text:
Music of Northumbria

Here  Northumbria is defined as Northumberland, the northernmost county of England, and County Durham. According to 'World Music: The Rough Guide', "nowhere is the English living tradition more in evidence than the border lands of Northumbria, the one part of England to rival the counties of the west of Ireland for a rich unbroken tradition. The region is particularly noted for its tradition of border ballads, the Northumbrian smallpipes (a form of bagpipes unique to North East England) and also a strong fiddle tradition in the region that was already well established in the 1690s. Northumbrian music is characterised by considerable influence from other regions (and vice versa), particularly southern Scotland and other parts of the north of England, as well as Irish immigrants.

Local musical forms and styles
Northumbria shares with southern Scotland the long history of border ballads, such as 'The Ballad of Chevy Chase'. It is also known for local dances, namely rapper dancing and Durham and Northumberland style clog dancing. The dance music of Northumbria differs markedly in style from that of the rest of England. It has more in common with Irish dance music, and especially Scottish dance music, yet is to some extent unique. Many dances from the region have the characteristic rant step.

Although many tunes are shared with other regions of England or other nations, there is often a distinct difference between a Northumbrian version of a tune and versions from elsewhere. For instance a simple Irish tune, 'The Chorus Jig', with three strains, appears in the Northumbrian tradition as 'Holey Ha'penny', an ornate five-strain variation set. A Scottish strathspey, 'Struan Robertson's Rant' appears, stripped of the Scotch snap, as a smallpipe tune, 'Cuckold come out of the Amrey', a long variation set. These two examples illustrate the impossibility of ascribing a regional origin to an old tune; each can be played on a primitive instrument, and may have been played for as long before first publication, as they have been since. Assumptions of regional origins can bedevil the study of music undertaken by enthusiastic musicians (who may sadly follow partisan allegiances) however regional versions and styles (like Northumbrian) are quite a different matter, having reliable established sources.

Tunes in hornpipe rhythm are much appreciated in the region, both for playing and for dancing, particularly clog dancing. One rhythm characteristic of the region is the rant, used for figure dances such as The Morpeth Rant with a characteristic step; musically it is similar to a reel, though somewhat slower, and with more of a lilt.

During 1770–2 William Vickers made a manuscript collection of local dance tunes, of which some 580 survive, including both pipe and fiddle tunes, many of which are from Scotland, southern England, Ireland and even France, revealing the very extensive and varied repertoire of local musicians at that time.

Bagpipe music
In the later medieval period pipe music appears to have been characterized by the use of the Northumbrian 'war pipe', which may have been the ancestor of the Great Highland Bagpipe, but no example has survived. It appears to have been replaced in the region by the eighteenth century by a variety of pipes, ranging from the conical bore, open-ended border pipes, to the cylindrically bored smallpipes; the closed-ended form with its single octave compass and closed fingering is known to have existed since the seventeenth century, and open-ended forms were also known. The Union or Pastoral pipes, the precursor of the Irish Uilleann pipes, are also known to have been played and made in the region. The earliest known bagpipe manuscript from the UK is a tunebook by William Dixon of Stamfordham in Northumberland, dated 1733. This includes forty tunes with extensive sets of variations. Some of the tunes correspond to later versions of known smallpipe tunes; others, with a nine-note compass, must have been played either on Border pipes or on an open-ended smallpipe, like the Scottish smallpipes.

In the early nineteenth century, makers such as John Dunn and Robert and James Reid added keys to the closed-ended smallpipe, extending its range to almost two octaves. With its greater flexibility, the instrument became more fashionable at this time. On the other hand, the Border pipes seem not to have been found in Northumberland much after the middle of the century, though they were revived as the 'half-long pipes' in the 1920s and more successfully in the 1970s and 80s.

Many families have been associated with traditional Northumbrian piping. Will Allan (Old Wull) and his son James (Jemmy) were noted pipers in the eighteenth century: James played on several occasions for the Countess of Northumberland. In 1756 Joseph Turnbull was appointed piper to the Countess. The Percy family have continued to maintain a piper to this day. Contrary to popular tradition, the Duke's current piper, Richard Butler, has written that "there is no record in the Percy Archives (Alnwick Castle) recording that James Allan was Piper to the Duchess or Duke". Turnbull's pupil, John Peacock was probably the first Northumbrian piper to play a keyed chanter. Most notably, the Clough family of Newsham produced six generations of pipers, including Tom Clough, who made an important early recording in 1929, and taught many pipers, including Billy Pigg.

Fiddle music
The earliest source of music for fiddle from Northumberland is Henry Atkinson's tunebook from the 1690s. This includes tunes current in both the southern English and Scottish music of the time. A later source, unfortunately lost, was John Smith's tunebook from 1750. Some tunes from this were copied out by John Stokoe in the nineteenth century: these include an extended set of variations on the song The Keel Row for fiddle (the earliest known version), pipe tunes with variations such as Bold Wilkinson, and a version of Jacky Layton with variations for fiddle. It is clear that as in Scotland, the playing of extended variation sets on the fiddle was current in Northumberland at the time. A slightly later source, the William Vickers manuscript, from 1770, and also for fiddle, contains 580 simple dance tunes, but few variation sets.

In the nineteenth century the most notable feature of the region's music was the popularity of the hornpipe in 4/4 time, and in particular the very influential playing of the publican, fiddler and composer James Hill. His compositions include 'The High Level Bridge', 'The Great Exhibition', 'The Beeswing', 'The Hawk' and many others. Many other fine tunes have been attributed to him, but these include some he cannot possibly have written. Another local composer, in the later 19th century, was the fiddler and dancing master Robert Whinham, some 60 of whose compositions survive, notably the hornpipe 'Remember Me', and 'Whinham's Reel'.

In the early- and mid-twentieth century, influential fiddlers included Ned Pearson, Jim Rutherford, Adam Gray, George Hepple and Jake Hutton, father of the noted piper Joe Hutton. John Armstrong of Carrick played with the piper Billy Pigg. In the later part of the century, Willy Taylor was perhaps the most highly respected of the many fiddlers in the region.

Other instruments
Other musical instruments which have been used in the region include the flute and piccolo. Some nineteenth-century manuscripts contain tunes which are in keys and registers appropriate to the flute. Billy Ballantine was a piccolo player from the west of the region, who played for dances in the mid-twentieth century. The style of his playing was very distinctive, mixing staccato notes for rhythmic emphasis with more ornate passages. He made recordings of tunes like the Kielder Schottische and The Gilsland Hornpipe for the BBC. Billy Conroy made some recordings on home-made whistles.

Free reed instruments have been of growing importance since their development in the nineteenth century. In particular the mouth organ or "moothie" was played notably by Will Atkinson. As elsewhere in England the melodeon has been used for dance music.

Folk revivals
The first folk revival in the region tended to circulate around folk dance, the collection of border ballads and, from the later 1870s, the revival of interest in pipe music.

John Bell collected many tunes and songs from the region in the early nineteenth century. Later on, in the middle of the century the Ancient Melodies Committee of the Newcastle Society of Antiquaries attempted a more comprehensive collection, based largely on manuscript and printed sources; this was later edited for publication by John Collingwood Bruce and John Stokoe.

The Northumbrian Small Pipes Society was founded in Newcastle in 1893; although it was short-lived, only continuing until 1900, it ran a series of competitions, won by Henry Clough and Richard Mowat. The Northumbrian Pipers' Society was founded in 1928, and are generally credited with helping to keep the distinctive tradition alive. The first recordings of the Northumbrian smallpipes were made in the late 1920s, including the HMV recording of Tom Clough.

Border ballads were a major part of those collected by Francis James Child and make up most of the sixth volume of his ten volume collection of The English and Scottish Popular Ballads (1882–98).

The second folk revival saw a number of acts drawing on this work, and enjoying some success. Probably the most influential piper from the region was Billy Pigg, but other important pipers in the mid-twentieth century include G. G. Armstrong, George Atkinson, Jack Armstrong, and Joe Hutton. Figures such as Lou Killen, The High Level Ranters and Bob Davenport brought Northumbrian folk to national and international audiences.

The melody later used by Simon & Garfunkel in "Scarborough Fair/Canticle" was first sung by Mark Anderson (1874–1953), a retired lead miner from Middleton-in-Teesdale, County Durham, to Ewan MacColl in 1947. MacColl recorded the lyrics and melody in a book of Teesdale folk songs, and later included it on his and Peggy Seeger's The Singing Island (1960)

The most successful folk group from the region in the 1970s were Lindisfarne, who played progressive folk music with some local stylings. Much more concerned with traditional music from the region were the group that splintered from them in 1973 Jack the Lad, and another group from which they gained some members Hedgehog Pie, who, for a time, provided a regional answer to the British folk rock of bands like Fairport Convention and Steeleye Span. These groups have been seen as continuing an exploration of regional identity through folk music. Between their demise and revival in the 1990s, the local scene continued through groups like the more traditional Doonan family, which contained some of the finest folk flute players in the region. These groups have been seen as continuing an exploration of regional identity through folk music.

Another prolific figure from the 1970s to 2000s was Eric Boswell. While best known for writing the Christmas song Little Donkey, Boswell's local ballads like I've Got A Little Whippet, Sweet Waters Of Tyne and Tyneside's Where I Come From often featured on Tyne Tees and at Newcastle City Hall Geordierama concerts and The Little Waster Bobby Thompson and various others made recordings. Boswell's songs continue to be performed in folk clubs.

Colin Ross, has been influential not only as a player and teacher of the Northumbrian pipes, but has also been an important pipemaker, as David G. Burleigh was. Distinctive local sounds were much more marked in the next generation of traditional Northumbrian folk musicians such as Ed Pickford and Jez Lowe, who have reinvigorated the local scene and artists like fiddler Nancy Kerr and piper Kathryn Tickell have gained international reputations, appearing on records with artists including Kate Rusby, Eliza Carthy and even Sting. In 2003 June Tabor stimulated interest in the Border ballads with her album An Echo of Hooves.

Thanks to the efforts of musicians like these in 2001 Newcastle University was the first to offer a performance-based degree programme in folk and traditional music in England. Currently the region has over thirty active folk clubs and hosts several major folk festivals, including the Traditional Music Festival at Rothbury.

Contemporary music in Northumbria
There are many artists and acts that have formed in the North East such as the Lighthouse Family and Dubstar (Newcastle upon Tyne), Maxïmo Park (Singer from Billingham, other band members met in Newcastle) The Futureheads and Field Music (Sunderland) as well as China Drum (from Ovingham). Musicians and singers that were born and raised in the region include Sting, Bryan Ferry, Dave Stewart, Mark Knopfler, Cheryl Tweedy, Andy Taylor of Duran Duran, Jimmy Nail (Auf Wiedersehen Pet, Spender), AC/DC's Brian Johnson, Neil Tennant of Pet Shop Boys, Paddy McAloon, and Moloko's Mark Brydon.

Northumbrian Mákina
Mákina music, a subgenre of hardcore techno originated in Spain, has thrived in North East England and Scotland from the late 1990s to current times. The genre is the staple of the rave scene in North East England and Scotland. Following the closures of the most prominent venues – in particular the New Monkey nightclub – its popularity has slightly faded in those areas and has been partially replaced with Scouse house. Despite this it still retains a strong cultural legacy; regularly heard blasting from coaches when Newcastle United and Sunderland AFC play away matches.

Selected recordings

 * Ranting and Reeling (1999) TSCD 669
 * Bonny North Tyne: Northumbrian Country Music (Topic 12TS239)
 * Holey Ha'Penny 12T283
 * Wild Hills o'Wannie – The small pipes of Northumbria 12TS227

title: Music of Northumbria


text:
Nonsan–Cheonan Expressway

The  Nonsan–Cheonan Expressway is an expressway serving the South Chungcheong region in South Korea. It connects Nonsan on the Gyeongbu Expressway to Cheonan on the Honam Expressway. The freeway's route number is 25, which it shares with the Honam Expressway.

List of facilities

 * IC: Interchange, JC: Junction, SA: Service Area, TG:Tollgate

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

title: Nonsan–Cheonan Expressway


text: File:Br-greatesthits.jpg

title: File:Br-greatesthits.jpg


text:
Liner

Liner or LINER may refer to:

Line drawing

 * Eye liner, a type of makeup
 * Marker pen, a porous-tip pen with its own ink source
 * Multiple lining tool used in engraving
 * A sable brush used by coach painters

Linings

 * Acoustic liner, a noise-damping panel in an aircraft engine
 * Album liner, a record sleeve or combination of sleeve and outer sheath (usually printed cardboard) in which a vinyl record is stored
 * Liner notes, text printed on or accompanying the sheaths, cases and other forms of packaging in which vinyl records, CDs, DVDs, etc., are stored
 * Bin liner, a protective layer fitted inside a bin
 * Landfill liner, a membrane placed at the bottom of landfills
 * Liner, an installation of well-drilling casing that does not extend to the surface
 * Liner (sewing)
 * Release liner, a paper or film used on labels and adhesive tapes to cover the adhesive until ready for use

Transportation

 * Airliner, a large fixed-wing aircraft for transporting passengers and cargo
 * Ocean liner, a type of passenger ship used primarily for long-distance transportation
 * Cruise ship, also known as a cruise liner, a passenger ship used primarily for recreation
 * Ship of the line, a type of warship used from the 17th century to the 19th century

Other uses

 * Liner (baseball) or "line drive", a type of baseball stroke
 * Linerboard or "liner", a type of paperboard used in making corrugated fiberboard
 * Low-ionization nuclear emission-line region (LINER), a class of galactic nuclei (also used to refer to galaxies with such nuclei)
 * Liner (band), a reincarnation of the British rock band Blackfoot Sue
 * R-29RMU2 Layner (Liner), Russian submarine-launched missile

title: Liner


text: User talk:12.210.160.159

title: User talk:12.210.160.159


text:
Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 4

Does it involve sex?
Ed, I reverted your most recent change. You defined bisexuality in terms of homosexuality; in other words, what you wrote assumes that bisexuality is a "variety" of homosexuality. That assumes that heterosexuality is the default (why couldn't it just as validly be said that bisexuality were a "variety" of heterosexuality?) The original, which I restored, merely invites readers to compare ("cf.") homosexuality with heterosexuality and bisexuality. - Montréalais 01:19, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I regard homosexuality and heterosexuality as two ends of a spectrum (like the political Left & Right spectrum). Bisexuality is anything in the middle. If I expressed myself differently in the edit you deleted, that was accidental. I don't agree with the statement that bisexuality is a variety of homosexuality, so your deletion makes sense.

 * But I think that the terms homosexuality and bisexuality encompass more than just "romance" and sexual desire. Homosexual acts, whether called "same-sex sexual activity" or some other circumlocution, are deemed an essential part of homosexuality -- if only outside the LGBT community.

 * Mentioning gay sex or whatever it's currently called, is essential, because the religious debate over the sinfulness or non-sinfulness of homosexuality focuses on the acts themselves -- not the "sexual orientation" of the actors. --Uncle Ed 15:23, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not really true. One doesn't have to have sex to be gay, straight or otherwise. Exploding Boy 15:32, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have moved Ed's frequently reverted sentence from the very first line (where it doesn't belong) a little further down in the article. Exploding Boy 15:38, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * Please explain why an article about homosexuality should not mention SEX in the first paragraph. --Uncle Ed 15:47, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to do with this article? What on earth was that last edit you made? For comparison, here's the first line from the heterosexuality article:

Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by romantic love or sexual desire exclusively for members of the opposite gender, contrasted with homosexuality and distinguished from bisexuality and asexuality.

Exploding Boy 15:50, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think you can question my neutrality after writing this:

In the West, most people consider the adjective homosexual and the noun homosexuality to carry a neutral connotation. Some advocates vigorously oppose the use of these terms as either (a) having a    negative, "clinical" connotation or (b) simply not being sufficiently positive. These advocates wish to use language to promote their view that homosexuality is normal, life-giving, wonderful, etc. (see gay    rights).

Exploding Boy 15:51, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

The article on sexual orientation says:

 * Most people distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour.

So I think we should mention "sex" in the first paragraph. Otherwise the article should be called "homosexual orientation", to distinguish between:
 * 1) sexual behavior, and
 * 2) love and/or sexual desire.

--Uncle Ed 15:56, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from editing the homosexuality series. I don't think we're communicating well.

It's not your PERSONAL neutrality I'm questioning. Contributors have a right to HAVE extremely different points of view.

Rather it's the neutrality of your EDITS which I'm questioning. You seem to be trying to exclude from the homosexuality the idea that sex is part of sexuality. Which appears to be an agenda to redefine homosexuality as a "sexual orientation" rather than a sexual practice -- as if one had nothing to do with the other.

Anyway, the articles I hope to see in Wikipedia should describe:
 * (a) sexual activity between people of the same sex/gender.
 * (b) how they feel about this, and how others feel about it (morality, politics, etc.)
 * (c) how homosexual desire or "orientation" arises, and how this affects (b). --Uncle Ed 16:03, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think anyone's trying to entirely separate sex from sexuality here, and you seem to have also misread the sexual orientation article you cite as proof of your opinion (which seems to be, judging by your edits, that homosexuality is abnormal and mostly to do with sex). The first sentence in this article, as it stands, is non-NPOV.

 * The article on sexual orientation does say that most people distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour, but it says so in the context of pointing out that it is not necessary to actually have sex to have a particular orientation. It describes sexual orientation (of which it lists homosexuality as one) as "the object of a person's erotic desires, fantasies and feelings."

 * Homosexuality is defined a sexual orientation; there's no "redifining" going on. Homosexual sexual acts also exist, but the two are not exactly the same.  Exploding Boy 16:13, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think the concept of homosexuality includes sexual behavior. However, interested parties have re-defined it as a "sexual orientation".

A lot of what is being tagged as homosexuality would be more accurately described by tagging it as homosexual orientation.

I think the article should say something like:
 * Homosexuality is sex between males or between females...
 * who typically (but not always) identify as "gay", "queer", etc.
 * and sometimes involves romantic love or a quest for it

In other words, the three elements are, in order of descending importance:
 * 1) sexual acts
 * 2) "orientation" or "identity"
 * 3) motivation

Comments? --Uncle Ed 20:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, Ed, I believe that you are

 * 1) Ignoring reality
 * 2) Defining by fiat
 * Sexual activity isn't what gay or straight people see their gayness or straightness as all about, only homophobes think that being gay is about sexual activity. Therefore you're hierarchy is both inaccurate and anti-gay POV. Hyacinth 21:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it would be incorrect to define homosexuality in large part about behavior only as it would be to define heterosexuality in terms only of penal vaginal sex. One can be a heterosexual and not engage in sexual behavior, so as it is with gay or lesbian people. --ShaunMacPherson 23:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I would argue that gay sex is an important, but not essential, part of being gay. The error is in saying that all gay people have gay sex; or that no straight people have gay sex; or that having gay sex is sufficient for one to be gay. - Montrealais

 * Yes, this is very clear and concise. Perhaps we should include a section on 'homosexual behaviour' and that addresses your point on these fallicies: that all gay people have gay sex; or that no straight people have gay sex; or that having gay sex is sufficient for one to be gay. --ShaunMacPherson 15:06, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * First comment: Sexual acts --> identity --> motivation is exactly backwards. The desire precedes the identity and the act. Second comment: you seem to be confusing etymology with meaning. - Outerlimits 00:14, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ed, first, I don't think you're making any sense, and second, you obviously can't overcome your personal bias (which is clearly illustrated in this quote from your user page: "It is to be remembered that regardless of the disorder, it may be easier to change the psychological outlook of sick persons than to change their physique to conform to what a distorted mind may believe it desires. http://www.symposion.com/ijt/cauldwell/cauldwell_03.htm ") to consider this topic neutrally. Exploding Boy 00:30, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

§ Ed, Try thinking about it this way. Many people are not comfortable looking at one fact, which is that all or almost all humans are capable of sexual arousal by members of both sexes. What distinguishes a "homosexual" from a "heterosexual" is the thresholds that exist for each kind of behavior. When social conditions are unusual, such as they are when people are living in same-sex communities such as prisons, homosexual behavior is more likely to be manifested by "heterosexual" people because the drive states of these individuals are heightened. There actually is a complex of factors in such situations, since individual factors of one's counterpart may raise or lower one's resistance, and since religious or ideological values may inhibit even the awareness of one's attraction.

§ If one were to counsel a young person who had one experience of same-sex intercourse, it would not be appropriate to categorize that person as a homosexual simply on that basis. What really needs to be done, it seems to me, is to help that person understand his/her own nature and what it will take to have a happy and productive life. That means starting with a clear perception of one's wants and needs and then seeing how those wants and needs can be achieved in a socially responsible way in daily life. Part of such a person's life may well involve amorous dalliances of varying levels of depth and intensity, but maybe one's ultimate course in life is to be a hermit or a monk. P0M 00:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Patrick, I very much admire your eloquence and perspicuity; I think your comments here should be collected into an essay and published. Uranographer 01:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can we find a middle ground between these two extremes?
 * excluding from the homosexuality article the idea that sex is part of sexuality and defining homosexuality as a "sexual orientation" rather than a sexual practice
 * declaring that sexual activity is what gayness or straightness is all about or that being gay is about sexual activity.

I may be wrong, but I thought the word homosexuality derives from the word sexuality. . . --Uncle Ed 12:08, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Consider this. Sexual desire != sexual identity != sexual acts, although they are generally correlated.

Heterosexual romantic attraction is a part of heterosexuality. But it does not necessarily imply that sexual activity will follow. Many men and women will never have sex in their lives, but still consider themselves to be heterosexual. Again, many people who consider themselves gay have had sexual partners of the other sex, but this does not make them heterosexual.

Similarly, this article is careful to make a distinction between homosexual attraction, same-sex sexual activity, and considering oneself to be "gay". -- The Anome 12:16, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for (literally) putting this into terms I can understand. Are you a computer programmer? ;-)

 * We seem to be discussing human sexuality in three distinct aspects:

 * 1) attraction or desire
 * 2) sexual activity
 * 3) identity or "orientation"

 * Am I hearing you correctly, Anome? Hyacinth and others, do you agree with this formulation? --Uncle Ed 12:48, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * "Identity or orientation" does not make too much sense, because orientation would be part of "attraction or desire", not "Identity", even if that identity is sometimes called "sexual orientation". I have to agree with Ed on one point: Some words are inaccurate, not only "orientation" as above (depending on use), but also homosexual and heterosexual. There is a reason that at several times words like "Homophilia" and "Homoeroticism" were proposed, any why "gay" and "lesbian" are prefered by many.

 * Also, but that's an entirely different can of worm, both are horribly inaccurate when talking about transgender people. Technically, a gay transman living in a relationship with a gay cisgendered man is living in a gay, heterosexual relationship - which does not make all that much sense. -- AlexR 13:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * "Heterosexual" in what way? If both of the participants are men... - Montréalais

 * A transman is a female-to-male transgendered person, in case somebody wonders; and regardless of medical treatment, even it all possible ones are taken, transgendered persons always retain several sexual characteristics of their old sex, chromosomes for example don't change. Also, particularly transmen, and gay ones even more so than straight ones, often do not opt for genital reassignment surgery, therefore even the primal sexual characteristics would probably be different, so from a technical point, it's certainly heterosexual. It is also heterosexual, or rather heterogendered (but that's not a word, thanks god), because a person identifying as transman (unlike a transgendered person who identifies as "man" or "woman" only) does not have the same gender identity as a cisgenderes man. Therefore, the relationship between a gay transman and a cisgendered gay man is definitely gay, but also by many definitions heterosexual. Which is why homo- and heterosexual ought to be used with caution when talking about transgendered people. Not to mention the problems you get when you talk about the relations between a transman and a woman as homosexual, which is highly offensive, and not exactly correct, either. (Same of course for transwomen.) -- AlexR 19:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, "with caution" not least to avoid plonkingly informing somebody that their relationship is "technically" something just because of what plumbing they happen to have left over. I don't think there's anything of interest to be gained by describing a relationship between two lesbians as "technically" heterosexual just because one of them is trans. - Montréalais 20:18, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Montrealis, if you had been reading my comment, you would have noticed that I consider a transwomen (regardless of surgery or not) who lives in a relationship with a woman a lesbian, that is no question whatever. And I think that this is the important part, lesbian, because that is identity; not homo- or hetero-, because that is technical stuff. Whether such a relationship is technicaly homo- or heterosexual should be completely irrelevant; however, many people do use those words with regard to either plumbing, or worse, chromosomes. Look at those marriages of transgender people for example in Texas which have not been accepted as valid because of that sort of reasoning.
 * I personaly never use these words when describing relationsships of transgender people; actually, I don't even use them for cisgendered people, because of those problems. All I wanted to do was point out the difficulties that can arrise from their use; certainly I had no intention of insulting anybody, but to prevent (probably unintentional) insults from careless use of homo- and heterosexual when talking about transgender people. -- AlexR 00:07, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would say activity, attraction, identity, and romance, in no order of importance with all four being equal, or rather, varying from person to person. Attraction is obviously not activity, but neither is it romance (as it may be attraction to the activity, not the personality). Likewise "making love" is not always love, and even being in a (romantic) relationship doesn't mean one would identify. As Ed pointed out, romance is vague and poorly defined, but so is sexual activity. Hyacinth 18:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

POV in the article
The article is highly selective in its sources. It also makes several assumptions without making them clear. Pointing this out is not 'trolling' as User:AlexR suggests, it's simply an attempt to improve the article. See my other comment below. Mr. Jones 13:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Other users have made similar edits to the one you just made. They were reverted for the same reasons yours probably will be: what you have added to the first paragraph does not belong there.  If anything it belongs in the Theories on homosexuality and homosexual behavior section.  Exploding Boy 14:32, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

That's not NPOV. A full summary of the topic and views of it should be given, not just a prevailing viewpoint. Mr. Jones 15:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The lead paragraph states what homosexuality is. Homosexuality is a type of sexual orientation characterized by sexual desire or romantic love exclusively or almost exclusively for members of the same gender.  The lead paragraph is not the place for discussing what some people think of homosexuality. Exploding Boy

 * It certainly is. The subject and its surrounding POVs must be discussed, if only briefly, to achieve NPOV. Mr. Jones 15:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I can tell you're going to be one of those infuriating contributors who, under the guise of trying to acheive neutrality, only manages to unbalance the article.
 * Exploding Boy 15:48, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ad homeniem. Poor. Mr. Jones 16:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * We've been through this a million times with this page. The lead paragraph is not the place to discuss the fact that some people don't like gays, or that some people think homosexuals choose to be gay.  Put it further down, in the appropriate section.  Not in the opening paragraph.  Your current edit manages to relegate what homosexuality is -- an orientation (see definition above) -- to a mere afterthought.
 * Exploding Boy 15:48, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * That seems unlikely with one page of archive, but I'll review the history.

I didn't write that some people don't like gays. I wrote that there are other points of view than the one in the article. Those that hold that view might interpret their views as dislike, but they would not, I believe. I didn't write that some people think that gays choose to be gay. At all, that I can see.

Those misunderstandings aside, the issue is of the definition. Only one definition from one narrow set of viewpoints is presented. I maintain that is POV. You've said nothing to convince me otherwise, though thank you for the explanations you've given. What I've written is flawed in the way you point out. How about improving it without changing the intended meaning?

Have faith. It is possible to convince me with sound argument. I'm only talking about other people's views.

This is the last reply from me for today. Please don't mess with the sectioning again, EB. Mr. Jones 16:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for accusing you of misrepresenting me. That's not polite. You may just have not understood me. Mr. Jones 09:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Leaving [the issue of sections] aside, the lead paragraph is not the place to discuss "points of view" on homosexuality. The lead paragraph, once more, is the place to explain what the article is about.  In this case, the article is about homosexuality.  All that remains to be said above the TOC is -- briefly -- what homosexuality is, that is, a sexual orientation.  Exploding Boy 02:57, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Addition of sections as converstions evolve
This might be better placed in meta.

 * "Mess with the sectioning"??? I restored it after you split my post.  We don't just break people's posts into random sections and redistribute them around the talk page, ok?  However, in the interests of getting on with it, I'm going to leave it as it is now.  Don't do it again, please.  Exploding Boy 02:57, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Who is "we"? And the split was far from random. As the conversation diverges, it makes sense to collect together related points rather than to end up in a quagmire of unrelated assertions. In fact that's how village pump, meta, etc all work.

Sorry not to reply on the meat of the issues raised, but I've not much time today. Mr. Jones 09:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Homophobia
Similarly, what's with the remark "complete rejection (termed homophobia by some groups)"? Aversion to, or discrimination against, homosexuals is called homophobia. It's not "termed homophobia by some groups." Exploding Boy 15:17, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * That definitely is POV.

 * There are people who do not accept the term homophobia. They do not accept that they are homophobic. To say that they are makes the assumption that homophobia exists. Secondly, even if the term is accepted in the limited sense that some people fear gays or being gay, "rejection of homosexuality" is not homophobic from the POV of certain groups.

Mr. Jones 15:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * As for people "not accepting" the term homophobia, sorry, but that's simply not an option. Open a dictionary; homophobia is an established word with a long history.  It has an established, recognized definition.  The phrase "termed homophobia by some groups" is the worst kind of weasel editing.  The fact that some people "don't believe in" homophobia means nothing.  ::Exploding Boy 15:48, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, one more.
 * Of course one can reject words and their meanings. People do it all the time. And certainly there are groups that choose to do so, and do.  You will not find, for instance, southern baptists talking about homophobes.  Such groups should be represented by the terms of NPOV. Mr. Jones 16:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Choosing to reject the established meaning of a word is in itself non-NPOV. Homophobic baptists may reject the term homophobia, but that doesn't alter the fact that they're homophobes. It's akin to saying "the slaughtering of several million Jews in the second world war (termed murder by some groups)...". Now would you put that in the Holocaust article? Exploding Boy 03:05, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Homosexual
This is the first I ever heard of the "assumption" that homosexuals choose their orientation. My careful study of the Bible -- okay :-) my haphazard skimming, geez, gimme a break! -- shows absolutely nothing about choosing to have sexual desires of any sort. The Bible speaks only of what to do with those desires we realize we have.

There is no small controversy over how homosexual desire arises. Is is it innate (perhaps genetic), learned somehow, or what? I've never heard anyone admit, "It was then I decided to have homosexual desires." --Ed Poor

 * I agree that it's a ridiculous theory, but there are vocal conservative christians in the US who hold this position, blaming gays for their "wrong choices" and trying to reform them. These views are probably irrelevant or non-existant elsewhere, (I certainly haven't heard them in 25 years of living in Germany) and that should be mentioned in the article. --AxelBoldt

 * I believe that the argument is something along the lines of: "Although we may covet a neighbors's goods, it would be wrong to act upon these impulses." Similarly some would argue that we have a duty not to act on homosexual or other "ungodly" desires.

 * Right, it's such a ridiculous theory that it's probably a staw man argument. After you knock down that straw man, you can say that having conceded that I didn't choose to be homosexual, surely you must see that I was born that way. I think this is the fallacy of the excluded middle. --Ed Poor

I do not believe this argument is a straw person. A closely related, often accompaning, assertion is that one may be tricked or fall mistakenly into homosexuality. This argument may or may not include a degree of choice, but I believe usually does.

More importantly, the idea that one can choose to stop being gay and become straight inherently includes the argument that one chose to be gay in the first place (unless one wished to argue that most people choose to be straight against the constant temptation to be gay). Hyacinth 22:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * If find an insect on my arm, I can choose to brush it off, or not. I may not have chosen for it to be there, but I still have a choice. Similarly (logically speaking) there is nothing to say that, being gay, I have no choice but to be gay. So something else must be involved to make it inherent. And that, I think, is what the groups mentioned above contest.

 * Also, by similar reasoning, why must the temptation be constant? Mr. Jones 16:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the argument isn't really that people choose to be gay, but that everyone is heterosexual and chooses to engage in same-sex sex. That is, the people who would argue that being gay is a choice reject 'homosexual' as a category of person and view all people as having essentially the same sexuality, a sexuality which there are "right" and "wrong" expressions of ("right" being heterosexual sex, "wrong" being homosexual sex). Thus homosexuality is a threat to all people, a sinful action that anyone can take part in at any point, not a biological or psychological category of person, or so the argument seems to go. -Seth Mahoney 17:02, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Removed sentence
I have never seen anything to suggest that the following sentence is true.

 * Judaism, Christianity and Islam have always assumed that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation.

The only thing I've ever heard from any of the monotheistic religions about homosexuality and "choosing" is that people have a moral obligation to choose not to perform homosexual acts. The quoted sentence is more likely a straw man, but I'll let it alone while I follow Taw's advice.

 * (How old are these comments?) There is some discussion of this by the author of the article I linked to. He suggests that homosexuality is caused by environmental factors that can be compensated for.  It seems quite carefully considered and written.  I'd be interested to incorporate some of the views it presents into the article to address the fairly severe POV (in its selectivity of reporting and assumptions) it is currently suffering from. Mr. Jones 22:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Introduction
I removed the bit about the current particular manifestation homosexuality generally being seen as socially constructed, as it is, flatly untrue as written. Generally, homosexuality is seen in one of two ways:
 * 1) as an act that people engage in
 * 2) as an orientation toward same-gender relationships that is innate

A lot of people do think that the way sexuality manifests is socially constructed, to varying degrees, but this has not entered into popular opinion, which is what the sentence seems to be saying has happened. -Seth Mahoney 18:25, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Why don't you re-add the sentence with your correction? Hyacinth 04:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the reason I didn't add the sentence with my correction is because social constructivism is covered elsewhere in the article. -Seth Mahoney 06:20, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right section of this page to write this in, sorry if it is not. In the introduction, shouldn't it say sex not gender? Sex being physical sex and gender being mental thing, the 'brain sex' if you like. Pikpik 12:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ That's an interesting question, and it points to some of the difficulties of conceptualization and law making in this area. In Anne Fausto-Sterling's Sexing the Human Body she relates the story of an Olympic competitor whose medal was taken away when it was discovered that although e had competed as a female, microscopic examination showed an XY chromosomal sex. Since the competitor's body had not been masculinized (female form is the "default" value so when androgen is missing the body form is female regardless of chromosomal identity), in all ways that related to athletic competition she was a woman. If some guy falls in love with a person whose body form is female but whose chromosomal sexual identity is male, that surely does not make the guy a homosexual. If some guy falls in love with a person whose gender identity and (especially) whose gender role is feminine, that does not indicate that he is a homosexual. Legally, things seem to be regarded as "o.k." if one person looks male and one person looks female as far as external genitals are concerned. As far as I know, transsexual people can get married without all the furor that has accompanied same-sex marriage issues.

§ Another way to look at it is that, regardless of whether the attraction is heterosexual or homosexual, the attraction seems to be (almost has to be) predicated on what can be seen or otherwise experienced with regard to the object of romantic interest. It's probably too late to change the term "homosexual" into "same-gender attraction", which makes talking about homosexuality as same-gender attraction sound strange, but there are many indications that that is the appropriate way to speak of the phenomenon. P0M 14:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is an extremely tricky issue; I wrote Homosexuality and Transgender to address exactly that problem. (Although the article could actually be quite a bit longer.) Since this article talks about homosexualitly it makes sense to me to say sex, not gender; especially since the distinction between sex and gender is quite recent. It would also make sense to link the article mentioned above, something I was sure I had done. Well, links occasionally disappear, for a number of reasons ... A sentence explaining the difficulties of "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" when speaking of transgender or (some) intersex people would not be a bad idea, either. -- AlexR 15:59, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, have a look at the archive, under "Does it involve sex". There the very same problem has already been adressed. -- AlexR 16:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I didn't change it because I thought someone might disagree and change it back, so I thought I better explain why I thought it should be changed first. It's not really that much of a tricky issue. Most people seem to define sexuality in terms of who one is physically attracted to, so it make sense to refer to sex not gender. For example, a heterosexual man may be attracted to a pre-transiton (that is, before any hormone threapy or surgery, and before they start presenting as male) female-to-male transsexual. The transsexual man's gender would be male, but that doesn't make the heterosexual man homosexual, as he is attacted to the transsexual man's female sex.Pikpik 18:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ Alex. I saw you (sex = sex, gender = genus) change. Good edit. P0M

Neutrality dispute
Seems to have been placed on the page at least 10 days to two weeks ago, but nothing has been done about it since. Exploding Boy 05:58, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

§ Is it clear what the alleged problem is? Is there anything left to respond to? It looks like maybe the individual who placed the ND notice has left the field. P0M

§ I just re-read the article. To me it seems that there are no big neutrality issues. If nobody comes forth to list specific points of dispute, I recommend removing the notice. P0M 00:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems that historical information about "treatment" of homosexuals is missing. Paranoid 23:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 4


text:
Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 5

Whose critique?
§ One paragraph of the current article has two kinds of problem:

 * One theory, presented by Susan Blackmore, is that homosexuality is largely genetic in origin. The question of how homosexuals counterintuitively replicated their genes, given that homosexual sex does not result in reproduction, can be answered by the theory that social dogma prompted individuals with homosexual genes to behave heterosexually and thus reproduce. This theory goes on to predict that homosexuality will be less common in the future because, as we enter the information age, homosexuality will become more widely known and accepted, and therefore individuals with homosexual genes will feel less inclined to behave heterosexually and will thus reproduce less frequently. This particular interpretation is deeply unsatisfying - if gay-gened people learn to behave heterosexually through social means then presumably straght-gened people can learn to engage in homosexuality and there is no need for a gay gene whatsoever.

 * It speakes of a "gay gene" as though some humans have a gene that other humans lack. If one person has blue eyes and another person has brown eyes, it is not because they have different genes. Instead, they have different versions of the same genes, the "eye color genes." When there is more than one form of the same gene, the different versions are called alleles.

 * It is not clear whose critique is given in the last sentence. Judging by the way it is written, it appears to express the point of view of the contributor to Wikipedia who wrote that paragraph. If it does repeat the opinion of a researcher in the field, then the source of this opinion should be cited.

§ Wherever it came from, it might better be omitted since it is logically flawed. That social expectations can influence gay individuals to copulate with females is well known. It isn't that somebody has convinced gay individuals that heterosexual intercourse is intensely satisfying to the gay individuals. "Try it, you'll like it," works out favorably sometimes, even with pokeberry icecream. But it is much more accurate to say, "Try it, you may like it." And that works both for people who previously have only had homosexual experiences and people who previously have had only hetersexual experiences. What determines future behavior, all other things such as opportunity being equal, is how much the person likes it. The passage quoted above says, "if gay-gened people learn to behave heterosexually" when it should say, "if gay-gened people are constrained to behave heterosexually," or at least "are influenced to behave heterosexually." Neither what the person in question prefers to do, nor what the person needs to be constrained or otherwise influenced to do, is likely to be an uncaused event or condition. Whether the cause of the preference is genetic or of some other character can only be found by examining the causes of the preference. The presence or absence of a "gay gene" will be determined by matching preferences with alleles, not by examining the forced behavior of individuals. P0M 06:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll keep it short: agreed. -Seth Mahoney 09:04, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Agree the paragraph is not the greatest, particularly with respect to genes and alleles. The criticism of the thesis was written me without reference to sources but I would be amazed were it original. If a genetic tendency to homosexualtiy can be constrained by social factors then why cannot homosexuality be produced by social factors alone, and why argue for a genetic basis at all? Obviously this does not meet the scientific standard of proof, but it suggests that particular explanation of the genetic thesis is flawed.The Land 10:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Because social factors constrain behaviour, not tastes; homosexual attraction is on a different level. So the fact that society can influence homosexual acts doesn't undermine the possibility of homosexual likes being genetic; the logic of this rebuttal is unsound.

 * In fact rereading this I think the genetic thesis section needs more work overall (while I added the end of the paragraph I'm not sure who added the first section). Am sure more than one researcher favours genetic interpretations and that there's much more to be added. The Land 10:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The fact that Steward could have plotted the killing of Lincoln doesn't prove that he did it. And actually, when you get into the very substantial literature on suspected causal factors, the clearest conclusion is that gender identity is formed by a complex of factors. Identical twins do not always turn out to be both gay or both straight, but they do turn out that way more often than do same-sex fraternal twins and same-sex siblings. There is indeed one camp that argues that one's sexuality is entirely a social construct, i.e., one is born as a tabula rasa and if your family, community, society turns you into a homosexual that's what you are, and if it conditions you the other way then you are a heterosexual. But that leaves lots of things unclear, and most researchers do not accept that explanation.

The whole analysis is messed up by our tendency to dichotomize. People think that one is either homosexual or heterosexual. Then they find out that there are switch hitters. So they divide the world into gay, bi, and straight. The reality has to be otherwise. If it were not, people would not get so upset by the issue of homosexual behavior. Everybody has a different threshold for homosexual behavior and for heterosexual behavior. The person who is stereotypically heterosexual (far to the heterosexual end on the Kinsey scale in other words) may very well behave in a homosexual way if s/he gets pushed over the relatively high threshold for homosexual behavior. Typically that happens when somebody grows intolerably horny in a prison or some other setting where heterosexual drive objects are not available. Sometimes it happens when somebody loves a person of the same sex very strongly for reasons that are non-sexual. Sometimes it happens when people experiment. These kinds of experience, or "near misses" can lead to homosexual panic, and people frequently need to be reassured that it doesn't necessarily prove anything more than that it happened. (It's like the old "one drink and you'll become an alcoholic" theme. If somebody had a strong need to self medicate it might look like it's true, but most people can take occasional drinks all their lives and not become alcoholics.)

Something sets these thresholds. Twin studies suggest that there is a genetic component. Studies of phenomena that occur when abnormal hormone levels are present during gestation (see Freemartin for instance) indicate that some factors are at work during certain stages of fetal development. Some studies indicate that early childhood development is crucial in the formation of one's gender identity. Some societies program their children to be strongly homophobic or heteronormal or whatever you want to call it. Other societies, such as the ancient Greek society, make homosexual intercourse a socionormal part of growing up. That didn't prevent the ancient Greeks from reproducing quite successfully. Evidently they were happy, most of them, to get sexual satisfaction from their wives even if they had been earlier or even always been pleased to "help a buddy get off." Sometimes, expecially with regard to the paraphilias, very strong (traumatic, usually) emotional experiences during adolescence or maybe even later can create a profound change in one's sexuality. (See, for instance, the case of "formicaphilia" described in John Money's Gay, Straight, and In-between. As I recall the story, a young man was interupted in the middle of intercourse by his father who started beating him while he was ejaculating. The scene involved ants and other insects crawling on the guy's body because they were in some insect-prevalent shed or garage or something like that, and ever after the guy could achieve climax only if insects were crawling over his body.)

I originally didn't like beer. Maybe that was partly genetic because I also don't like other bitter flavors (it's known that some individuals avoid things like brocolli that would be better for them to eat because they help prevent cancer, for instance). I was conditioned against drinking by a "one drink and you're an alcoholic" mother, and I didn't like certain people in my social environment who used drinking beer in conjunction with certain rowdy behavior that I found disturbing. Later I learned to drink wine, but I still didn't like beer. Then I ended up on an island in the Pacific that was terribly hot, and somebody gave me draft beer to drink. Suddenly my preference changed. The moral of the story is that you can't just look at one factor if multi-factoral causation is at work.

It is difficult to get a handle on all of this stuff because we are generally miseducated by people on all sides. Probably the single best source of information (in my opinion as one who has at least read most of it) is Anne Fausto-Sterling's Sexing the Human Body. She is very hard on people who draw unjustified conclusions from partial evidence, and I think you would like the book. P0M 16:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to agree with your point of view - however where is this leading the article? ;-) The Land 16:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The subject is highly "political" and lots of people have strong opinions. It's generally easier to change an article by chipping away sentence by sentence. In the end that can make for a disunited essay. P0M

Has this article been protected
Last night I noticed vandalism that included inserting claims that "it all started with [john doe]". I tried several times to revert, and the changes that I made to get rid of "john doe" seemed to stick, but in the identity of the anonymous contributor. Now this page appears to be protected. If someone has protected it, shouldn't a notice to that effect have been added? P0M 21:55, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Strange. I can edit it, but I can't revert it. P0M 21:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

American POV?
It seems to me that there is a fairly heavy American POV in the legality of homosexuality (especially the paragraph referencing Lawrence v Texas). It seems to focus heavily on U.S. case law with little consideration of current events elsewhere in the world with regard to this movement. Perhaps we should rewrite this bit? Just a thought! -SocratesJedi 08:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I hadn't considered that, but you're totally right. Maybe there should be a section on the legal situation in America, or maybe there should be a separate article on the legality of homosexuality, with a short paragraph in Homosexuality and then a link to the new article.  Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the situation in most of the rest of the world to do anything useful here - oddly, I think you'd have to have the POV of someone in a particular culture to understand that culture's response to something like homosexuality and then write an NPOV article on it.  -Seth Mahoney 08:13, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

§ We shouldn't have too much difficulty in getting one of our UK contributors to summarize the situation there. Would the French, German, etc., articles have anything? But where would we stop? Monaco? Togo? Nation by nation may be too ambitious. How about legal systems, Napoleonic laws, British common law derivities, Muslim legal systems..???

§ There is another side to this issue. There are non-judicial acts committed against individuals because "There are laws against people like you," e.g., Matthew Shepard. Some police departments in the U.S., for instance the one in Sacramento, California, have gone out of their way to ensure that the police do not harrass homosexuals or fail to give aid in, e.g., domestic violence situations. However, in other parts of the world the police may "make their own laws", "conduct their own trials", and even "conduct their own executions," or at least so I am led to believe. The situation in Taiwan until recently, while it did not involve extreme sanctions, did involve arrests and harrassment for "crimes" that are not and were not then on the law books of the Republic of China. These activities have been fictionalized by Pai Hsien-yung (or Bai Xianyong) in Nie4 Zi3" -- translated as Crystal Boys'' and also time-shifted and produced as a motion picture the name of which I can't remember. Anyway, my point is that we risk giving an inaccurate picture of the position of homosexuals in society if the extra-legal situation is not put alongside the legal position.

§ There are so many different countries and different sets of reactions to homosexuality that it would be impossible for practical reasons to give a complete picture. Maybe some Googling would give us a list of nations that have explicit laws against homosexual acts. (Many people would probably assume that the ROC has or had laws against homosexuality. It can be difficult to prove a negative, especially if you don't have direct access to the evidence.) P0M 19:54, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The necessary length of a section on the legality of homosexuality is why I proposed an additional article, with a brief summary in homosexuality. You're right, though, its a lot of work and a lot of information to sort through, and will end up having a lot of content, which might actually be good.  The other option, which might get kinda tedious, would be to have a series of articles by country, and have them all in the same category, say, Category:Laws on homosexuality by country.  An article, if it doesn't already exist, on the historical legality of homosexuality would be valuable too.  -Seth Mahoney 20:02, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Recent problematical changes
I see that one or two people have been busy making major changes to this and a related article, and that someone else has reverted those changes. I think that reversion was the appropriate thing to do because the edits really were not well considered, and involve many problems that might have been avoided by studying the original articles carefully and trying to understand why they have gradually assumed their present forms over the last couple of years. The edits probably were well intended (I took the time to look at some of the "user contribution" stuff). I can understand being irritated by them because they caused some inconvenience to the people who have been improving these articles and reverting the frequent incidences of vandalism. However, if somebody does something in a well-intentioned way it probably would be better to put the reasons for reversion in the talk page where they can be stated fully and clearly. For one thing, much like answering machine messages, the cramped circumstances of communicating provided by the edit summary almost guarantee that the comment will appear curt and unfriendly.

Since the new contributors have not registered yet, it becomes a catch as catch can situation when one tries to communicate with them. If the person who made the extensive edits to the Homosexuality article happens upon this discussion page, s/he can communicate with the rest of us here. For the moment I will just say that I would have reverted the article myself if I had seen it first because the changed text involved some simplistic judgments that represent the points of view of some people who write on the subject, but are far from being things that can be regarded as "matters of fact." For instance, the assertion was made that homosexuality is determined by genetic inheritance. While there may be hereditary factors that predispose to homosexuality, the same contributor mentioned whole populations that are described by researchers as engaging in homosexual behavior as an activity that is socio-normal to members of those communities. There is no point of my going through the now-reverted text point by point without knowing whether the person who stated those views will ever read this discussion page, and I don't have time to go back to the history page and copy out the problematical statements anyway.

In short, getting your stuff reverted is enough psychic trauma for a new contributor to absorb at one time, so let's try to just say something like, "Reverted to version by John Doe. Please see discussion page." P0M 07:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Statement in need of proof
§ As it currently stands, the article says:

 * "Throughout most of written history, same-sex relations were not restricted to the exclusively homosexual but were engaged in by a large proportion of the male population."

There are several serious problems with this formulation:

 * By mentioning written history, the article implies that looking into the history one could find reflections of the practice of homosexual relationships in the daily lives of "a large proportion" of ordinary people and important leaders. But history books usually report the exceptions, the scandals that bring down governments, etc., and demographies that detail the sexual practices of the people of a given nature are not common before the 20th century. Only ons (or two?) English kings was known for preferring his male sexual partners to his wife, and in China (which has the most exhaustive archives of government records, summaries of government records, and more formal histories) one does not find references that suggest homosexual relations on the part of rulers after about 200 B.C. Earlier than that it was not unusual to see mention of king so-and-so's male favorite. In the Shi Shuo Xin Yu, a record of the goings on of two members of the group called the "seven sages of the bamboo grove" indicates that their sexual behavior was regarded as unusual enough to merit a kind of "delighted with naughtiness" mention. Anyway, if the business about written history has any merit at all it would need to be made to state clearly what years, decades, or centuries were not times when homosexuality was widespread -- and why.

 * What does "engaged in" really mean here? Does it mean something like what Kinsey found? -- that a high percentage of people would at least admit to having tried it once or twice? Or does it mean that a high percentage of men (and women?) were happily engaging in same-sex relationships? Or does it mean that from the point of view of religious authorities an astoundingly large percentage (say 5 or 20%) were breaking the rules?

§ So what is the real evidence? Is it historical? How about some citations. Is it evidence found in cultural artifacts like statues, novels, poems, etc.? What does it say about the likelihood that someone would try it casually, do it when nothing better was available, maintain a long-term relationship alongside a heterosexual relationship, or maintain a long-term relationship and avoid heterosexual contacts? As it stands, the passage practically begs for attack as a biased report favoring homosexual lifestyles when the goal of a good article should be to accurately and comprehensibly reflect what actually has gone on. P0M 14:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reverts
I reverted a bunch of edits to clear vandalism and very strange edits to the References section. But I accidentally reverted most of Ludwigvan beethoven's edits. They seemed POV and needed massive cleanup, so I can't easily fix it. Could someone take a look?

If you would please sign your postings it would make things easier for everyone. 金 (Kim) 04:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Derogatory Terms
Regarding the quote: 'Less frequently, the terms queer, homo, and fag or faggot, and dyke are used positively among gay men and lesbians; these terms may be considered derogatory when used by non-gays.'

Consider - these terms may or may not be considered derogatory when used by any person, depending on the context and the observer. I don't think "non-gays" use the terms particularly any more derogatively then gay people.

Also I would consider (in the UK) that the term 'gays'/'non-gays' as used in this article are derogatory, (not to mention that the meaning is unclear; including gay women or not?), and prefer 'gay men' or 'gay people'. Perhaps a personal preferance, though? Mysteronald 23:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The UK must be much more highly advanced that some places I've lived if they don't use "faggot" in a derotatory sense most of the time. There wouldn't happen to be a comprehensible reason why the good people there would adopt for their general or value-neutral use a word that has long been a term of violent abuse, would there? The fact that some gay people adopt the term probably depends on the same psychology that encourages some black people to adopt use of the "N" word among themselves -- it takes a portion of the venom out of it to hear it coming from friendly lips. But unless you want to openly identify yourself with that community -- and establish that identity with the person you intend to use the word on before you use it -- it might be kinder and less provokative to avoid its use. For one thing, for a teacher or other responsible member of the community to use it in public legitimatizes its use by the same people who have taken to using "gay" as a term of derision. (As, for instance, when a high school teacher says, "Oh, ,J.J., it's so gay when you leave your shirt hanging outside your trousers like that. Why don't you start dressing like a responsible adult!") 金 (Kim) 05:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You've missed my point, I think. I have never before heard the group noun 'gays' (and by extension 'non-gays') used in any way other than derogatory, was my point. It's more standard to use terms such as 'gay people' or 'gay men' when being polite... with gay as an adjective, not a noun Mysteronald 18:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Here in the States, 'gays' is usually used in an unintentionally derogatory way, in much the same way that 'coloreds' (is that the correct spelling? It looks funny) or 'negroes' might have been used back in the day.  Gay people tend not to like it, and generally only people who are ignorant to the fact that it is offensive to gay people use it (along with the word 'homosexual'), and usually only when trying not to be offensive.  The one exception is in the media, especially newspapers, where the word can be found in scads.  Here too, though, gay as an adjective is generally preferred.  -Seth Mahoney 18:16, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * In view of this, I am going to remove uses of gay as a noun as featured in the article. -Mysteronald 18:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think there will be any serious objections. The one thing I didn't mention is that there may be geographical areas in the US where 'gays' is preferred (I live in a fairly liberal, fairly sensitive area), but even if that is the case, the move seems to be toward 'gay people'.  -Seth Mahoney 18:29, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Intro
I've replaced the sentence:

 * "Some people identify themselves as homosexual even though they may engage in sexual activity with both men and women (whether occasionally or regularly)."

by:

 * "The term homosexuality is also occasionally applied to sexual activity between members of the same sex."

Reasons:
 * 1) I think it's irrelevant for the intro how some people identify. The intro should explain how the term homosexuality is commonly defined and understood. If someone says he or she is homosexual, I understand that as "he or she is sexually inclined exclusively, or almost exclusively, to his or her own sex". A different use seems rather idiosyncratic to me.
 * 2) When, for example, the Wikipedia article about Paragraph 175 says that it "made male homosexuality a crime", then homosexuality is here, of course, understood as denoting same-sex sexual activity, not a sexual orientation. This part of the definition definitely belongs in the introduction. --Amys 04:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits
What is meant by the phrase "in which case it would serve to provide 'deniability' for authentically homosexual orientation."? I don't understand what "authentic" means, and who is denying what to whom. -- Beland 00:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * have changed it to read
 * This DL behaviour may serve as a cover of secrecy for homosexual men who would find it difficult to come out.
 * which is what I understood from the original paragraph --Mysteronald 21:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Broken?
Ok, ok - who broked the article? Barneyboo 14:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * uh oh :| I was the last one who edited it... What now? Sietse 14:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Phew :) It seems to be fixed. Sietse 15:21, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nurture (in Utero)
Expoding boy, that homophobe crap was somebody else, from the comment a scientific illiterate, who couldn't understand that the implications of a birth defect are no different than genetic for how homosexuals should be viewed. But since birth defects have an environmental component, they should be part of nuture. Please be careful in how far back you revert.--Silverback 20:10, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

129 states this POV inappropriately on the article page, I will respond here:

 * "Homophobes theorize that some homosexuality may be a birth defect, this of course is a nature argument, not nurture and presupposes that showing affection for another person is wrong and unnatural even when there is good reasoning behind the attraction such as beauty, intelligence, kindness. Also homophobes somehow believe that they need not apply their reasoning to heterosexuals i.e. the couple wont have children, not monogamous for life, athletic sex, bad taste in clothes, etc because then their logic falls apart that much faster"'

 * Deciding what is nature versus nurture is complex, but I think you overrate the implications of the distinction. Calling something a birth defect is little different than calling it genetic, other than to note an event in utero produced a result different than what usually occurrs in whatever the scientist or doctors consider the normal environment.  Lots of other utero events are being discovered to have life long or even late life implications, such as for risk of diabetes, heart disease and cancer, although they may also have beneficial effects earlier in life, such as preparing the physiology to be better tuned to handle the environment the mother was experiencing at the time of the pregnancy.

 * This kind of reasoning is being applied to heterosexuals, a heterosexual male genetically tuned to find the wrong waist to hip ratio beautiful, may end up selecting a less fertile mate and have fewer offspring, or who is not attracted to kindness may select a less nurturing mate, or who is not monogamous, may have less children survive to adulthood, or if they do, have them be less successful in attracting mates, etc.

 * Beauty itself is thought to have a strong genetic component. An asymmetrically disfigured person, a morbidly obese person, a chimpanzee, a worm, brains spilling out on the ground, are as far as science can determine no more or less intrinsically beautiful than a supermodel. Beauty is in the brain of the beholder, not on the beheld, in fact, a chimpanzee may differ in the mates he/she considers attractive than we humans.  Humans generally find other healthy humans more attractive than animals.

 * A complex phenotype such as homosexuality, probably has many causes, both environmental and genetic. If particular genes are found to be important contributers, they may not even be genes "for" homosexuality, in the sense, that they main effects are elsewhere and they may only increase the percentage of homosexuality by a small percent, and then perhaps only in some environments, such as ones where there is not great pressure to repress it.  Whatever, the origins are, by the time the behavior is expressed, they must be strong motivating factors, because in some past environments, the behavior was expressed despite strong repressive social forces.  The same is true of heterosexual behavior, which was often expressed outside of wedlock, even in societies where there were severe social consequences if the behavior became known.

 * I don't see how the logic fails. You shouldn't underestimate the power of our chemical natures.  The sex drive is normally strong in human males, and one would expect a male mate to be more compatible both in appetite and in general interests.  So unless for some reason human females seem particularlly attractive, they simply are not worth the bother, since females are more protective of access to their reproductive capacity (hard to get).  That is why the particular physiological difference I cited, which was probably present from birth, is intriguing, because it involves the part of the brain associated with males finding females attractive.  The situation is likely to be different in female homosexuals, since historically, due to male aggressiveness and possessiveness, what females find attractive has been less important, since they were likely to be imposed upon anyway.  Undoubtedly, they in general find humans attractive.  One theory of some subset of autism is that it is a birth defect in that portion of the brain that makes humans attractive, for them humans may be no more interesting than other objects, and human intrusiveness may be confusing and human faces as hard to remember and tell apart than individual animals. --Silverback 21:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Were the above 5 paragraphs all by Silverback? 金 (Kim)

With regard to the paragraph that was removed: I question the assertion that a birth defect is nature not nurture. If a fetus's arm is broken while the baby is still in the womb, and it was broken because the mother was involved in a traffic accident, the broken arm is not a natural characteristic of the baby. Instead, it is the product of a kind of "negative nurture." Lots of post-partum traumatic events are included under "nurture' too -- bad nutrition, bad home environment, bad parenting, etc. "Nurture" is not an entirely satisfactory word because we ordinary think of nurture as something done for someone's benefit, something done to help them grow well.  金 (Kim) 03:24, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, all 5 were by silverback. Nuture (in Utero) was removed, but the information is preserved in the nature section. You are correct about a birth defect being arguably more nurture than nature, and it is perhaps these terms that generate strong feelings, because calling it nurture, is in a sense denying that it is part of a homosexuals "nature". Really these are lay terms though. Genes vs environment would probably be more correct, but the two are irretrievably interwined, because the genes are nothing without the environment, and their environment includes the other genes. Genes can be the same between different species and when those species are distantly related, they can have quite different functions because of the company of other genes that they keep. So I did not think it important to fight out where the line between nature and nurture should be drawn. I just thought that one prominent theory of possible explanatory value for some homosexual behavior was missing. It is now represented. I also thought some people were more fearful about this theory than they should be. Its moral and cultural implications should be minimal.--Silverback 03:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 5


text:
Tow (fibre)

In the textile industry, a tow (or hards) is a coarse, broken fibre, removed during processing flax, hemp, or jute and separated from the shives. Flax tows are often used as upholstery stuffing and oakum. Tows in general are frequently cut up to produce staple fibre. The very light color of flax tow is the source of the word "towhead", meaning a person with naturally light blond hair.

Composite materials
In the artificial fibre and composites industries, a tow is an untwisted bundle of continuous filaments, in particular of acrylic, carbon fibres, or viscose rayon. Tows are designated either by their total tex (mass in grams per 1000 m length) or by the number of fibres they contain. For example, a 12K tow contains 12,000 fibres.

Spread tow fabrics are woven sheet materials, used for composite layup, where the warp and weft are flat tows, rather than spun yarns, in order to provide the maximum strength as a composite.

title: Tow (fibre)


text:
User talk:Justinpatrie

Welcome to Wikipedia. I am wondering where you got the images you are adding to Edmonton International Airport. What is their copyright status? -SimonP 07:42, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 being 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 Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please add source and status info on the images you uploaded; some have been listed on Possibly unfree images. -- Infrogmation 22:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Justinpatrie


text:
Karaoke box

A karaoke box (カラオケボックス) is a type of karaoke establishment commonly found in Asia, the United States and Canada. It originated in Japan, and is now popular worldwide, particularly in Asia. Karaoke boxes consist of multiple rooms containing karaoke equipment, usually rented out for a period of time. A typical karaoke box establishment contains 10–20 (or more) such rooms, that can be themed so that each room has a different feeling or can be a traditional karaoke box, as well as have a main karaoke bar area in the front. Karaoke box establishments often sell beverages, and sometimes food but sometimes the establishment offers free refreshments. Many people of all ages enjoy karaoke as a pastime in Japan, as it still has a huge influence in the Japanese music scene and it is also a place that can attract tourists as well. One blogger, who is a fan of karaoke, writes "...to sing karaoke is to embrace the moment that your love of song transcends your love of self." While people do go to and enjoy karaoke boxes with family and friends, people also go by themselves and are able to enjoy the comfort of performing in the room by themselves. There is also a different style of karaoke, the traditional type where the patrons sing in front of everyone that is also still offered in popular entertainment areas, rather than the private boxes.

A new trend of karaoke booth have shown up in Chinese shopping malls where customers can enter a booth, similar to a photo-booth, that allows them to perform different songs. The booths are cheaper than the traditional karaoke box, as they do not have to rent a room but just go in and sing a number of songs. The booths are very similar to the karaoke boxes but on a more intimate scale, with at least 20,000 booths running with an estimated CN¥3.18 billion (US$477 million) in 2017. The booths have an air conditioner, seats for the customers, the karaoke equipment, and headsets.

Another trend that has popped up recently is offering boxes for daytime meetings for business who need a cheap business room.

There has also been conversation about fire safety with karaoke boxes after an arson in Hong Kong which led to public concern about their safety. One test recreated an establishment with 3 boxes and a corridor, in a remote location in China with the intention of testing a real-time fire in a karaoke establishment. There has also been additional research about karaoke boxes as to ensure the safety of the customers in evacuation research about widening the length of hallways.

The term karaoke box is primarily used in Japan, Hong Kong and Macau. Karaoke box establishments are commonly known as KTV (an abbreviation of karaoke television) in Taiwan, China, Cambodia, Myanmar, Singapore, the United States and Canada, videoke in the Philippines, noraebang (노래방) in South Korea (literally meaning singing room), hwamyŏn panju ŭmaksil (화면반주음악실) in North Korea, karaoke room in Vietnam, and karaoke club in Sri Lanka. It is also common to simply abbreviate it as K in Hong Kong Cantonese, often when used as a verb, for example 去K歌 (to go K songs) or 去唱K (to go sing K).

Legal issues
KTV can also refer to a karaoke music video, a music video with karaoke lyrics and MMO audio track. Some karaoke music videos were sold to KTV establishments under exclusivity contracts, making some people use them to copy karaoke music videos illegally and share them on the Internet. These are often found on the Internet in MPEG (VCD) or VOB (DVD) format with (KTV) appended to the filename.

title: Karaoke box


text:
Tretyakov Gallery

The State Tretyakov Gallery (Государственная Третьяковская Галерея; abbreviated ГТГ, GTG) is an art gallery in Moscow, Russia, which is considered the foremost depository of Russian fine art in the world.

The gallery's history starts in 1856 when the Muscovite merchant Pavel Mikhailovich Tretyakov acquired works by Russian artists of his day with the aim of creating a collection, which might later grow into a museum of national art. In 1892, Tretyakov presented his already famous collection of approximately 2,000 works (1,362 paintings, 526 drawings, and 9 sculptures) to the Russian nation. The museum attracted 894,374 visitors in 2020 (down 68 percent from 2019, due to the COVID-19 pandemic). It was 13th on the list of most-visited art museums in the world in 2020.

The façade of the gallery building was designed by the painter Viktor Vasnetsov in a peculiar Russian fairy-tale style. It was built in 1902–04 to the south from the Moscow Kremlin. During the 20th century, the gallery expanded to several neighboring buildings, including the 17th-century church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi. The collection contains more than 130,000 exhibits, ranging from the Theotokos of Vladimir to the monumental Composition VII by Wassily Kandinsky and the Black Square by Kazimir Malevich. In 1977 the Gallery kept a significant part of the George Costakis collection.

In May 2012, the Tretyakov Art Gallery played host to the prestigious FIDE World Chess Championship between Viswanathan Anand and Boris Gelfand as the organizers felt the event would promote both chess and art at the same time. In May 2023, the Tretyakov Gallery refused to hand over one of its most famous icons, Andrei Rublev's Trinity, to the Russian Orthodox Church. In June 2023 the icon was transferred to Moscow's main cathedral despite the museum's protests on the personal order of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Administratively, the State Tretyakov Gallery organisation also includes a gallery of contemporary art in another part of central Moscow, and a number of other satellite galleries, including one in Kaliningrad, in the extreme west of Russia, and one in Vladivostok, in the far east.

History
Pavel Tretyakov started collecting art in the middle of 1850. The founding year of the Tretyakov Gallery is considered to be 1856, when Tretyakov purchased two paintings of Russian artists: Temptation by Nikolay Shilder and Skirmish with Finnish Smugglers by Vasily Khudyakov, although earlier, in 1854–1855, he had bought 11 drawings and nine pictures by Dutch Old Masters. In 1867 the Moscow City Gallery of Pavel and Sergei Tretyakov was opened. The gallery's collection consisted of 1,276 paintings, 471 sculptures and 10 drawings by Russian artists, as well as 84 paintings by foreign masters. In August 1892 Tretyakov presented his art gallery to the city of Moscow as a gift. In the collection at this time, there were 1,287 paintings and 518 graphic works of the Russian school, 75 paintings and eight drawings of European schools, 15 sculptures and a collection of icons. The official opening of the museum called the Moscow City Gallery of Pavel and Sergei Tretyakov took place on 15 August 1893. The gallery was located in a mansion that the Tretyakov family had purchased in 1851. As the Tretyakov collection of art grew, the residential part of the mansion filled with art and it became necessary to make additions to the mansion in order to store and display the works of art. Additions were made in 1873, 1882, 1885, 1892 and 1902–1904, when there was the famous façade, designed in 1900–1903 by architect V. Bashkirov from the drawings of the artist Viktor Vasnetsov. Construction of the façade was managed by the architect A. M. Kalmykov. In early 1913, the Moscow City Duma elected Igor Grabar as a trustee of the Tretyakov Gallery. On 3 June 1918 the Tretyakov Gallery was declared owned by the Russian Federated Soviet Republic and was named the State Tretyakov Gallery. Igor Grabar was again appointed director of the museum. With Grabar's active participation in the same year, the State Museum Fund was created, which up until 1927 remained one of the most important sources of replenishment of the gallery's collection. In 1926 architect and academician Alexey Shchusev became the director of the gallery. In the following year the gallery acquired the neighboring house on Maly Tolmachevsky Lane (the house was the former home of the merchant Sokolikov). After restructuring in 1928, it housed the gallery's administration, academic departments, library, manuscripts department, and funds and graphics staffs. In 1985–1994, an administrative building was built from the design of architect A. L. Bernstein with two floors and height equal to that of the exposition halls. In 1928 serious renovations were made to the gallery to provide heating and ventilation. In 1929 electricity was installed. In 1929 the Church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi was closed, and in 1932 the building was given to the gallery and became a storage facility for paintings and sculptures. Later, the church was connected to the exposition halls and a top floor was built which was specially designed for exhibiting a painting by Alexander Andreyevich Ivanov,The Appearance of Christ Before the People (1837–1857). A transition space was built between rooms located on either side of the main staircase. This ensured the continuity of the view of exposure. The gallery began to develop a new concept of accommodating exhibits. In 1936, a new two floor building was constructed which is located on the north side of the main building – it is known as the Schusevsky building. These halls were first used for exhibitions, and since 1940 have been included in the main route of exposure.From the first days of the Great War, the gallery's personnel began dismantling the exhibition, as well as those of other museums in Moscow, in preparation for evacuating during wartime. Paintings were rolled on wooden shafts, covered with tissue paper, placed in boxes, and sheathed with waterproof material. In the middle of the summer of 1941 a train of 17 wagons traveled from Moscow and brought the collection to Novosibirsk. The gallery was not reopened in Moscow until 17 May 1945, upon the conclusion of the Great War. In 1956, in honor of the 100th anniversary of the Tretyakov Gallery, the Alexander Ivanov Hall was completed. From 1980 to 1992, the director of the Tretyakov Gallery was Y. K. Korolev. Because of the increased number of visitors, Korolev was actively engaged in expanding the area of exposition. In 1983, construction work began to expand the gallery. In 1985 the Depository, a repository of works of art and restoration workshops, was commissioned. In 1986 renovations began on the main building of the Tretyakov Gallery. The architects I. M. Vinogradsky, G. V. Astafev, B. A. Klimov and others were retained to perform this project. In 1989, on the south side of the main building, a new building was designed and constructed to house a conference hall, a computer and information center, children's studio and exhibition halls. The building was named the "Corps of Engineers", because it housed engineering systems and services. From 1986 to 1995, the Tretyakov Gallery in Lavrushinsky Lane was closed to visitors to accommodate a major renovation project to the building. At the time, the only museum in the exhibition area of this decade was the building on the Crimean Val, 10, which in 1985 was merged with the Tretyakov Gallery.

Other galleries within the Tretyakov organisation
The Tretyakov management structure looks after multiple other sites, the most important of these being a second major gallery in Moscow and two remote satellite galleries.

Gallery of modern art
In 1985, the Tretyakov Gallery was administratively merged with a gallery of contemporary art, housed in the Central House of the Artists a large modernist building along the Garden Ring, immediately south of the Krymsky Bridge. The grounds of this branch of the museum contain a collection of Socialist Realism sculpture, including such highlights as Yevgeny Vuchetich's iconic statue Iron Felix (which was removed from Lubyanka Square in 1991), the Swords Into Plowshares sculpture representing a nude worker forging a plough out of a sword, and the Young Russia monument. Nearby is Zurab Tsereteli's 86-metre-tall statue of Peter the Great, one of the tallest outdoor statues in the world.

Near the gallery of modern art there is a sculpture garden called "the graveyard of fallen monuments" that displays statues of former Soviet Union that were relocated.

There are plans to demolish the gallery constructed in the late Soviet modernism style, though public opinion is strongly against this.

Kaliningrad and Vladivostok
New branches of the Tretyakov, based in the far west and east of Russia, were funded with reserved oil and gas revenue.

Directors

 * Valentin Rodionov (1993-2009)
 * Irina Lebedeba (2009-2015)
 * Zelfira Tregulova (2015-2023)
 * Yelena Pronicheva (since 2023)

title: Tretyakov Gallery