I've been very impressed for some time by the Wikipedia online encyclopedia. If you use Mozilla you may find a link within its own homepage but

the best place to try first otherwise is at www.wikipedia.org/

From that hyperlink you will find that the Encylopedia is available in 10 languages including all major European languages (except Danish and Russian).

A click from this link will take you to the encylopedia in say, English, French,

Spanish or German etc..

Wikipedia is a good source of information on subjects such as anti-androgens, eunuchs, castrati, castration and all sorts of links. I recommed it unreservedly.

It is being updated constantly and is a "living Encyclopedia" in that it has 'Discussion' areas and you can register and join. It is available though without registration and simply for using and enjoying - it's a hyperlink you'll enjoy if you haven't already heard of it.

Repost of a lost entry by the fraj in this thread:

I agree! Wikipedia actually lets you directly modify pages as well as access the "talk" pages.

We need to thank Jesus (EA one!) for re-writing the wildly innaccurate opening few paragraphs on their "Eunuch" entry! Few know more than Jesus and Paolo about our history!

It's probably quite beneficial too; in an age of ebooks and online encyclopedias accessible by the masses at large, having an accurate entry that is not influenced by political or religious agenda will do us good in the long run!

Thanks so much for that Paolo! Hehe, it's funny because it sounds like something I'd say

But yes, definitely a good idea to remind people that eunuchs still exist - and (if I can expand on that a little) - have always existed. People with religious and political agendas have tried to gently airbrush us out of history, and yet there are still people today who desire castration and/or penectomy.

But with this history erased and forgotten, the whole topic has become culturally taboo, misunderstood and forced underground.

That's why I see the encyclopedia as a great opportunity to regain that recognition and awareness. (and to get the damn facts straight! )

Sometimes, on a topic about which I know something, Wikipedia simply gives bad information. [For example, Anais Nin was not bi-sexual. She did not make love to June Miller.] However, I understand that many of articles on mathematics and science are good.

Blaise (imported) wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:33 pm Sometimes, on a topic about which I know something, Wikipedia simply gives bad information. [For example, Anais Nin was not bi-sexual. She did not make love to June Miller.] However, I understand that many of articles on mathematics and science are good.

Hehe, I don't know about this fact, but there is usually a talk button at the top of the page if you'd like to despute it. Or, you can modify directly by clicking 'edit'.

Some topics are hard to document, because there maybe evidence for some state of affairs that people refuse to believe - or have evidence to the contrary. Oftentimes you will find threads "locked" if they are too controvercial to allow just anyone to modify.

However, science and maths are universally constant. The square root of 64 will always be +-8, whether you believe Anais Nin was bi-sexual or not

Incidentally, it's usually political, religious or celebrity threads that end up locked, because people that feel one way on a subject have such a vested emotional interest that they refuse to change their view - even in the light of evidence that is overwhelming.

One of the problems of a work-in-progress like Wikipedia, is that you must always remain vigilant on any article that you think important. I just reviewed the "eunuch" article and found that part of it has been rewritten back to incorrect information. I need to do another thorough edit of the file and repost it.

Actually, the square root of 64 is +or-8.

As I used to tell my math students, when it comes out of the radical sign, it gets a +- in front of it, whether you want it to or not.

Paolo wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:15 pm Actually, the square root of 64 is +or-8.

damnit ... he's right. ... I was too focused on the thought of Anais Nin being bi-sexual

JesusA (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:45 pm One of the problems of a work-in-progress like Wikipedia, is that you must always remain vigilant on any article that you think important. I just reviewed the "eunuch" article and found that part of it has been rewritten back to incorrect information. I need to do another thorough edit of the file and repost it.

I thought that it had changed.