Talk:Pederasty/Archive 10

Sourcing
Hi all. Just stumbled upon the article... I notice there's some area where sourcing is not present, is inadequate, or where the text doesn't seem to be totally verified. The unsourced passages in the article are easily observable, but other areas of concern (with focus on the Middle eastern section) are as follows:

I'm assuming that these issues are systemic throughout the article given that there is a similar lack of sourcing in a number of places. Regards,  ITAQALLAH   13:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Its seeming co-relation with the rise of Islam has been commented on by modern historians, who suggest that the protective attitude of Islam towards women, which removed them from public life, as well as the tendency of Islamic law to accommodate within the domain of "private behavior" activities that would take place regardless, as long as they do not interfere with public order." - which is sourced to "The Age of Beloveds: Love and the Beloved in Early–Modern Ottoman and European Culture and Society" (Andrews and Kalpakli 2005) - I saw a discussion on p. 16 or 17 about the improvement in the social/legal status of women, about how there was often leeway for private behaviour (thus allowing for tracts of romantic, sexual etc. nature ) - but I don't see the connection made between "Its [i.e. pederasty] seeming co-relation with the rise of Islam" - can someone provide the page number where this assertion is made?
 * "Literature and art reflected the fascination with love in general and beautiful boys in particular. The lover was conceived as martyr and hero. His desire, known as ishq, was glorified as mad, unreasonable, ecstatic, impossible to satisfy and leading even to death. An Arab proverb claims that "Ishq is a fire that burns down everything but the object of desire" - according to the citation, the work in question (Conventions of Love, Love of Conventions: Urdu Love Poetry in the Eighteenth Century; Faruqi 2001) is actually unpublished. Secondly, the language used in the article is rather generalised, whereas the paper discusses specifically within the context of Urdu love poetry of the eighteenth century. Thirdly, it is unclear if the source is even talking in the context of homoerotic (let alone male-boy love) literature - I personally see no indication of such by the source.
 * "In central Asia the practice is reputed to have long been widespread, and remains a part of the culture, as exemplified by the proverb, Women for breeding, boys for pleasure, but melons for sheer delight." - the source for this is Burton, but no publication or real reference is provided. It also remains to be seen whether the preceding prose is verifiable to him or not.
 * The next source used is: http://www.queer-journal.com/spring2004/essays1.htm - which is for me is broken. Presuming we can get eventual access to the link, is the journal a reliable source for statements regarding Islamic history?
 * There's several further passages in this section which are unsourced. I'll tag most of it, but I do intend to remove some of the more dubious stuff like the following "Islamic jurisprudence generally considers that attraction towards beautiful youths is normal and natural. In order for any sexual act to be a punishable offense four witnesses were required." - The second sentence in particular seems a bit spontaneous and is technically incorrect - four witnesses are required for the hadd punishments, ta'zir punishments which are of lesser severity do not require that number.
 * Also, there are areas where citations are substituted with self-references (i.e. See References section or See Mythology of same-sex love) which aren't really sufficient (cf. WP:V: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources.").  ITAQALLAH   14:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is not consistent in the level of sourcing, as it was written over a long span of time and many of the earlier contributions were not properly documented. Please do tag, and I will work to recover as much as can be recovered.
 * As far as four witnesses (or eight women) being required to prove a sex crime, that is a quite common understanding: "The minimum number of witnesses required for conviction of liwat was four" (El-Rouayheb, p.123). Haiduc (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The quote appears to be incomplete, it notes that the Hanafis stipulated two as they didn't see it as a hadd issue. One may note that the Hanafis were (and are) a much larger school than the Hanbalis, Malikis and Shafi'is.  ITAQALLAH   16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is very interesting, and not at all clear from the text. Would you give the two standards equal weight in the article? Haiduc (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc - re the Intro (which is much improved), I find the last sentence less than clear, though it makes an important point. I think perhaps it is too condensed, and suggest the following:

Consistent with this concept, Western society does not see the practice of pederasty as something in line with any ideological or traditional model. Instead, the popular view widely disseminated today conflates pederasty with the child sexual abuse model.

What do you think? Domniqencore (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed from the lead
''Some researchers have argued that pederasty as a cross-cultural phenomenon is the predominant expression of male-male sexuality as viewed through historical record, though the practice has varied significantly within different cultures.

This is a huge statement. I've removed it from the lead as I'm concerned at this time that there is not sufficient material from reliable sources to support this claim. The phrase "some researchers" in particular makes my undue-weight-alarm go off: Does "some" here mean one, three, 51%? - brenneman  07:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Expanding slightly, it would be useful if the source for this was not one famous for being the shingle hung out by a number of advocacy groups. See Rind et al. controversy please.  Regardless of the merits of this particular source, we need to be exactly right when making sweeping claims on contentious subjects, and having this author as the support simply creates additional problems. -  brenneman  07:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Chaste": a POV term
This is a side-issue to the main debate going on here, but I think a not insignificant one (and it's part of the general use of carelessly-universalized POV language which I think causes all the article's other problems).

Through this series of articles, the word "chaste" is used to describe non-sexual relationships. "Chaste" is not a neutral synonym for non-sexual. It is part of the Western idea of sexual morality, and it conveys not simply non-sexual but "morally pure because non-sexual".

I think the word always carries a judgment with it, and I don't think it should ever be used as a descriptor by a Wikipedia editor, except as directly referenced to a source or else in a discussion of the idea of chastity in itself.

Dybryd (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Chaste" is actually quite neutral and applied to sexual morality in non-Western ambits too. If I had used some of the other terms employed for this, such as "noble pederasty" you would have had a heart attack. These terms refer to the moderate (as the Greeks would have put it) expression of a man's sexual passion for a boy. But you are right, more references would be helpful. I will try to provide them, maybe we should elaborate on that in a separate article titled Chaste pederasty. As soon as this thunderstorm blows over. Haiduc (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't neutral. It is a term of moral judgment -- as you say, it is applied to sexual morality, not to sexual behavior. That fact that you could have chosen a still more POV term is irrelevant.


 * Dybryd (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dybryd has a good point here. The word "chaste" is not a simple neutral description, it has a lot of connotations.  That term should only be used when sourced.  Where the intent is to describe relationships that did not include sexual interactions, the term "non-sexual" is more appropriate.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Pederasty#Australasia
I earlier removed this section as not having any citations. It was replaced with a link, per below. The current existing text:
 * In Melanesia, many native cultures employed boy insemination rites integral to coming-of-age rituals lasting from mid- to late childhood, as documented in the writings of Gilbert Herdt. In Papua-New Guinea and nearby islands, some native tribes (about 20% at the end of the twentieth century, a proportion that has since been reduced to vestigial and moribund remnants as contacts with foreigners caused western morals to become prevalent) considered sperm to be the essence of masculinity and a source of strength, and a substance that does not form spontaneously but must be introduced. As a result, a mentor, chosen by the father and ideally the mother's young adult brother, had the duty of planting it in the body of their prepubescent son as part of extended initiation rites.[62] The mentor also had the duty of educating the boy and seeing to his proper entry into manhood. They slept and worked together until the boy matured. Men who had had their first or second child were expected to relinquish the mentoring function to younger adults. Casual encounters between boys and men were also accepted, but the boy had to be the recipient, to avoid damaging his growth. Thus the Melanesian male went through a sexual cycle beginning with homosexuality, passing through bisexuality and ending with heterosexuality. 62 ^ Bruce M. Knauft, "What Ever Happened to Ritualized Homosexuality? Modern Sexual Subjects in Melanesia and Elsewhere" Annual Review of Sex Research, 2003

I'm reviewing the cited source (see the one-page version here) and there are serious concerns about almost every claim in this section. In short, there is very little relationsip between the material presented and that that exists in the source.

Had I not edited this article and a related article, I'd lean towards an immediate block of Haiduc until the matter is resolved, a review of all material he has contributed, and a probable topical ban. I am however open to hearing that this was a simple mistake, and that the misattribution occured in the heat of the moment. I'm going to re-remove this section, and place a note on both User talk:Haiduc and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this.

brenneman 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Brenneman, you are off base. The citation provided was an initial citation, applicable to the text, a text that is not in the least controversial. Australasian pederasty is old hat. More citations will follow. Haiduc (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. Once these paragraphs are fully cited and checked, it can go back in.  Nandesuka (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Material
I could have removed more. Probably should have too.... I truly don't want to see these reverted, it was uncited text. I only put it here on the talk page out of courtesy. Beam 23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Courtesy appreciated. Haiduc (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments: Nomination of Category:Modern pederasty
I am posting this here to get more eyes on it & to get the community's opinion. Please see Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 27 to weigh in. Thanks, User529 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. User529 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —User529 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Err, are you planning on placing comments regarding this anywhere else? - brenneman  05:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The 2 listings you quoted were courtesy notices to relevent sections. I added the listing here as CFD's do not get the notice that AFD's do by the average editor (most people would not be going to the category's page and seeing the notice (as they would with an AFD). I would rather this get community attention right off the bat (and get it over with in the normal timeframe) rather than having it be re-listed later for lack of feedback as some AFD's have to have done. (To answer your question: Nope, this is the only article Talk page I am listing this notice at -- I figured it was the best place to get notice of Pederasty editors) Thx, User529 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion etiquette
It was hardly surprising to find yesterday's textual additions peremptorily removed by this particular faction, whose reputation goes before them. My contribution did not involve deletion of existing material, and is pertinent to the article. These modest insertions could have been challenged in the usual way. The sources, as Haiduc suggested, can be checked.

I think you have to ask yourselves the following:

Are you interested in the subject of this article? Have you seriously researched this subject? Are you qualified to research and contribute to this article? Are you interested in applying standards of historical truth to the work undertaken by editors?

This is a scholarly field of enquiry. The subject may be 'controversial' in the minds of today's public at large, but their opinion is not in any way relevant to this undertaking: a specialist historical survey of an under-researched topic. The kind of editors who are most likely to have something valuable to contribute here will have in-depth experience of scholarship, Classics, and can read sources in the original languages. Others can sometimes offer helpful material provided they approach the subject - as we all should - with respect and humility, and take time to read the source material available, comprehensive though it may be.

Incidentally, I have - as you may have noticed - drawn upon recent work by Prof. W.A. Percy, who can be contacted direct. If you doubt the integrity or relevance of his expertise, do just that:

I expect to revert the article to the abbreviated version of my insertions. If you have anything to say, I suggest you avoid another deletion, and make your point on the talk page. In the meantime I will consider further repairs to what has become a damaged presentation. Domniqencore (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the absence of cogent arguments for its exclusion, I also support the restoration of the abbreviated material. I was also puzzled by Mr. Brenneman's edit summary for the deletion of the abbreviated version: "Based upon recent experiance, better if this examined on talk page first." Would you care to clarify your comment, Mr. Brenneman? What "experiance" are you referring to, and what does it have to do with Domniqencore? Haiduc (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The "recent experiance" as documented all over this page and the talk page of HistoricalPedCouples, as further documented on the Adminstrator's noticeboard, and probably at least six other places as well. The "recent experiance" where sources are non-existant, misinterpreted, or flatly refute the claims inserted in the articles in question.
 * As to Domniqencore, the editor has a total of four article edits, all to this article but for one to Greek Love. His talk page edits include pearlers like "The current clique is clearly not susceptible to reasoned argument" and "I fear however that the citation-mongers are quite unscrupulous".  Forgive me if I am not giving this editor the deference that you seem to be suggesting he deserves.  brenneman  23:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to read Haiduc's questioning of the "recent experience" note. Anyone watchlisting this topic would easily be aware of the concerns about sources that have been "recently" discussed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I believe WP:AGF still applies to this article, yes? If you think that Domniqencore is a sockpuppet or is otherwise acting abusively, please state so openly; otherwise, we should assume he's a good-faith contributor, and his edits should not be treated with the kind of suspicion you're applying. The citation to Johansson seems to be legit, so if you have problems with this material, they need to be spelled out--your rationale seems to be "I don't trust these people", which is counter to the principle of assuming good faith.
 * As for your comments about Haiduc's sourcing, both here and at ANI, I find them exaggerated, and no justification for your revert. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm struggeling to find a more polite way to say "put up or shut up" but there are limits to polite discourse, particularly when it's being used as a stalling tactic, simply waiting for the other person to be worn down and move on... If you believe that my claims at ani are "exaggerated" please feel free to pick a particular statement of mine and we can examine it.  Because, despite a wide stripe of similar "it's not so bad" style comments from a handful editors, every time I look at an actual citation it actually is that bad.
 * In contentious areas, it's common for information to be "held" on the talk page for discussion prior to making it to the actual page. I'm happy to assume good faith with respect to this editor, but "seems to be legit" is simply not a tenable position at this time on this article.  If the material gets discussed here and there is consensus that it should be included in the article, that's great, full steam ahead.  brenneman  01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Brenneman, assuming good faith involves accepting that the citations an editor provides are legitimate, and finding actual reasons to say that the citation isn't acceptable if you think that's the case. "Pederasty is controversial" is not a reason.
 * I guess I should be a little more forceful than I tend to be. The citation to Johansson is legit. It's to an article in the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, edited by Wayne R. Dynes, now out of print and hosted in a freely available version on William Percy's website. Dynes and Percy are both scholars and experts in the topic. This work received good reviews and is widely cited, and easily meets Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. I see no reason to challenge it, especially not in a knee-jerk fashion. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As there are two "streams" in the above, I'm creating a subsection below for discussion of the reference, I'll address that there. Here I'll address the various problems I see with the above statement:
 * I've not suggested that things need to be discussed here simple because "Pederasty is controversial."
 * This article, and several related articles, have serious issues with misattribution of sourcing.
 * As nicely as possible, occam's razor and assume good faith do occasionally work in opposition:
 * If the source, the content, and the editor are all "legit" then after a short delay we'll work that out
 * As the very-new and effectivly-single-purpose account demonstrates that they understand sources and quote them appropiately, they earn more leeway.
 * The use of "knee-jerk" and saying I have no "actual reasons" when I've outlined them clearly is either obfuscation or simple laziness.
 * You're free to say you don't agree with my statemens or actions, but hand-waving like you've committed above adds nothing to the discussion. Are you going to reply to my request that you back up your statement that my problems with H's citation are exaggerated by being specific?  brenneman  02:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny, I think "hand-waving" characterizes your actions. You're removing material (an example is below) that is reliably sourced, without any attempt to demonstrate that there's a problem with the source. As for Haiduc's material, for now I'll simply note that in the ANI thread you've been talking about, at least one person thought that your arguments about the sourcing for Melanesian pederasty were unconvincing. I note further that you seem to have done nothing about fixing the problems you saw and restoring the material to the article--which is too bad, because the anthropological literature on Melanesian "ritual homosexuality" is rich, and belongs in this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're really starting to get up my nose, mate. "At least one person thought" is the weakest, lamest, most hand-waving line of crap you could possibly have dished out.  Please, if you're going to continue with this line, come back with even one diff from those discussions where I expressed a concern about sourced material where I was wrong.  Not saying that it was impossible that I was wrong, just that you keep saying it withou providing any evidence...  brenneman  03:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strangely, I'm pretty frustrated with your style of discussion as well. I'm sure you know that digging up diffs from archived ANI threads is something that can't be done instantly--in fact, just figuring out where the discussion is archived is a gigantic pain. But if you go back to Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive454 and look through CBDunkerson's replies to you, you'll see that you were wrong about the citation for the Melanesia section--the source that Haiduc provided supports some of the material in the section. Nevermind that this was a citation provided in 2008 for material written in 2005--it's no surprise that Haiduc didn't have citations on hand to support every point. I notice you don't seem to have made too much effort to look through the work of Herdt to fix the material and include it in the article. You don't seem to be interested in adding anything to this article, only taking things out. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Brenneman, your form of address in your note to Akhilleus is totally unacceptable. Mind your manners. Also, make sure you let me know on my talk page the next time your administratorship comes up for review, as there is an ever lengthening list of unacceptable behavior that will need to be aired at that time. Haiduc (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 Again with the appeal to authority: You are the one saying that I was wrong about the source, not CBDunkerson. You're the one that I'm asking to back up your claim with some evidence. For ease of reply, I'll copy below the problems I listed with the material. Please feel free to explain where I'm wrong. - brenneman  03:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Melanesian cultures employed insemination rites source covers Gebusi of Papua New Guinea, but on this point as it is non-contentious there is some leeway
 * Sperm essence of strength ''surprisingly this seemingly straight-forward claim is not supported by the citation.
 * Not spontaneous but must be introduced unsupported by reference
 * 20% Papua-New Guinean of cultures had these rites unsupported by reference
 * Mentoring
 * Father, mother's young adult brother choose unsupported by reference
 * Educating, guiding into manhood unsupported by reference
 * Fatherhood
 * First two kids ok to "mentor" unsupported by reference
 * After that had to quit it unsupported by reference
 * Casual relationships existed this is supported by the reference, however
 * Boy had to be recipient (?) I don't even know what this means. Is this a euphemism?
 * Growth could be damaged specifically refuted by reference
 * Homo/Bi/Hetero cycle unsupported by reference

Encyclopedia of Homosexuality as a source + recent removals
Removed material:
 * A broad overview places pederasty as "probably the most characteristic, if not normative, form of male homosexual relations in the majority of human societies throughout history, though not in Western Europe and North America in modern times." '

This is a highly controversial statement, that the typical homosexual relationship was pedaristic. To avoid the "undue weight" section of neutral point of view, some serious examination not only of this particular citation but the body of work is required. - brenneman  02:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Controversial" according to whom? Do you have a source that disputes this? As it stands, it looks like your assertion that this material is controversial is based on your personal opinion. Are you an expert on this topic? On what grounds do you assert that the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality is an unsuitable source? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For one thing, it's out of print, withdrawn by the former publisher, and now hosted only on the author's self-published website. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very dissapointed that you've chosen to edit-war as opposed to discussing it. I don't do the "I have a right to three reverts" thing so I'll leave it for now, but dissapointing, none the less. I also begin to feel that you're not even reading my responses. It's totally posible for something to be a suitable source, even an excellent but for a cherry-picked statement from it be used to support an opinon that is not the view held by the majority. Finally, your use of "Idon'tlikeit" in the edit summary was uncalled for, uneccesarily inflammitory, and totaly without basis or evidence. Please, before making further accusations of this nature fall back on evidence: Give me a diff where I give even the faintest hint that I have an opinion on this material aside from the normal encyclopedic concern? Failing that, if you continue to make comments of this nature you're being disruptive. Blocks for disruption are possible where editors attempt to create a hostile environment in order to win a perceived "battle" over content. brenneman  03:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am reading your responses, I just don't find them very responsive. In fact, "uneccesarily inflammitory, and totaly without basis or evidence" sums up my feelings about your contributions to this discussion. It would help if you would describe why you think this source is unsuitable for Wikipedia: so far, you haven't said a thing about that. Jack-a-Roe mentions that the source is out-of-print and withdrawn by the publisher. Out of print is no strike against a source; in fact, most academic books are published in limited print runs, are sold to college/university libraries and a limited audience of scholars (professional or not), and then go out of print. Withdrawn may indicate a problem, but some discussion about why the book was withdrawn might be in order. Until then, though, I say again that the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality was edited by an expert, the web version is hosted on an expert's academic website, and it is widely cited: in other words, the kind of scholarly source that Wikipedia articles should rely on. I'm happy to change my mind, when actual arguments are presented. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Shave a monkey and call him dad, you've just repeated exactly the behavior that's driving me mad: Saying "when actual arguments are presented" is beyond rude. I have presented arguments, several of them.  That you don't agree is clear, but please stop pretending that I didn't take the time to write them down. -  brenneman  03:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By what possible standard would one argue that a book being withdrawn by its publisher merely "may" indicate a problem with it?  The American Library Association describes this work as "ill-fated" and indicates that it was withdrawn due to some of the authors' credentials being falsified.  What, exactly, does the author of the work you want to cite have to do for you to consider his work unreliable?  Knock over a liquor store?  Nandesuka (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll notice that no one talked about this book being withdrawn until Jack-A-Roe's post. Now that I've had a chance to look at this a bit more, I agree that we shouldn't include the material based on this source. But previous claims were based on the idea that this was a fringe claim, which has not been demonstrated. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

←"Controversial": the sweeping claim specifying that homosexual relations down through all history of most of the world fit neatly into the particular form of pederasty (even if broadly defined) is controversial enough to be a fringe theory; a claim that goes well beyond mainstream academic consensus. If there were academic consensus on that idea, it would be easy to find more sources to support it, and a self-published source would not be needed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not self-published. If there is an academic consensus against this idea, it should be easy to find a source that says so, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting that anything stated in even a single source must be included even over objections until we can locate a citation that activly refutes those claims? - brenneman  03:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There does not seem to be any academic consensus against the idea that pederasty is caused primarily by consumption of Roquefort cheese. Clearly, we need to revise the article lede to include this vital information.  Nandesuka (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely helpful contribution. I notice that everyone seems to have an idea of what "academic consensus" is here, but the only source that's been cited so far happens to be contrary to what this consensus supposedly is. If you're going to claim that a source is making a fringy claim, it shouldn't be hard to illustrate what the mainstream view is. Even better, if we can illustrate what the academic consensus is, we can put it in the article! Wouldn't that be nice? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It does not surprise me that there are no sources "refuting" the claim that "pederasty is the normative form of homosexuality" precisely because it is such a stunningly absurd claim.  Nandesuka (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quibble: the source cited says it's typical or "characteristic," but not normative. Still an Extraordinary claim, though. -  brenneman  04:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can find an academic discussion of the problems with the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality here: "Pseudonym or Hoax? Publisher halts sales of encyclopedia after controversy over authorship," Chronicle of Higher Education. May 26, 1995, pp. A10, A14.  Based on the American Library Associations' review, I will suggest that either Garland's Gay histories and cultures: an encyclopedia (2000) or, for American topics, Encyclopedia of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender history in America (2004) are both preferable sources to the fraud-tainted EoH.  The ALA review notes that the 2000 edition is slightly better about attributing exactly who wrote what article than the 2004 edition is. Nandesuka (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It bears pointing out that no one here has claimed that the statement is factually incorrect. Furthermore, Dynes / Johanssen is not the only source for that statement, as some of you may remember, it was also pointed out by Rind in a recent paper (within the last ten years or so). So what is all the fuss about? Haiduc (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For instance, here's another source: G. Haggerty, ed., Encyclopedia of Gay Histories and Cultures: Volume 2, from the article by David Menasco on Pederasty (pp. 672-674): "Cross-culturally and transhistorically, homosexual relations have most often been structured through some form of either age-grading or gender-grading. Pederasty may be taken to refer either to the most widely recognized forms of age-graded male homosexuality or age-graded male homosexuality in general, with the caveat that use of the term generally is limited to relations in which the younger partner is in some sense not fully mature...The term has sometimes been used to denote all-male homosexuality, or specific acts between males, probably owing to the close association of the idea of male homosexuality with traditionally recognized forms of age-graded male relationships."


 * As far as I know, this volume is in print, is not marred by controversies over the pseudonymy of any of the authors, and is well-regarded.


 * As for the absurdity of this claim, I'm having a hard time seeing it. Certainly in ancient Greece pederasty was the normative form of (male) homosexuality. In ancient Rome, which had a less enthusiastic attitude towards homosexuality, pederasty was still the normative form of male homosexuality. I know far less about 19th century Europe than I do about the ancient world, but as far as I can see the most visible depictions of male homosexuality during that period were modeled on an idealized picture of Greek pederasty--hence the term "Greek love". So if I'm out of step with the academic consensus I'd appreciate being directed to some sources that say otherwise. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum: despite the slight difference in title, I believe the work I quoted is the same that Nandesuka was referring to in the post above. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, I think we can agree that the Haggerty work is not tainted, and is a good source.
 * However, I don't see it making the broader, more sweeping claim under discussion here. I read Menasco as saying, here, "Pederasty exists," and that furthermore it is a term that is used to grade certain relationships by age, and that when speaking of homosexual relations in age-graded terms, pederasty is one of the "most widely recognized forms" (as opposed to, one supposes, geriasty?) That is a much more conservative claim than "pederasty is the normative form of homosexuality throughout history". If you think I'm misreading, please let me know how. Nandesuka (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the source similarly. But, upon reflection, I think that we may be approaching this bass-ackwards.  I'd like to archive a lot of the older discussions above and suggest that we start from first principles: What should this article contain, what should be it's structure, etc. -  brenneman  05:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the problem is the meaning of "normative". I think we're reading Menasco similarly--pederasty is one of the most widely recognized forms of male homosexuality throughout history.
 * When I say that pederasty was normative in ancient Greece, I mean that it was the most common (and socially approved) form of male homosexuality. Male-male sexual relationships that were not age-graded, that is, not pederastic, were sometimes regarded as deviant, or were interepreted as being pederastic anyway. My username gives us a convenient example--in the Iliad, Achilles and Patroclus seem to be agemates (and, in the judgement of most classicists, not to be lovers)--but later Greek interpretations of their relationship cast them as a pederastic couple.
 * So, to me the idea that pederasty was normative until modern times means that 1) pederasty was the most common form of male homosexuality and 2) pederasty was recognized as the most common form of male homosexuality. This is in contrast to what I think is the most common idea of a male homosexual relationship in the modern west--that both partners are adults of a similar age, or at least both mature adults. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)