User talk:TomMoore/Robert Mapplethorpe

General comments and Links

Although I believe that it should be possible to create an article on this (or almost any) subject in a way that is suitable for Conservapedia, and this draft is reasonable (which is not to say that it couldn't do with some improvement), I consider the two links you have unsuitable for a family-friendly site. Philip J. Rayment 20:54, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

That's reasonable. Is there any way to cite the one reference without linking it? Could I put "Mapplethorpe Foundation website" as a reference?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 21:59, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

An unlinked reference like that is probably fair enough, I think. Philip J. Rayment 05:34, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Fixed. Any other concerns?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 16:15, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

I have No other concerns as such (and nobody else has said anything). However...

• "homosexuality" (noun) should be "homosexual" (adjective).
• You say that he "was" an influential artist. Is he dead now? Can you include birth and death dates?
• You can combine the first and third references by changing the first reference tag to, say, <ref name="Morr">...</ref> and the third to just <ref name="Morr" />

Philip J. Rayment 23:28, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. Done.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 02:00, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

To Andy

I removed the racist section. I actually own the book that Frieze magazine is reviewing, and the almost universal consensus of people who have read it (including myself, Frieze, and the New York Times Book Review) is that Morrinsoe's assessment of Mapplethorpe as racist is a shallow judgment not based in any real attempt to understand his material, and probably strongly influenced by her opinion of him personally. It's not a terribly good biography. Also, and this is more technical, it is important to note that your source calls him racist, not his photographs. If you go to a bookstore and pick up a copy of Polaroids, a comparably recent collection of some of his work, I think you will see that there is no real argument to be made that his work is racist. Or actually a trip to his foundation's website would probably show you the same thing. Mapplethorpe was deeply enthralled in sexual activities involving pain and degradation as a matter of titillation, and his "racism" appears to have extended only that far.

I also obviously disagree with your heavily biased edit to the lead of the material, since it makes his life entirely about "glorifying homosexuality" and I think your phrasing about his death verges on ignoble sneering. But I haven't edited that, since I know that one's probably a deal-breaker... there's no way you're going to put up an article about him unless it trashes him suitably. That is a shame, but it's your site. Anyway, I hope we have settled matters on the article, and I think it is ready to be put up.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 02:00, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't have an opinion about the "racist" label, but his biographer apparently felt quite strongly that he was racist. Mapplethorpe did have an obsession with bizarre photographs of black men in a way that exaggerated race. If a conservative were called racist, would you be so arduous in denying the charge?

Mapplethorpe's glorification of homosexuality while concealing how it shortens lifespans (including his own) cannot be disputed. Your entry did not disclose that Mapplethorpe himself died at age 42 for living the lifestyle that he promoted to others. Why wouldn't you include that? There is nothing "ignoble" or "sneering" about observing, for example, that a "Marlboro Man" who glorified smoking himself died at age 51 from lung cancer.--Aschlafly 08:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

You have mischaracterized our editorial policy: we don't trash people. If you find an instance of this, please point it out so we can correct it.

Rather, we expose the hazards of irrational lifestyles. Just as smoking is bad for you by increasing cancer risks, homosexuality is bad for you. Homosexuals run an even greater increased risk of contracting AIDS than smokers run of getting cancer. As we denegrate the glorification of smoking, so we denegrate the glorification of the homosexual lifestyle.

Mapplethorpe's photography glorifies sadism, which involves both physical and moral hazards. We need to expose this. We are not Wikipedia, so we need not be neutral or even "balanced" on moral issues. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:58, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Note I did not remove the section you inserted about his homosexuality, Andy. I do still reserve the right to my opinion of it, but I didn't change it.

If we're all done, can you put the article up?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 13:35, 29 May 2008 (EDT)