Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece/Archive 5

Thornton's argument
I don't believe I removed sourced quotes. I just added some more. If I did remove some it was by mistake and I apologize, but looking back, I see Wohl's quote is still there. If you think Thornton's argument is expanded too much then it would be better to shorten it a little rather than delete it all. If you think sourced quotes are removed, then put them back in, because it wasn't done on purpose. If you don't think Bruce Thornton is good enough for this article, then you can look up "Love, Sex and Marriage - a Guide to the Private Life of the Ancient Greeks" by Nikos Vrissimtzis which has been translated into 5 languages. There is more work but I think the way Thornton's argument is stated in the article best encompasses these views, and best explains modern Greek views on the subject.

If you are interested in the work of Nikos Vrissimtzis which has been praised by those who support his theories and strongly criticized by those who oppose them you can see the following BBC article on his book.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/428798.stm  Steve88 21:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I was mistaken; you didn't remove any sourced quotes. My edit summary was wrong. My apologies.


 * However, you are trying to restore an edit that was placed by a known sockpuppet. I won't revert again, but that is basically why I suspected your edit. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just in case anyone is wondering, my previous comment does not mean that I agree with Cretanpride's edits, it simply meant that I regretted posting an erroneous edit summary, and that I wasn't going to continue an edit war with a sockpuppet. I certainly don't think the edit should stay. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why it is so difficult to add an alternate theory in the article. Sources were given and everything was stated from a neutral point of view. Noone gave any reason as to why it should not be included. You all just yelled SOCKPUPPET!! and that was your defense. Sources were given (Thornton, David Victor Hanson, Mary Lefkowitz) If they are not enough than you can look up Nikos Vrissimtzis. There are scholars that argue the point that was expressed in the edit. Why was it reverted? What was wrong with it? Why was it so bad, it all had to go? It was sourced and explained from a neutral point of view. It improved the article. James577 02:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * At this point, Cretan, your edits are being reverted not because of their content but because you are making them. You have exhausted the community's patience, and have been banned; you no longer have the right to edit Wikipedia.  The merit of your contributions, or lack thereof, no longer matters; in this case, "sockpuppet" is an adequate reason to revert contributions.


 * That said, I think that there are indeed a few grains of worthwhile content in Cretanpride's screed. I see two points which probably merit inclusion: 1) the support of Thornton's position by Hanson and Lefkowitz, who are notable scholars and (in Hanson's case) public figures, and 2) the book by Vrissimtzis and the public response to it in Greece, as evidenced by the BBC article and also these articles from the Guardian (you may need to register to read them).  I don't see any evidence that Vrissimtzis has posed a serious challenge to the scholarly consensus, but if the book was as much of a hit in Greece as these articles indicate, it's worth mention.


 * Finally, we probably should acknowledge that both sides of the debate have attempted to use their own interpretations of history to support their positions in the modern-day culture wars. One side happens to have much more solid scholarship to support it, but it would be foolish to deny that LGBT advocates have used the Dover/Halperin interpretation for political purposes as much as the Greek nationalists and anti-LGBT activists have used the Georgiadis/Vrissimtzis interpretation.


 * Let me stress that I do not support Cretanpride's constant POV-pushing, block evasion and violation of Wikipedia policies. However, if we're to be intellectually honest and support the NPOV policy we should ensure that the article gives an appropriate and proportionate voice to minority viewpoints.  (I just wish that there were someone providing these viewpoints who wasn't Cretanpride!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Josiah, I disagree on a few points. Whether through dishonesty or ignorance, our puppetmaster misrepresents scholarly work on a regular basis. The extent of Hanson and Lefkowitz's "support" for Thornton's argument are blurbs on the dustjacket of the book. That's it; as far as I can see, neither one has written a review, article, or book that cites Thornton. So they're not worth including.


 * Similarly, since I have been harping on accurate quotation so much, I don't think we should include Vrissimtzis' work unless someone can actually find it and read it. It's not widely available in the US (only 4 university libraries have it), and I'm not about to order it from Greece. I would rather, as I've already suggested, turn to scholars like David Cohen for the argument that pederasty was limited to the elite.


 * If someone can get a copy of Vrissimtzis the BBC articles suggest that it might be a good example of attitudes towards ancient Greek sexuality outside academia. Another good example of how this subject gets involved in present-day controversies over homosexuality is Martha Nussbaum's involvement in the court case on Colorado's Amendment 2; there are a number of good articles on this that I'll supply references for when I have some time. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, Amazon.com has copies of Vrissimtzis for cheap, so perhaps I'll get it myself. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All that makes sense, Akhilleus; however, I think that citations from BBC News and The Guardian are probably reliable enough to justify a mention of Vrissimitzis in the "scholarship and controversy" section. I'm thinking of something like this:


 * The subject has caused controversy in modern Greece, where opposition to the scholarly consensus is widespread. Love, Sex And Marriage, A Guide To The Private Life Of The Ancient Greeks by Nikos Vrissimtzis, who claims that "homosexuals were not ... openly accepted by society", became a bestseller in Greece upon its publication in 1999.  In 2002, a conference on Alexander the Great...


 * That wording isn't great, but it conveys the gist of Vrissimtzis' opinion on the subject, in his own words as quoted in the BBC article, and indicates that a lot of modern Greeks are happy to believe that their noble ancestors weren't that way inclined. I agree that given Cretanpride's track record we don't want to assume that he's portraying Vrissimtzis accurately, but I trust the BBC and The Guardian to do so.


 * (I'm guessing that Vrissimtzis identifies κῖναιδεία with any homosexual activity, a position not supported by Dover or other scholars. But that's my own surmise, and not worthy of reflection in the article.)


 * By the way, I agree that Cohen and Nussbaum are probably worth mention as well, and more so than anything Cretanpride comes up with. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means let's do mention here Vrissimtzis' book, and it's success in Greece (and only in Greece) together with the fact that it was self-published, not paid any attention by any reputable academic source and that mainstream media deem that "Mr Vrissimtzis's book rests on a lie." Haiduc 10:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, and have made that addition. However, although I share your disdain (and that of the Guardian reviewer), I'm a little worried about whether the tone complies with the spirit of NPOV.  If anyone can find a better way to express the reaction to Vrissimtzis, please do so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reporting a discrediting mainstream review is totally objective. Haiduc 11:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Disturbed individual persists on imposing nationalistic and homophobic views and resorts to blackmail
I have received the following message through Wikipedia mail: ''HI Haiduc, perhaps you have not realized how serious I am about adding my previous edit to that article(homosexuality in ancient Greece). Perhaps you have not realized the length I will go to get it. I will present to you an ultimatum now. Either my last edit stays. The one which shows Bruce Thornton's argument, or a young girl named Emily dies because of your unfairness. Am I bluffing? That's not the question. The question is whether you are willing to take that chance. Do you want this with you the rest of your life? You have 48 hours for the article to change to my previous edit or you can hear about this on the news. I am not asking for much. Just two paragraphs which encompass the truth. I hoped it wouldn't come to this. I have wasted two months of my time, I think I should be rewarded. Its your call.'' ''You have made fun of me and mistreated me and never considered what I had to say no matter how convincing. I am sick of homosexuals such as yourself distorting my peoples history. This is what you get. This is very simple. Restore to my previous edit or else...'' This presumably comes from the fellow claiming to be a Greek defending Greek interests. We should be aware that we are dealing with a conflicted, mentally disturbed individual here. Please note that any further "private messages" will be posted here forthwith. Haiduc 11:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He sent similar messages to me and Akhilleus. We have a fairly good idea who he is, and may be taking the matter further.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I also, for the record, got the same message. CaveatLectorTalk 16:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would let him have his edits for now. (They are not that bad anyway and its not worth it).--Blue Tie 19:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got the email too: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#Death threat by Cretanpride. &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to change an article based on threats and blackmail. We could have POV warriors making all sorts of threats if their preferred version is not handled. The threat is being handled by the appropriate authorities; that's as far as our moral obligation goes. In the highly unlikely event that the threat is not empty, we'd only be culpable if we had not contacted the police. I have done that; if "Emily" is real and Cretanpride is so disturbed as to think that the contents of this article are worth killing for, he and he alone is at fault for that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) :Josiah has already said it all. If it becomes known that we once gave in to threats, the consequences would be terrible, with a new weapon in the hand of nationalist editors. Also, we all know that for Cretanpride lying and breathing are the same thing, so I'd calm down.--Aldux 20:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Death threats are ilegal under quite a few legal systems. Inform the authorities.Geni 20:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They have been informed, and are investigating. Incidentally, I've just received another email from Cretanpride:


 * You guys win. I give up. That last email was a joke. You win. I'm never going to edit on that article again.


 * My guess is that the police found him and made him realize how inappropriate the "joke" was.


 * I've forwarded this message to the police as well. I tried to call them, but the officer who's handling the case isn't available.  I left him a message, and will let you all know what I hear. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's good news! I am pleased that it will end in a good way.  I suppose this person is young and has not had experiences to inform his or her decisions with regard to such serious matters.  Well, mistakes help us get experience and perhaps he or she will now have experience to avoid such mistakes in the future.  It may be a costly lesson though.


 * Thank you very much Josiah Rowe!

--Blue Tie 20:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Full protected
I think the best thing for now is to keep the page full protected. This will prevent edit warring. If he disagrees with the current content, he can contact me so that I can take appropriate action with the law-enforment authorities. As I have protected it, noone else can do something about it, so I am to blaim now, nobody else. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that sounds good to me. &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note if another admin is gouing to unprotct the page in due time, it has to go back to semi-protect. And I suggest to leave it blocked for a few days till things are for sure settled (aka, when the police says it is resolved). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to semi?
Time to go back to semi-protection? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. I've done it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This article contains POV, misrepresentation, and the final paragraph insults the intelligence of the modern Greeks
(comment by confirmed sockpuppet removed, still accessible in history of current talk page) Takidis 21:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Takidis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Please read the talk page archive...that is all that needs to be said for now. CaveatLectorTalk 21:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardly, thats far from all that there is to say on this topic. DerMeister 16:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you DerMeister. Glad you agree. CaveatLector, I don’t see how the talk page archive is significant here(I just read it). I have thoroughly explained several inaccuracies and biases in the article. (E.g. Vrissimtzis not self published, Thornton misrepresented, huge amounts of bias). Did you even read what I posted? If no one responds to my concerns I will proceed on correcting them in the article. Takidis 05:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Takidis (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Takidis, I think that the main reason nobody responded to your earlier post is that we're all exhausted from dealing with Cretanpride, who made many very similar arguments, using many different sockpuppets. I'm not saying that you are Cretanpride, but many elements of your post resemble his arguments very closely. (He was eventually banned for repeated violations of Wikipedia policies.)


 * Also, your post was extremely long, and it's difficult to know where to begin in responding to it. Perhaps you could choose one element of the article that you feel is most egregiously erroneous or misleading, and start with that?  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(comment by confirmed sockpuppet removed, still accessible in history of current talk page) Takidis 06:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My main thought at the moment is that it's 1:24 in the morning where I am, and I'm going to bed. I'll try to make a coherent response tomorrow. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll chip in for a moment: I think Takidis (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of Cretanpride (talk • contribs). I've said so elsewhere, so there's no reason not to here. Accordingly, after this I intend to ignore his posts. I do, however, thank Takidis for the quotation from David Cohen. On September 14 I suggested that Cohen would be a good source for this article, and I made similar suggestions in other posts; apparently, Cretanpride is a more careful reader than I had first thought. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (comment by confirmed sockpuppet removed, still accessible in history of current talk page) Takidis 06:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(comments by confirmed sockpuppet removed, still accessible in history of current talk page) Takidis 07:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Update on the threat
I've just received a call from the police officer; it turns out that he wasn't able to verify the identity that I gave him, so the timing of Cretanpride's second email was a coincidence. Given that email, it seems extremely probable that this was a hoax; while making a hoax death threat is still a serious matter, I think that we can all relax a bit now. I'm going to continue to pursue the investigation, but the urgency has diminished. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is not too soon to pin a coda on this particular episode:

"Fair Greece! Sad relic of departed worth! Immortal, though no more. Though fallen, great! Who now shall lead thy scattered children forth, And long accustomed bondage uncreate? Not such thy sons who whileome did await, The hopeless warriors of a willing doom, In bleak Thermopylae's sepulchral strait— Oh! Who that gallant spirit shall resume, Leap from Eurotas' banks, and call thee from the tomb?" Haiduc 23:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hilariously apt. Well said, Haiduc — and, indeed, well said Byron. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't even know if this guy comes from Greece and yet you make generalisations on an entire nation with such ease. This practice is by no means any wiser than the homosexual-bashing remarks coming from this guy (or should I say 'boy'). This edit is the proof that you're as biased as he is. Miskin 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to be fair, Cretanpride consistently identified himself as Greek, and claimed to be defending the honor of the Greeks: see this diff, and this one, for example. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So did Pete Sampras, but he's not from Greece. Miskin 01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I'm having this conversation, but I believe that the point Haiduc was making with his Byron quote was that Cretanpride was a poor representative of Greek civilization. At least, that's how I interpreted it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But funny indeed, as Lord Byron was probably the first Westener ever to understand what Greece is really about. It's ironic when someone like you quotes him with the intention of humiliating what he gave his life for - showing clearly that you haven't understood anything about neither Byron nor Greece yourself. Miskin 11:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Byron was not afraid to point out the difference between the men of old and those of his day - and we should not see it as humiliating. If his verses have value, and they do, it is because their truth is universal. When he says, ''Hereditary bondsmen! know ye not Who would be free themselves must strike the blow? it is an exhortation that is as true today as in his time, and applicable to all of us, don't you think? Let's each take from him what we can, and not blame the others for imaginary sins. Haiduc 04:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A note
I have blocked Takidis indefinitely as a sockpuppet of the banned user Cretanpride. Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What if you're wrong? Miskin 01:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. So I take it you're able to check IPs, very useful. Miskin 02:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)