Actaeon2nd

Your recent edit on Actaeon

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Actaeon&curid=1213&diff=1100000003&oldid=1098989596

Good work with this edit. You clearly have a very good understanding, however unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place for posting such things. You should try to find an alternative place to post and work on such work. I can help if you want as I see it as promising. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 18:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Actaeon's dogs represent his normal, outward facing, masculine aggression; their natural purpose is to sniff out an attractive female. Diana, while described as a Goddess, is actually Actaeon's mother. Actaeon is a lad of age four or five. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time, seeing his mother naked, emerging from her bath. She gets hysterical and cruelly blasts him and rewards his first glimpse of an adult naked woman with a curse. This curse is a time bomb that awaits his adolescence. No longer able to pursue the natural target of his desires (women) his dogs (sexual aggressive) turn inward and attack him. Actaeon has become a homosexual or at best, like me, a bisexual. Ovid includes this myth in his collection called 'Metamorphoses'. Well that's quite the metamorphosis Actaeon experienced. Myths describe psychological injuries. This was a particularly dramatic and cruel one, un-premediated and entirely tragic. I was there. I suffered this injury. I am Actaeon, born in 1950. When will young boys be spared my fate? I am old now. I solved the mystery. I want this childhood vulnerability known so that other boys are spared my fate. Ovid would have wanted that too.

This one. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 18:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I am wanting to get this information out there and have been turned down by a number of magazines. Why would Wikipedia find this objectionable or unpublishable?

Do you have other publications in mind that would find it suitable?

I'm perplexed at the resistance to explaining a mystery that should be common knowledge.

Actaeon 2nd 174.73.184.196 (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. This is a very strong rule. Wikipedia is for the scholarly consensus to be shown, while people who do original research should publish it elsewhere and get more credit than they would on Wikipedia.

My initial suggestions would be to try sharing it in classicist subreddits or something like that. You could build publicity and then self publish a book on it. Making a YouTube channel is another possible idea if you aren't as focused on one thing. Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 19:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I noticed your (now closed) discussion at DRN and wanted to comment to maybe help you understand why your edit was reverted. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. We write articles based on what we can verify, not what we think to be true. If what you're suggesting be added to the article has merit, then let academia and other reliable sources discuss the merits of it and come to the conclusion that what you're saying is true. Let them write about it, then once there is coverage on it in reliable sources, bring it here. Wikipedia is not the place for putting forward new theories about things, it is the place to reflect what has already been covered elsewhere. If there are no reliable sources that can verify what you're wanting to put in the article, then unfortunately it doesn't belong in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)