Talk:Bagoas (courtier)

Renault
Bagoas' primary significance today is arguably that he is the narrator of a novel written by Mary Renault. To exclude her viewpoint from an article about him because she is not an academic is simply parochial. Nareek 20:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about "primary" but feel free to include that material. Haiduc 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In THIS article I think it's ok if we present his view, with a brief criticism of Curtius; but it should be kept treated separately, after having spoken of the Bagoas presented by the ancient sources. But if it expands to much it becomes reasonable to split the article forming one exclusively for Renault's book Persian Boy.--Aldux 23:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would have preferred stronger language: The claim by Curtius that Persian Kings were buried in Spartan simplicity is just plain total nonsense. But I understand the reasons why this would be considered rather improper, so I won't insist on this point. Das Baz, 8 April 2006, 11:21 AM>

Pederast
I meant to say in the edit summary--how is Bagoas a pederast? Nareek 03:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The confusion is an unfortunate result of the category "Pederastic lovers" being renamed "Pederasts." But Bagoas was involved in pederastic relationships with both Darius and Alexander, as per a number of ancient historians. Haiduc 03:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...There isn't a lot of infromation regarding Bagoas, is there? Does anyone know what happened to him after Alexander's death? XEclipsex 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A boy loved by a pederast is called a Pederomenos in Greek. No one knows what happened to Bagoas after the death of Alexander the Great. Mary Renault says he probably died very soon after, but for fictional purposes she imagined that he helped Ptolemy transport Alexander's mummy to Alexandria and then settled comfortably in that great city. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Context
Which famous kiss? Which harrowing episode? The article alludes to them, but what's the context?Snowgrouse (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I've restored the information about the famous kiss. The kiss followed the harrowing episode of the Gedrossian desert. Bagoas must have behaved very bravely and nobly during the desert crossing, to have become so popular with the troops. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Did Bagoas exist?
This article should have some mention of the opinion of William W. Tarn, the noted biographer of Alexander, who maintained that Bagoas never existed, but was invented by Dicaearchus to discredit Alexander. See e.g. Tarn, Alexander the Great, (2002 edition) p. 98: "the eunuch Bagoas, invented by Dicaearchus the Peripatetic" and elsewhere in that volume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Plutarch shows Bagoas in a very positive light. Tarn is wrong. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify: If Bagoas had been invented for negative propaganda purposes, he would not appear in such a positive light in Plutarch. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fictionalised versions
I don't see any real reason to include two obscure historical novels, neither of which appear notable enough for their own pages. I can't find any RS discussion of the depiction on Bagoas in these books, without which this is all WP:OR anyway.

I've added a couple of sources for Mary Renault's depiction, about which there's obviously no discussion, but was unsourced. Mizzion (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Les conquêtes d'Alexandre is hardly obscure. See for instance:
 * Whereas Stealing Fire is mentioned in the very reference you added for Renault (Baynham & Ryan, 2018). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Stealing Fire has one mention in connection with Bagoas in Google scholar, and that's a passing one with no actual discussion of it.
 * As to Peyrefitte, there's no page for that novel - it is obscure.
 * Both these mentions in the article are needless trivia - Bagoas appears in any number of Alexander the Great potboilers and these are no different. Mizzion (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not assessing whether the books are notable for a page. We are assessing whether there is value in mentioning the treatment of the character in a work of literature. These are both mentioned in academic literature, and the existence of a wikipedia page or not is no arbiter on that. Les conquêtes d'Alexandre is, in fact, much better known than you suppose. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since it's so well known I'm sure you'll be able to provide a source discussing Bagoas in that novel. Otherwise this should be removed. Mizzion (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a citation is to support and verify the text on the page. The page states that Bagoas is mentioned in that book. It did not really need a reference as the book is the reference for that, but I have added it, and since I was able to locate the quotation that supported the text that had Bagoas riding to battle with Darius, I added that quote and page number and restored the text you removed to (albeit with a small copy edit). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It does need a reference from a secondary source for noteworthiness. Otherwise it's just minor WP:OR trivia. Mizzion (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand academic standards of sourcing. The statement is that this book (which we already established is notable) mentions Bagoas. You requested a citation for that statement. I provided a citation. No other citation is needed. If you doubt Bagoas is mentioned in said book, then read the book. Citation provided. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We haven't established that book is notable, you've just stated it is. It doesn't have it's own article. There's no academicdiscussion of it's particular depiction in Bagoas, and no reason to include here above any number of other novels about Alexander. If the depiction is noteworthy it should have a reliable secondary source discussing itMizzion (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are editing while logged out, I urge you to claim the IP edits. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know Mizzion (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So the book is notable as discussed above. "A few years after Druon's 'nouvelle édition', another important French novel on Alexander was published" (Hauben, 2009). And again, there is NO better source for the statement that Bagoas appears in Les conquêtes d'Alexandre than the book itself, with page number and quotation. What is the statement that you think is unsupported there? Have you ever written an academic essay on a book? What other source would you use? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've explained what source I would use. A secondary source discussing the depiction of Bagoas in that novel. That would establish both the notability of the novel and the noteworthiness of including it here. We are not writing an academic essay, we're writing a Wikipedia article. They are not the same.Mizzion (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Have a careful read of WP:BLUESKY. The standards for referencing do, in fact, closely map academic practice. We have a statement: Bagoas is mentioned in Les conquêtes d'Alexandre. We now have a reference to the work, plus a quotation with page number. This supports the statement. Nothing in that stament requires a secondary source. Is Bagoas mentioned in the book? Reading the book demonstrates it is.But your real beef is that, for some reason, you want to remove all the fictionalised mentions. We have agreed to pare it back quite a lot - so that this is now one of the tightest "in popular culture" sections in any article I can recall. I don't disagree with removing stuff like "Bagoas gets a mention in passing in  Wonderman Volume XII episode 3" or whatnot. (The Red Dwarf reference fell into that category). But the issue here is not that the statement about Peyrefitte needs a better reference, but that you don't think the book is due for a mention at all. Yet I have provided a source above that demonstrates what a lot of people already know: this is a notable work. That is why WorldCat lists it in hundreds of libraries and why it is discussed in multiple sources (I presume you are aware by now that the source above is not alone in discussing the work). So it is due for inclusion in the list, and adding that source to the article is frankly just confusing - because it doesn't verify any statement in the article, and it doesn't need to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not what BLUESKY  (an essay, and not policy) is about. Information in an article should be noteworthy and sourced.
 * The Peyrefitte novel doesn't have it's own article, returns only one hit on google scholar, and barely reaches SIGCOV in it's own right. There's certainly no discussion about it's coverage of Bagoas. Your source mentions it in passing in discussion of another work.
 * The fact that World Cat lists it is irrelevant. what matters is RS discussing the point being made, and they simply don't. This is not the case for Renault, or even the Graham's novel. Mizzion (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what BLUESKY is about:
 * Citations verify content. How is that content not verified?! The article says the book covers Bagoas and the citation provides a source (the book), a quotation and a page number that exactly and completely verifies the information.
 * As to the notability and notariety of the book, you are wrong. If hundreds of libraries have it, that is a clear indication of notability. Lack of a Wikipedia page is not an indication of a lack of notability. it is a French language work and this is English Wikipedia. Language bias see? Also perhaps a bias because of why the work is notorious and notable. But the lack of a Wikipedia page can never show a subject is not notable. It merely shows that no one has written a page yet. In any case we do have a page on this author at Roger Peyrefitte, and look what his page at French Wikipedia says: So the most important work of a notable author. In fact we say something similar on English Wikipedia: (Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great). But that's just Wikipedia which is not a reliable source unlike the source I already provided for you. A source that surely settles the matter. Why don't you think so? You don't know the book. That does not mean it is not notable. It just means you don't know the book.
 * And you say it only has one hit on Google Scholar. You are wrong. I found a lot. But again, this is a volume of a three volume French work. You are going to have to search a little harder. Search on the name of the complete work (Histoire d'Alexandre) and you will find a lot more. Search also on English versions and you find more again. Just a few that reference him..
 * Now I have spent a ridiculous amount of time on this extremely minor point and two sentences. Please just leave it alone, and go find something else to delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they reference Peyefritte - not all them reference this specific novel, though that's clearly what you're trying to suggest.
 * I did use the full title on google scholar, and the English one. There are not more hits.
 * Regardless, this is not really the point, the issue, which you repeatedly ignore is that there is no secondary source discussing Peyefritte's depiction of Bagoas to justify its inclusion in this article. Mizzion (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we have secondary sources discussing Peyrefitte's treatment of Bagoas (and, incidentally, I have read one. You just haven't found it yet), we have sources to write an article on the subject. You are confusing notability for an article with the concept of what is due for a single sentence. I have already made this point. Also, I forgot to mention that the Alexander trilogy won the Prix de l’Acropole in 1980. This is a notable work. Your continued refusal to accept that is now looking tendentious. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ii an not which is why I'm referring to noteworthiness and not notability. If you have this source cite it and the issue is resolved isn't it. Mizzion (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have not answered: what part of that statement is not verified by the source that is there? And I asked 24 hours before and you make no reply, but when I remove the unnecessary tag you revert it in almost at once. Again, this is looking tendentious. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What is tendentious is claiming you have a source and then not adding it when the whole issue is about exactly that.
 * The issue is not whether he's in the novel, it's whether there an RS discussing it to justify inclusion in the article.
 * Not everyone is on Wikipedia everyday Mizzion (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I had it at my fingertips. I have read it, along with many other sources and articles. You apparently have not as you seem to be quite unaware of Peyrefitte and his work. I am not going to waste my time looking for unnecessary sources. Note I already provided you with one (Baynham & Ryan, 2018). That work demonstrates that the mention is notable, and the source provided in the article verifies the information. We are done here. All else is disruption. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It does not discuss the depiction of Bagoas in the work. That's what is needed, otherwise the inclusion is OR. You are simply providing a primary source. Mizzion (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)