourself to be rude, uncomprimising and, as the above demonstrates, personally insulting - most trollish behaviour. You speak of pavlovian, yet you have knee-jerk reaction to ANY edits of this page that makes it very difficult for others to work on it. If you don't want to share this article I suggest you copy-and-paste it onto your own web-site and edit it to your hearts content there.

As you yourself now seem to admit (didn't you deny this?) you've attempted to describe homosexuality in terms of other sexual acts that have little or nothing to do with the subject matter. What has zoophilia to do with homosexuality? What has rape to do with sodomy? Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, this is an extremely touchy subject for many parties so yes, you will have to be very careful what you say on this page. Its called NPOV.

I have no objection to discussing gay opponents views in a neutral tone, I'm even quite happy to: mentioning their view does more to hurt their agenda, than it does to hurt the gay rights movement. What I object to is your continued POV attempts to create so non-existant link between the gay rights movement and paeodophiles. You claim you mention both views, but you mention research (which you then mention has been dismissed!) and the gloss over other, more recent and definitive research that demonstrates, for example, that paedophillia may actually be lower in homosexual groups than in heterosexual groups. You ignorance shows through in your concentration on gay males: ignoring lesbians almost completely.

I suggest you calm down and learn not to take this personally.

-- Axon

 * You're a funny person, Axon -- you lie, distort and slander and finally ask me to "calm down and learn not to take this personally"? You continue to speak of bias, yet you fail to name that bias. Where is the bias in my additions, and what kind of bias is it? Am I for or against gay rights? What is my position on same-sex marriage? What is my view on gays adopting children? I challenge you to correctly name my positions -- if there is so much bias here, that should not be too difficult, right?

 * "Whenever I have tried to discuss this matter you've shown yourself to be rude, uncomprimising and, as the above demonstrates, personally insulting - most trollish behaviour." This is hardly true. In spite of your bullheaded attempts at "normalizing", I have repeatedly made quite clear that I am willing to seek compromises. I have tried to explain to you calmly why the alleged link between the gay rights movement and pedophilia advocates is relevant to an article about the morality of homosexuality. We have reached some compromises in the past, which is good, but I am not willing to sacrifice NPOV to protect your personal feelings. For the most part, you have not added much to this article -- you have continually tried to remove information from it which you did not like.

 * "You've attempted to describe homosexuality in terms of other sexual acts that have little or nothing to do with the subject matter." You expect me to cooperate with you while you continue to spread lies? This is the sentence in question:

 * "However, people who consider homosexuality morally acceptable by this argument differ as to what other acts qualify as consensual (cf. age of consent, pedophilia, zoophilia)."

 * Nowhere does it "describe homosexuality in terms of other sexual acts". It explains that the moral problem of consent is viewed differently among people who accept homosexuality, which is quite obvious from the link to age of consent. I have pointed this out repeatedly to you, but now Hanlon's Razor just does not cut it anymore -- not only are you trying to rewrite gay history, you are also trying to rewrite this article's history.

 * "What I object to is your continued POV attempts to create so non-existant link between the gay rights movement and paeodophiles." This link has existed in the past as anyone familiar with gay rights history knows. If you wanted examples of gay media publications containing pedophile views, or of pedophilia advocates active within the gay rights movement, you would just have had to say so -- you never did, because you don't want these examples. You prefer not to deal with that particular aspect of the history of the homosexual movement, so you unilaterally remove all additions to that effect without comment. I have never stated, nor implied, that this link exists today.

 * "'You claim you mention both views, but you mention research (which you then mention has been dismissed!)" I have never said or "mentioned" such a thing. ".. and the gloss over other, more recent and definitive research that demonstrates, for example, that paedophillia may actually be lower in homosexual groups than in heterosexual groups." Then cite that research, please -- I'd be very interested in reading about it. What you did instead was remove explicit references to researchers who found the opposite, and add a vague reference to non-cited "recent research". If you want direct cites from Bernard, Lautmann or Brongersma I will gladly provide them.

 * Here's the deal: 1) If you think that a particular addition is POV, say so on the discussion page and ask for sources and attribution for that particular addition. 2) If you think that a particular view is underrepresented, add that view to the article instead of removing the other view. 3) Before accusing others, get your facts straight.—Eloquence 11:26, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

''At the same time, pedophiles saw in the sexual revolution their best chance to get society to acknowledge pedophilia as normal and to accept what they believed to be consensual sexual relationships between adults and children. Even if this data is invalidated by new research, so-called "boy lovers" were at least more visible and better organized than heterosexual pedophilia advocates.

Among a public that was struggling to understand the fast changes of sexual norms and values, the distinction between homosexuals who sought consensual relationships with other men, and homosexual pedophiles who wanted to legalize sex with children was sometimes lost. To make the situation more confusing, "boy lovers" initially used umbrella organizations like the International Gay and Lesbian Association to publicize their views on the ability of children to consent to sexual relationships. They believed that the successful gay rights movement could be used to piggyback their own views.

For a time, this piggyback effect manifested through advertisements clearly targeted at "boy lovers", or even articles defending pedophilia in some gay media outlets. As awareness of child sexual abuse increased drastically in the 1980s, at times bordering on mass hysteria, gay rights groups quickly distanced themselves from pedophilia advocates. Since then, they have repeatedly stated that they find child sexual abuse abhorrent and immoral, and relationships between the two camps are non-existent.''

How much of this is true, how much evidence is there for this? How could this be made more NPOV?

---

Most attempts to change sexual orientation failed (with the exception of extreme procedures such as lobotomies or implanted electrodes),...

What were these "exceptions"? Who was carrying them out? Either would be regarded as highly unethical by modern Western standards.

In addition, lobotomies would tend to destroy all sexuality, rather than to make someone change their orientation.

"Implanted electrodes" implies some kind of mind control technology, of the sort featured more in science-fiction movies than in reality. Unless, of course, you know different. In which case, I'd appreciate a cite.

 * The experiments with electrodes were largely carried out by Robert G. Heath of Tulane University. You can find a summary of his research, which included direct stimulation of the septal region of the brain (the so-called "pleasure center"), here; some of the papers are available on my website. Yes, neural electrodes are very much a mind control technology, just like drugs and brainwashing techniques. The US government invested heavily in the exploration of these technologies as part of the so-called MKULTRA program.

 * As for lobotomies, you are correct that they would rather destroy sexuality than change sexual orientation -- however, to the researchers doing the experiments, these effects are largely the same. If the homosexual no longer reacts positively to images of homosexual acts, well, then he has obviously been "cured" of his homosexuality. As for the occurance of such lobotomies, a simple Google search will help you.—Eloquence 11:36, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Section on moral attacks
EuroTom commented out the section on likening homosexuality to deviant sexual and social behavior. Maybe there should be a separate article homosexuality and sexual deviance, and that particular issue summarized in the main article, as it indeed dominates it right now. On the other hand, one could argue that these particular attacks have dominated the discourse itself for a long time, and the length afforded to them is appropriate (given that they no longer dominate the discourse in countries where homosexuality is tolerated, including most western nations, they are discussed in the final section of the article). Personally, I can live with both solutions, but commenting out sections is not a good approach as it only hides the perceived problem.--Eloquence* 02:14, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

POV material on Paedophillia
I see the section entitled "Moral attacks based on linking homosexuality to other behaviors" is still very POV. I would like to suggest this article be marked as being under debate untill all such POV issues can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

I describe my objections below:

Historically, homosexuality has often been linked in the public mind to other sexual behaviors, such as pedophilia, and even to serial murders.

The starting sentence is extremely controversial: what evidence is there to suggest that such a widespread "link" actually exists in the "public mind"? (which public mind? The American public mind? The Indonesian public mind? The conservative public mind? The liberal public mind? Am I getting my point across here?) How is homosexuality linked to serial murders? Does it mean that many homosexuals are the victims of serial murders and, if so, what does that have to do with the subject matter of this article? Does it mean that many homosexuals are serial muderers? In which case, what evidence is there to back this up?

''Homosexuality was listed in psychological manuals as one of many sexual disorders, and many attempts were made to treat it. This perception of homosexuality as a disease can in part be explained with psychology's roots in the theories of Sigmund Freud, who believed that early childhood influences determined the later sexual orientation of a person. Researchers concluded that children could be "made gay", deliberately or involuntarily.''

This above is true, but is covered in detail in other articles (Homosexuality and psychology) and seems unrelated to the topic (other behaviour) of the section is in, or even the last sentence. It more appropriately belongs in the opposition section of this document.

At the same time, pedophiles saw in the sexual revolution their best chance to get society to acknowledge pedophilia as normal and to accept what they believed to be consensual sexual relationships between adults and children.

The above is highly controversial but there is not mention of this. Obviously there are many others are opposed to this statement.

''While there are heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles, research by Edward Brongersma, Frits Bernard and Rüdiger Lautmann shows that the majority of pedophiles (60-90%) seek relationships with boys. Even if this data is invalidated by new research, so-called "boy lovers" were at least more visible and better organized than heterosexual pedophilia advocates. Other researchers have argued that pedophiles with no adult sexuality -- ones attracted only to children, not women or men -- should be considered neither homosexual nor heterosexual.''

There is considerable evidence that the research by Edward Brongersma, Frits Bernard and Rüdiger Lautmann doesn't actually demonstrate a link between homosexuality and padedophllia. Citing this evidence, and the considerbale other evidence disputing the above claim, as well as mentioning the various proffesional bodies who refute the link would greatly improve the quality of this section.

''Among a public that was struggling to understand the fast changes of sexual norms and values, the distinction between homosexuals who sought consensual relationships with other men, and homosexual pedophiles who wanted to legalize sex with children was sometimes lost. To make the situation more confusing, "boy lovers" initially used umbrella organizations like the International Lesbian and Gay Association to publicize their views on the ability of children to consent to sexual relationships. They believed that the successful gay rights movement could be used to piggyback their own views.''

Again, some evidence to support this assertion would greatly improve the NPOV of this article, as would some opposing views. It should be made clear that these views are generally held by those opposed to homosexuality and are controversial. If no evidence can be found then this section should be deleted.

''In the 1980s and 1990s, "boy lovers" increasingly left gay rights groups because they no longer felt represented, and joined existing pedophilia advocacy groups or formed new ones. Today, pedophilia advocates are organized internationally in advocacy groups like the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA, United States), AG Pädo (Germany), and Vereniging MARTIJN (Netherlands).''

This material seems unrelated to the subject matter at hand and would probably better belong in a history of paedophillia.

''The presence of pedophiles among gay rights groups contributed to public misconceptions about homosexuality, which is now generally recognized as distinct from pedophilia. It was also exploited by anti-gay groups who tried to support their "recruitment" argument with statements often gleaned from "boy lovers" operating within or outside the gay rights movement. The recruitment argument in turn was used to argue that homosexuals are a danger to children.''

This is a repeat of material already in this section (third paragraph) so should probably be integrated with the other material or dealt with in a similar fashion. Homosexual serial killers [1] (http://web.wt.net/~pdhunter/hsk.html) like John Wayne Gacy did not exactly contribute to a positive public perception of homosexuality either.

Again, evidence that homosexual serial killers really did not "contribute to a positive public perception of homosexuality" would improve the quality of this article. I don't really think there is a sizeable opposition to homosexuality because everyone is afraid that they're all killers.

''A slightly more moderate argument against homosexuality is that, given the moments of common history among gay rights and pedophilia advocates, it is likely that an increased tolerance of homosexuality would encourage pedophiles to push forward with their own agenda. This slippery slope argument holds that while homosexuality itself may not be particularly harmful to society, it opens the door for other "sexual perversions.''

I don't really think that Wikipedia is the place to assert what is and isn't "moderate arguments agaisnt homosexuality". We should not cite controversies as facts, but describe the controversies making it clear who holds what opinions and that they are disputed. Counter arguments would greatly help the neutrality of this page.

In summary, this section needs a lot of work to bring it in-line with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. It's very ambigious what this section is actually trying to achieve and how it relates to the rest of the article. Do we need it or can the controversies covered here be integrated into the other sections of the document, for example? Do the controveries actually have anything to do with "morality", or does the entire article belong in another article? Can or should such a controversial topic be covered by an encylopedia like this?

Again, in the meantime I submit this article be marked as being controversial. I also ask that as many people come along and submit their ideas and edits so as we can reach a more moderate and balanced article. --Axon 15:30, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed, mark as controversial, for the time being. I would actually just as soon go for a general rewrite of the whole article, on the following grounds:

 * 1) There's no real working definition of 'homosexual' - since we're talking about multiple people's viewpoints, I think a bit about how some people see homosexuality as an act and others see it as an inborn blah blah blah might be necessary (maybe we could use the bit about morality and genetic determination as a starting point).
 * 2) The section about homosexuals in Nazi Germany is misleading. To say the Nazis persecuted homosexuality doesn't really cover the ambivalence of their position at all.
 * 3) Curiously, no mention of lobotomization as a "cure" for homosexuality. Is this debated?
 * 4) Generally, the article is leggy and sprawling - it reads like there has been considerable editing from two or more writers with very different views with little attempt to consolidate.
 * I think as far as the issue of pedophilia and homosexuality is concerned, there is a valid point to be made that for a long time they were considered to be the same. Though few would make the statement today, there are definately still many people who would be concerned about leaving their children alond with a gay man or who believe that gay people, gay men especially, should not be allowed to adopt, suggesting the myth still very much exists.  A brief discussion of why this is and why it may be wrong could be useful, but no, not the discussion that is there now.

-Seth Mahoney 20:37, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * Marked as disputed. Actually, I think the main part of the article seems balanced to me. The articles Homosexuality and Homosexuals in Nazi Germany are probably the best places to discuss these controversies. For example, I wrote the section on Nazis merely an example of non-religious "moral" objections to homosexuality.

 * I'm not saying that the main part of the article isn't balanced, but that it could use a rewrite so it has a more consistent and readable style.

 * Similarly, I'm not sure why we would need to discuss "cures" for homosexuality, or why we need to specifically focus on lobotomy as a cure. Surely, this article is just about moral arguments for and against homosexuality?

 * "Cures" were already mentioned, and rightly so. Since we're on the topic of homosexuality and morality, I think it is justified to mention one of the most immoral attempts at "curing" in the history of "cures".  I mean, with a general article title like "Homosexuality and morality", editors are put in the position of discussion moral positions against homosexuality as well as the morality of some of those positions and actions taken with those positions as justification.

 * I agree that some people have and still do regard homosexuality and paedophillia as the same. I just think the way such information is presented here is highly biased and more properly belongs in the "those who disapprove" section. --Axon 09:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Gotcha. Agreed.  -Seth Mahoney 23:18, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * I would agree that the whole document could probably use some rewriting for clarity and modelled into a more cohesive flow. On the subject of cures,I agree that the possibility of curing homosexuality has certainly been used as an argument against. Just not sure where you are going with the "lobotomy" angle. --Axon 10:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm basically just saying, look, if you're going to mention "cures" from the world of psychology like ECT, you really have to mention the mother of all "cures" for homosexuality that was used by that institution, and that would be the lobotomy. One reason is that we don't want to accidentally paint the picture that these psychologists, acting out of concern for the patients, were just applying treatments that did no permanant harm.  Another is that there's a flip side to the relationship of "homosexuality and morality" and that side contains the very immoral things done in the name of saving gay people from themselves.  -Seth Mahoney 20:15, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

 * I concur. On another note, how exactly should we deal with this article. It seems the whole subject matter is dealt with in other sections: for example, arguments "for" the morality of homosexuality should more properly belong in the gay rights article. Religious arguments for and against should, surely, belong in the Religion and homosexuality articles? etc. What was the original intent of this article? How does its subject matter differ from these other articles? Does the original author's out there have any opinion on this matter? --Axon 13:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not one of the original authors, but I think arguments could be made for its existence on the following grounds:
 * 1. As one of a set of "Homosexuality and..." articles, presenting the relationship between homosexuality and some other social or political entity.
 * 2. As a sort of overview article (like a well-developed list) directing readers to other articles, with a brief explanation of the relationship.  For example, if I wanted to read about various moral positions regarding homosexuality I might not think to search for "homosexuality and religion" and I almost certainly wouldn't think to search for "homosexuality and psychology".  This article lets me search for "homosexuality morality" and find some general-overview text, along with links to other articles that contain pertinent information.
 * So, I would say that we should approach the article as outlined in #2, identifying people who have spoken out on moral grounds in support or opposition to homosexuality, gay rights, gay marriage, etc., and pointing out other articles, especially those in the "homosexuality and..." category that deal with a particular institution's relationship to the morality of homosexuality et al. It should be a very general sort of overview that basically functions in the same way as a list.  -Seth Mahoney 21:53, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think there might be an argument for making this an index page to all moral, ethical and philosophical issues related to homosexuality. So, it could link to the "Homosexuality and Religion" pages, plus links to such pages as "Homosexuality and Atheism", "Homosexuality and Civil Rights, etc relating all non-religious moral and ethical arguments for and against homosexuality. Although, this would require not an inconsiderable amount of work. Also, this makes the page a category rather than a article. However, I still think most of the content on this page belongs more properly in other pages. Perhaps we could also shorten it to summarise morale, ethical and philosophical arguments for and against homosexuality. Again, knowing why this page was initially created and what it sets out "to do" would be immensely helpful.

Also, I've always pondered whether the title of the article is itself POV with it's implicit assumption that homosexuality and morality are non-seperate issues and it's suggestion that morality does apply to homosexuality. Not sure if there is an argument for changing the title and what you would change it to ('Homosexuality and ethics'?). However, I think that all the content in the page is repeated in other places and simply re-editing this page might not be a solution.

Certainly, the introduction to the article is somewhat POV. Not only does it explicitly link paedophillia and homosexuality (the author seems to want to make a link between these two issues wherever and whenever possible) it also randomly links to Reparative Therapy (why must all pages that Ed Poor has edited link to the Reparative Therapy page?) --Axon 18:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I think there is an argument for linking to the reparative therapy page. I mean, "reparative therapy" is one way people arguing against homosexuality like to "deal" with it.  I think there is also a place for arguments that would try to link homosexuality and pedophilia.  I agree, though, the intro isn't the place to do it.
 * As far as the title goes, I think it is fine, so long as we neither make the page a moral diatribe against homosexuality nor an attempt to sweep under the rug any possible moral issues raised. I don't think there is an implicit assumption in the title that leads to the conclusion that morality necessarily applies to homosexuality (though I think morality does apply to homosexuality, like all sexuality and all other human actions, so maybe I'm biased).  I mean, if I said, "my computer and the sky" I'm not implying any necessary relationship between them, just at most positing the possibility of one.
 * I'm also not so much opposed to duplicating (in abbreviated form) content from other pages, so long as it meshes together into a relevant and readable whole, especially if we do decide to make this some sort of readable index page. -Seth Mahoney 22:11, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree there are arguments for linking to Reparative therapy but I just don't think it needs to be linked to in the initial paragraph anymore than, say, same-sex marriage needs to be linked in the first paragraph. I think particular care should be taken to ensure that the first paragraphs of all articles be as neutral and as possible.

From my own perspective as a moral relativist I do not consider it appropriate to apply morality to homosexuality. Being gay is neither good nor bad, it merely is. This is my primary objection to the title of this page, although I suppose one could argue that it is a page for opinions about homosexaulity from those who believe in morality in which case the title probably is valid. However, the title does exclude the opinions for and against homosexuality of those who do not hold in morality.

I think making this a summary of moral arguments for and against, linking to other "Homosexuality and..." pages would perhaps be more proper. Would this make this page a category or an article, though? For an example of what I imagine this page should look like see Religion and homosexuality --Axon 12:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it could still be an article, though there could be a matching category, I suppose. It might get a little burdensome, though, and I think there are appropriate enough existing categories for any relevant articles.
 * I agree with your assertion that reparative therapy et al shouldn't be in the introduction paragraph. In fact, maybe we should take it a step further and not include any specific issues in the intro, just maybe a brief description of morality, morality as it applies to sexuality, and morality as it might apply to homosexuality specifically.  Each section can then be devoted to discussion a certain position or a certain issue, with as many relevant links as possible.  As far as the particular format, what I'm imagining is far more structured than religion and homosexuality, something more along the lines of an index with abstracts.  -Seth Mahoney 17:32, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable. I have to admit though, I'm somewhat reluctant to edit this page after the rather ferocious edit war I'm ashamed to say I was involved with here, previously. Not to be lazy, but I would prefer to watch while you start work and then join in later as needed. --Axon 17:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure thing. I'll work on it throughout the week then.  -Seth Mahoney 19:33, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * I worked on the article to try to eliminate any biases and make it more objective today Jan 14. What do you think?

"Reactions" section
Does anybody else feel that the "reactions" section could be touched-up in terms of neutrality? I don't think phrases like "so-called" and the use of quotation marks around words such as "therapy" would be missed.

title: Talk:Homosexuality and morality


text:
Talk:Yosemite

My basic plan for these Yosemite pages is:
 * Yosemite - a disambiguation page catching links
 * Region and Feature Pages - articles on specific regions of note with physical, biological and historical descriptions, with history running up to the creation of the National Park Service and skipping general travel/tourism info
 * Yosemite Valley
 * Bridalveil Falls
 * El Capitan
 * Half Dome
 * Yosemite Falls
 * Mariposa Grove
 * Tuolumne Meadows
 * Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne River and/or Muir Gorge
 * Hetch Hetchy Valley
 * Yosemite National Park -- this article covers the current park, it's history since the founding of the NPS in 1916, overall geography and descriptions, and current travel, tourism info
 * Ahwahnee Hotel

You got comments or suggestions -- put 'em up. ClaudeMuncey

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Yosemite


text:
Montgolfier brothers

The Montgolfier brothers – Joseph-Michel Montgolfier (26 August 1740 – 26 June 1810) and Jacques-Étienne Montgolfier (6 January 1745 – 2 August 1799) – were aviation pioneers, balloonists and paper manufacturers from the commune Annonay in Ardèche, France. They invented the Montgolfière-style hot air balloon, globe aérostatique, which launched the first confirmed piloted ascent by humans in 1783, carrying Jacques-Étienne.

Joseph-Michel also invented the self-acting hydraulic ram (1796) and Jacques-Étienne founded the first paper-making vocational school. Together, the brothers invented a process to manufacture transparent paper.

Early years
Joseph-Michel and Jacques-Étienne Montgolfier were born into a family of paper manufacturers. Their parents were Pierre Montgolfier (1700–1793) and Anne Duret (1701–1760), who had 16 children. Pierre Montgolfier established his eldest son, Raymond (1730–1772), as his successor.

Joseph-Michel was the 12th child. Described as a maverick and dreamer, he was impractical in terms of business and personal affairs. Étienne was the 15th child, had a much more even and businesslike temperament and was sent to Paris to train as an architect. After the sudden and unexpected death of Raymond in 1772, he was recalled to Annonay to run the family business. In the subsequent 10 years, Étienne applied his talent for technical innovation to the family business of paper making, which then as now was a high-tech industry. He succeeded in incorporating the latest Dutch innovations of the day into the family mills.

Hot air balloon experiments, 1782
Of the two brothers, it was Joseph who was first interested in aeronautics; as early as 1775 he built parachutes, and once jumped from the family house. He first contemplated building machines when he observed laundry drying over a fire incidentally form pockets that billowed upwards. Joseph made his first definitive experiments in November 1782 while living in Avignon. He reported some years later that he was watching a fire one evening while contemplating one of the great military issues of the day—an assault on the fortress of Gibraltar, which had proved impregnable from both sea and land. Joseph mused on the possibility of an air assault using troops lifted by the same force that was lifting the embers from the fire. He believed that the smoke itself was the buoyant part and contained within it a special gas, which he called "Montgolfier Gas", with a special property he called levity, which is why he preferred smoldering fuel.

Joseph then built a box-like chamber 3 by(x) out of very thin wood, and covered the sides and top with lightweight taffeta cloth. He crumpled and lit some paper under the bottom of the box. The contraption quickly lifted off its stand and collided with the ceiling.

Joseph recruited his brother to balloon building by writing, "Get in a supply of taffeta and of cordage, quickly, and you will see one of the most astonishing sights in the world." The two brothers built a similar device, three times larger having a volume 27 times greater. On 14 December 1782 they took their very first test flight, using ignited wool and hay as fuel. The lifting force was so great, that they lost control of their craft. The device floated nearly 2 km but was destroyed after landing by the "indiscretion" of a bypasser.

Public demonstrations, summer 1783
To make a public demonstration and to claim its invention the brothers constructed a globe-shaped balloon of sackcloth tightened with three thin layers of paper inside. The envelope could contain nearly 790 m3 of air and weighed 225 kg. It was constructed of four pieces (the dome and three lateral bands) and held together by 1,800 buttons. A reinforcing fish net of cord covered the outside of the envelope.

On 4 June 1783, they flew the balloon at Annonay in front of a group of dignitaries from the états particuliers. The flight covered 2 km, lasted 10 minutes, and had an estimated altitude of 1,600 –. Word of their success quickly reached Paris. Étienne went to the capital to make further demonstrations and to solidify the brothers' claim to the invention of flight. Joseph, given his unkempt appearance and shyness, remained with the family. Étienne was ''the epitome of sober virtues ... modest in clothes and manner...''

In collaboration with the wallpaper manufacturer Jean-Baptiste Réveillon, Étienne constructed a 37500 cuft envelope of taffeta coated with a varnish of alum for fireproofing. The balloon was sky blue and decorated with golden flourishes, signs of the zodiac, and suns. The design showed the intervention of Réveillon. The next test was on 11 September from the grounds of la Folie Titon, close to Réveillon's house. There was some concern about the effects of flight into the upper atmosphere on living creatures. The king proposed to launch two convicted criminals, but it is most likely that the inventors decided to send a sheep, a duck, and a rooster aloft first.

On 19 September 1783, the Aérostat Réveillon was flown with the first living beings in a basket attached to the balloon: a sheep called Montauciel ("Climb-to-the-sky"), a duck and a rooster. The sheep was believed to have a reasonable approximation of human physiology. The duck was expected to be unharmed by being lifted and was included as a control for effects created by the aircraft rather than the altitude. The rooster was included as a further control as it was a bird that did not fly at high altitudes. The demonstration was performed at the royal palace in Versailles, before King Louis XVI of France and Queen Marie Antoinette and a crowd. The flight lasted approximately eight minutes, covered 2 mi, and obtained an altitude of about 1500 ft. The craft landed safely after flying.

Piloted flight, autumn 1783
Since the animals survived, the king allowed flights with humans. Again in collaboration with Réveillon, Étienne built a 60000 cuft balloon for the purpose of making flights with humans. It was about 23 m tall and about 15 m in diameter. Réveillon supplied rich decorative touches of gold figures on a deep blue background, including fleur-de-lis, signs of the zodiac, and suns with Louis XVI's face in the center interlaced with the royal monogram in the central section. Red and blue drapery and golden eagles were at the base of the balloon. Étienne Montgolfier was the first human to lift off the Earth in a balloon, making a tethered test flight from the yard of the Réveillon workshop in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine, most likely on 15 October 1783. A little while later on that same day, physicist Pilâtre de Rozier became the second to ascend into the air, to an altitude of 80 ft, which was the length of the tether.

On 21 November 1783, the first free flight by humans was made by Pilâtre de Rozier, together with an army officer, the marquis d'Arlandes. The flight began from the grounds of the Château de la Muette close to the Bois de Boulogne park in the western outskirts of Paris. They flew about 3000 ft above Paris for a distance of nine kilometers. After 25 minutes, the balloon landed between the windmills, outside the city ramparts, on the Butte-aux-Cailles. Enough fuel remained on board at the end of the flight to have allowed the balloon to fly four to five times as far. However, burning embers from the fire were scorching the balloon fabric and had to be daubed out with sponges. As it appeared it could destroy the balloon, Pilâtre took off his coat to stop the fire.

The early flights made a sensation. During those first few years, numerous items, such as fans, furniture, handkerchiefs, pencil boxes, umbrella tops, etc., could be found with ballooning images engraved on them. Some items would be celebrating specific ballooning events, while others would be celebrating ballooning itself.

In December 1783, father Pierre Montgolfier was elevated to the nobility and the hereditary appellation of de Montgolfier by King Louis XVI of France.

Other balloons, competing claims
Some claim that the hot air balloon was invented about 74 years earlier by the Brazilian/Portuguese priest Bartolomeu de Gusmão. A description of his invention was published in 1709(?) in Vienna, and another one was found in the Vatican in about 1917. However, this claim is not generally recognized by aviation historians outside the Portuguese-speaking community, in particular the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale.

On 1 December 1783, a few months after the Montgolfiers' first flight, Jacques Alexandre César Charles rose to an altitude of about 3 km near Paris in a hydrogen-filled balloon he had developed.

In early 1784, the Flesselles balloon, named after the unfortunate Jacques de Flesselles, later to be an early casualty at the Bastille, gave a rough landing to its passengers.

In June 1784, the Gustave (a hot air balloon christened La Gustave in honour of King Gustav III of Sweden's visit to Lyon) saw the first female aeronaut, Élisabeth Thible.

Other Montgolfier inventions
Both brothers invented a process to manufacture transparent paper similar to vellum, imitating the technique of the English, followed by the papermakers Johannot and Réveillon. In 1796, Joseph Michel Montgolfier invented the first self-acting hydraulic ram, a water pump to raise water for his paper mill at Voiron. In 1772, the British clockmaker John Whitehurst had invented its precursor, the "pulsation engine". In 1797, Montgolfier's friend Matthew Boulton took out a British patent on his behalf.

In 1816, Joseph Michel's sons obtained a British patent for an improved version of the pump.

Death, the Montgolfier company
Both brothers were freemasons in Les Neuf Soeurs lodge in Paris.

In 1799, Etienne de Montgolfier died on the way from Lyon to Annonay. His son-in-law, Barthélémy Barou de la Lombardière de Canson (1774–1859), succeeded him as the head of the company, thanks to his marriage with Alexandrine de Montgolfier. The company became Montgolfier et Canson in 1801, then Canson-Montgolfier in 1807. In 1810, Joseph-Michel died in Balaruc-les-Bains.

The Montgolfier Company in Annonay still exists under the name Canson. It produces fine art papers, school drawing papers and digital fine art and photography papers sold in 150 countries.

In 1983, the Montgolfier brothers were inducted into the International Air & Space Hall of Fame at the San Diego Air & Space Museum.

title: Montgolfier brothers


text:
Thomas Young (scientist)

Thomas Young FRS (13 June 1773 – 10 May 1829) was a British polymath who made notable contributions to the fields of vision, light, solid mechanics, energy, physiology, language, musical harmony, and Egyptology. He was instrumental in the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs, specifically the Rosetta Stone.

Young has been described as "The Last Man Who Knew Everything". His work influenced that of William Herschel, Hermann von Helmholtz, James Clerk Maxwell, and Albert Einstein. Young is credited with establishing Christiaan Huygens' wave theory of light, in contrast to the corpuscular theory of Isaac Newton. Young's work was subsequently supported by the work of Augustin-Jean Fresnel.

Personal life
Young belonged to a Quaker family of Milverton, Somerset, where he was born in 1773, the eldest of ten children. By the age of fourteen, Young had learned Greek, Latin, French, Italian, Syriac, Samaritan Hebrew, Arabic, Biblical Aramaic, Persian, Turkish, and Ge'ez.

Young began to study medicine in London at St Bartholomew's Hospital in 1792, moved to the University of Edinburgh Medical School in 1794, and a year later went to Göttingen, Lower Saxony, Germany, where he obtained the degree of doctor of medicine in 1796 from the University of Göttingen. In 1797 he entered Emmanuel College, Cambridge. In the same year he inherited the estate of his grand-uncle, Richard Brocklesby, which made him financially independent, and in 1799 he established himself as a physician at 48 Welbeck Street, London (now recorded with a blue plaque). Young published many of his first academic articles anonymously to protect his reputation as a physician.

In 1801, Young was appointed professor of natural philosophy (mainly physics) at the Royal Institution. In two years, he delivered 91 lectures. In 1802, he was appointed foreign secretary of the Royal Society, of which he had been elected a fellow in 1794. He resigned his professorship in 1803, fearing that its duties would interfere with his medical practice. His lectures were published in 1807 in the Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and contain a number of anticipations of later theories.

In 1811, Young became physician to St George's Hospital, and in 1814 he served on a committee appointed to consider the dangers involved in the general introduction of gas for lighting into London. In 1816 he was secretary of a commission charged with ascertaining the precise length of the seconds pendulum (the length of a pendulum whose period is exactly 2 seconds), and in 1818 he became secretary to the Board of Longitude and superintendent of the HM Nautical Almanac Office.

Young was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1822. A few years before his death he became interested in life insurance, and in 1827 he was chosen as one of the eight foreign associates of the French Academy of Sciences. In the same year he became a first class corresponding member, living abroad, of the Royal Institute of the Netherlands. In 1828, he was elected a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

In 1804, Young married Eliza Maxwell. They had no children.

Young died in his 56th year in London on 10 May 1829, having suffered recurrent attacks of "asthma". His autopsy revealed atherosclerosis of the aorta. His body was buried in the graveyard of St. Giles Church at Farnborough, in the county of Kent. Westminster Abbey houses a white marble tablet in memory of Young, bearing an epitaph by Hudson Gurney:

"Sacred to the memory of Thomas Young, M.D., Fellow and Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society Member of the National Institute of France; a man alike eminent in almost every department of human learning. Patient of unintermitted labour, endowed with the faculty of intuitive perception, who, bringing an equal mastery to the most abstruse investigations of letters and of science, first established the undulatory theory of light, and first penetrated the obscurity which had veiled for ages the hieroglyphs of Egypt. Endeared to his friends by his domestic virtues, honoured by the World for his unrivalled acquirements, he died in the hopes of the Resurrection of the just. —Born at Milverton, in Somersetshire, 13 June 1773. Died in Park Square, London, 10 May 1829, in the 56th year of his age."

Young was highly regarded by his friends and colleagues. He was said never to impose his knowledge, but if asked was able to answer even the most difficult scientific question with ease. Although very learned he had a reputation for sometimes having difficulty in communicating his knowledge. It was said by one of his contemporaries that, "His words were not those in familiar use, and the arrangement of his ideas seldom the same as those he conversed with. He was therefore worse calculated than any man I ever knew for the communication of knowledge."

Religious views
Though he sometimes dealt with religious topics of history in Egypt and wrote about the history of Christianity in Nubia, not much is known about Young's personal religious views. On George Peacock's account, Young never spoke to him about morals, metaphysics or religion, though according to Young's wife, his attitudes showed that "his Quaker upbringing had strongly influenced his religious practices." Authoritative sources have described Young in terms of a cultural Christian Quaker.

Hudson Gurney informed that before his marriage, Young had to join the Church of England, and was baptized later. Gurney stated that Young "retained a good deal of his old creed, and carried to his scriptural studies his habit of inquisition of languages and manners," rather than the habit of proselytism. Yet, the day before his death, Young participated in religious sacraments; as reported in David Brewster's Edinburgh Journal of Science: "After some information concerning his affairs, and some instructions concerning the hierographical papers in his hands, he said that, perfectly aware of his situation, he had taken the sacraments of the church on the day preceding. His religious sentiments were by himself stated to be liberal, though orthodox. He had extensively studied the Scriptures, of which the precepts were deeply impressed upon his mind from his earliest years; and he evidenced the faith which he professed; in an unbending course of usefulness and rectitude."

Wave theory of light
In Young's own judgment, of his many achievements the most important was to establish the wave theory of light set out by Christiaan Huygens in his Treatise on Light (1690). To do so, he had to overcome the century-old view, expressed in the venerable Newton's Opticks, that light is a particle. Nevertheless, in the early 19th century Young put forth a number of theoretical reasons supporting the wave theory of light, and he developed two enduring demonstrations to support this viewpoint. With the ripple tank he demonstrated the idea of interference in the context of water waves. With Young's interference experiment, the predecessor of the double-slit experiment, he demonstrated interference in the context of light as a wave.

Young, speaking on 24 November 1803, to the Royal Society of London, began his now-classic description of the historic experiment: "The experiments I am about to relate ... may be repeated with great ease, whenever the sun shines, and without any other apparatus than is at hand to every one."

In his subsequent paper, titled Experiments and Calculations Relative to Physical Optics (1804), Young describes an experiment in which he placed a card measuring approximately 0.85 mm in a beam of light from a single opening in a window and observed the fringes of colour in the shadow and to the sides of the card. He observed that placing another card in front or behind the narrow strip so as to prevent the light beam from striking one of its edges caused the fringes to disappear. This supported the contention that light is composed of waves.

Young performed and analysed a number of experiments, including interference of light from reflection off nearby pairs of micrometre grooves, from reflection off thin films of soap and oil, and from Newton's rings. He also performed two important diffraction experiments using fibres and long narrow strips. In his Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts (1807) he gives Grimaldi credit for first observing the fringes in the shadow of an object placed in a beam of light. Within ten years, much of Young's work was reproduced and then extended by Augustin-Jean Fresnel.

Young's modulus

Young described the characterization of elasticity that came to be known as Young's modulus, denoted as E, in 1807, and further described it in his Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts. However, the first use of the concept of Young's modulus in experiments was by Giordano Riccati in 1782—predating Young by 25 years. Furthermore, the idea can be traced to a paper by Leonhard Euler published in 1727, some 80 years before Thomas Young's 1807 paper.

The Young's modulus relates the stress (pressure) in a body to its associated strain (change in length as a ratio of the original length); that is, stress = E × strain, for a uniaxially loaded specimen. Young's modulus is independent of the component under investigation; that is, it is an inherent material property (the term modulus refers to an inherent material property). Young's Modulus allowed, for the first time, prediction of the strain in a component subject to a known stress (and vice versa). Prior to Young's contribution, engineers were required to apply Hooke's F = kx relationship to identify the deformation (x) of a body subject to a known load (F), where the constant (k) is a function of both the geometry and material under consideration. Finding k required physical testing for any new component, as the F = kx relationship is a function of both geometry and material. Young's Modulus depends only on the material, not its geometry, thus allowing a revolution in engineering strategies.

Young's problems in sometimes not expressing himself clearly were shown by his own definition of the modulus: "The modulus of the elasticity of any substance is a column of the same substance, capable of producing a pressure on its base which is to the weight causing a certain degree of compression as the length of the substance is to the diminution of its length." When this explanation was put to the Lords of the Admiralty, their clerk wrote to Young saying "Though science is much respected by their Lordships and your paper is much esteemed, it is too learned ... in short it is not understood."

Vision and colour theory
Young has also been called the founder of physiological optics. In 1793 he explained the mode in which the eye accommodates itself to vision at different distances as depending on change of the curvature of the crystalline lens; in 1801 he was the first to describe astigmatism; and in his lectures he presented the hypothesis, afterwards developed by Hermann von Helmholtz, (the Young–Helmholtz theory), that colour perception depends on the presence in the retina of three kinds of nerve fibres. This foreshadowed the modern understanding of colour vision, in particular the finding that the eye does indeed have three colour receptors which are sensitive to different wavelength ranges.

Young–Laplace equation
In 1804, Young developed the theory of capillary phenomena on the principle of surface tension. He also observed the constancy of the angle of contact of a liquid surface with a solid, and showed how from these two principles to deduce the phenomena of capillary action. In 1805, Pierre-Simon Laplace, the French philosopher, discovered the significance of meniscus radii with respect to capillary action.

In 1830, Carl Friedrich Gauss, the German mathematician, unified the work of these two scientists to derive the Young–Laplace equation, the formula that describes the capillary pressure difference sustained across the interface between two static fluids.

Young was the first to define the term "energy" in the modern sense. He also did work on the theory of tides paralleling that of Laplace and anticipating more well-known work by Airy.

Young's equation and Young–Dupré equation
Young's equation describes the contact angle of a liquid drop on a plane solid surface as a function of the surface free energy, the interfacial free energy and the surface tension of the liquid. Young's equation was developed further some 60 years later by Dupré to account for thermodynamic effects, and this is known as the Young–Dupré equation.

Medicine
In physiology Young made an important contribution to haemodynamics in the Croonian lecture for 1808 on the "Functions of the Heart and Arteries," where he derived a formula for the wave speed of the pulse and his medical writings included An Introduction to Medical Literature, including a System of Practical Nosology (1813) and A Practical and Historical Treatise on Consumptive Diseases (1815).

Young devised a rule of thumb for determining a child's drug dosage. Young's Rule states that the child dosage is equal to the adult dosage multiplied by the child's age in years, divided by the sum of 12 plus the child's age.

Languages
In an appendix to his 1796 Göttingen dissertation De corporis hvmani viribvs conservatricibvs there are four pages added proposing a universal phonetic alphabet (so as 'not to leave these pages blank'; lit.: "Ne vacuae starent hae paginae, libuit e praelectione ante disputationem habenda tabellam literarum vniuersalem raptim describere"). It includes 16 "pure" vowel symbols, nasal vowels, various consonants, and examples of these, drawn primarily from French and English.

In his Encyclopædia Britannica article "Languages", Young compared the grammar and vocabulary of 400 languages. In a separate work in 1813, he introduced the term Indo-European languages, 165 years after the Dutch linguist and scholar Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn proposed the grouping to which this term refers in 1647.

Egyptian hieroglyphs
Young made significant contributions to the decipherment of ancient Egyptian writing systems. He started his Egyptology work rather late, in 1813, when the work was already in progress among other researchers.

He began by using an Egyptian demotic alphabet of 29 letters built up by Johan David Åkerblad in 1802 (14 turned out to be incorrect). Åkerblad was correct in stressing the importance of the demotic text in trying to read the inscriptions, but he wrongly believed that demotic was entirely alphabetic.

By 1814 Young had completely translated the "enchorial" text of the Rosetta Stone (using a list with 86 demotic words), and then studied the hieroglyphic alphabet but initially failed to recognise that the demotic and hieroglyphic texts were paraphrases and not simple translations.

There was considerable rivalry between Young and Jean-François Champollion while both were working on hieroglyphic decipherment. At first they briefly cooperated in their work, but later, from around 1815, a chill arose between them. For many years they kept details of their work away from each other.

Some of Young's conclusions appeared in the famous article "Egypt" he wrote for the 1818 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

When Champollion finally published a translation of the hieroglyphs and the key to the grammatical system in 1822, Young (and many others) praised his work. Nevertheless, a year later Young published an Account of the Recent Discoveries in Hieroglyphic Literature and Egyptian Antiquities, with the aim of having his own work recognised as the basis for Champollion's system.

Young had correctly found the sound value of six hieroglyphic signs, but had not deduced the grammar of the language. Young himself acknowledged that he was somewhat at a disadvantage because Champollion's knowledge of the relevant languages, such as Coptic, was much greater.

Several scholars have suggested that Young's true contribution to Egyptology was his decipherment of the demotic script. He made the first major advances in this area; he also correctly identified demotic as being composed by both ideographic and phonetic signs.

Subsequently, Young felt that Champollion was unwilling to share the credit for the decipherment. In the ensuing controversy, strongly motivated by the political tensions of that time, the British tended to champion Young, while the French mostly championed Champollion. Champollion did acknowledge some of Young's contribution, but rather sparingly. However, after 1826, when Champollion was a curator in the Louvre, he did offer Young access to demotic manuscripts.

In England, while Sir George Lewis still doubted Champollion's achievement as late as 1862, others were more accepting. For example, Reginald Poole, and Sir Peter Le Page Renouf both defended Champollion.

Music
Young developed Young temperament, a method of tuning musical instruments.

Legacy
Later scholars and scientists have praised Young's work although they may know him only through achievements he made in their fields. His contemporary Sir John Herschel called him a "truly original genius". Albert Einstein praised him in the 1931 foreword to an edition of Isaac Newton's Opticks. Other admirers include physicist Lord Rayleigh and Nobel Physics laureate Philip Anderson.

Thomas Young's name has been adopted as the name of the London-based Thomas Young Centre, an alliance of academic research groups engaged in the theory and simulation of materials.

Young Sound in eastern Greenland was named in his honour by William Scoresby (1789–1857).

Selected writings

 * A Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts (1807, republished 2002 by Thoemmes Press).
 * Miscellaneous Works of the Late Thomas Young, M.D., F.R.S. (1855, 3 volumes, editor John Murray, republished 2003 by Thoemmes Press).

title: Thomas Young (scientist)


text:
Pelagius of Asturias

Pelagius (Pelayo; c. 685 – 737) was a Hispano-Visigoth nobleman who founded the Kingdom of Asturias in 718. Pelagius is credited with initiating the Reconquista, the Christian reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors, and establishing the Asturian monarchy, making him the forefather of all the future Iberian monarchies, including the Kings of Castile, the Kings of León, and the Kings of Portugal.

Early life
Pelagius was a Visigoth nobleman, the son of Fafila. The Chronica Albeldense says that this Fafila was a dux of Gallaecia, who was killed by Wittiza. The Chronicle of Alfonso III identifies Pelagius as a grandson of Chindasuinth and says that his father was blinded in Córdoba, at the instigation of Wittiza. Wittiza is also said to have exiled Pelagius from Toledo upon assuming the crown in 702. In the opinion of Roger Collins, this is a late tradition and the account of the Albeldense, which locates Pelagius' origins in the north of the peninsula, is more credible. Both chronicles agree, however, that he was a Visigoth who was exiled from Toledo by Wittiza.

According to the later tradition, Munuza, the Berber governor of Iegione (either Gijón or León), became attracted to Pelagius' sister and sent word to Tariq ibn Ziyad, who ordered him to capture Pelagius and send him to Córdoba. If Munuza's seat is identified with Gijón, it may be inferred that the Arabs had established their rule in the Asturias and that Pelagius was not the leader of a local resistance to Arab conquest. Pelagius may have come to terms with the Arab elite whereby he was permitted to govern locally in the manner of the previous Visigoths, as is known to have occurred between Arab rulers and Visigothic noblemen elsewhere, as in the case of Theudimer, although most historians consider this unlikely.

Reign
At some point Pelagius is said to have rebelled, but for what reasons is unknown; such rebellions by local authorities against their superiors formed a common theme in Visigothic Spain. A Muslim army was sent against him under the command of Alkama and the Christian bishop of Seville, Oppa. That Alkama was the general and that there was a bishop of Seville named Oppa among his ranks is generally accepted. A battle was fought near Covadonga (in monte Auseva or in monte Libana) in which Alkama was killed and Oppa captured. Moorish chronicles of the event describe Pelagius and his small force as "thirty wild donkeys", as reported by al-Maqqari in the 17th century. The battle is usually dated to 718 or 719, between the governorships of al-Hurr and as-Sham, though some have dated it as late as 722 and the Chronica Albeldensia dates it in the 740s. After his election as princeps (prince, principal leader) of the Asturians by the local magnates in the Visigothic manner, Pelagius made his capital at Cangas de Onís. The Chronica Rotensis says about this election: "And he [Pelagius], going to his mountainous lands, gathered all those who were going to council and ascended a big mountain named Asseuua. He spread his orders between all the Astures, who gathered in council and elected Pelagius as their princeps." His kingdom, firstly centred on the eastern Asturias, soon grew. He married his daughter Ermesinda to the future king Alfonso I, son of Pelagius' eastern neighbour, Duke Peter of Cantabria.

Pelagius reigned for eighteen or nineteen years until his death in 737, when he was succeeded by his son Fafila.

He was buried in the church of Santa Eulalia de Abamia, located in the surroundings of the village of Corao, near Cangas de Onís. His remains were transferred by King Alfonso X of Castile to the Holy Cave of Covadonga, as were those of his wife Gaudiosa and his sister. He left, in addition to his son and successor Fafila, a daughter, Ermesinda, who was to become progenitress, along with King Alfonso I of Asturias ("Alfonso the Catholic"), of the later royalty of Asturias.

Historiography
The chief sources for Pelagius's life and career are two Latin chronicles written in the late ninth century in the kingdom he founded. The first is the Chronica Albeldensia, written at Albelda towards 881, and preserved in the Codex Vigilanus, with a continuation to 976. The latter is the Chronicle of Alfonso III, which was revised in the early tenth century and preserved in two textual traditions that diverge in several key passages: the Chronica Rotensis, preserved in the Códice de Roda, and the Chronica ad Sebastianum, supposedly written by Sebastian, Bishop of Salamanca (910–913). The only likely earlier written sources from which these chroniclers could derive information are regnal lists.

title: Pelagius of Asturias