Talk:Pederasty/Archive 11

Another section for discussion
Removed text:
 * Professor William Percy, in a recent paper writes:


 * Believing that enough of what I argue will stand scrutiny, I hope we
 * can begin the process of restoring Greek pederasty to the great central
 * role that it played in Greek history and warfare, politics, art, literature
 * and learning, in short to the Greek miracle, in which changes in homosexual
 * representations and practices both reacted to and contributed to
 * transformations in the political, economic, and cultural realms.

This removal was an editorial one, not about citation. I fail to see what a quote from this author does to add to the general topic. - brenneman  04:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote is not essential as such, but what it says about the importance of the practice is quite significant. It can certainly be paraphrased. Haiduc (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Greek miracle...again
Of course, Percy has much more to say about the 'Greek Miracle' and its historical impact in the substantive paper (Reconsiderations about Greek Homosexualities) from which I was able to offer but a small slice. In our article's section on 'The Greeks', it would seem that the preoccupation with pederasty as a form of sexual behavior overshadows a greater and more powerful force for the contemporary society then and beyond, as the following quote from Percy's introductory 'Summary' would suggest:

To reduce homosexuality or same-sex behaviours to the purely physical or sexual does an injustice to the complex phenomena of the Greek male experience. From Sparta to Athens to Thebes and beyond, the Greek world incorporated pederasty into their educational systems. Pederasty became a way to lead a boy into manhood and full participation in the polis, which meant not just participation in politics but primarily the ability to benefit the city in a wide range of potential ways. Thus the education, training, and even inspiration provided in the pederastic relationship released creative forces that led to what has been called the Greek 'miracle.' From around 630 BCE we find the institution of Greek pederasty in - forming the art and literature to a degree yet to be fully appreciated. Moreover, this influence not only extends to the 'higher' realms of culture, but also can be seen stimulating society at all levels, from the military to athletic games, from philosophy to historiography. An understanding of sexual practices - useful, even essential, to an appreciation of Greek pederasty - cannot fully explicate its relationship to these other phenomena; pederasty is found in many societies, and certainly existed before the Greeks. It is time that we move beyond Dover and recover the constructive dynamics of Greek pederasty.

As I argued before, the Greeks have a central place in any balanced discussion of historical pederasty, and indeed it could be argued that the prevalence of the pederastic principle 'in many societies' through the ages - as far as records permit such an assumption - may be connected to the fact that the phenomenon is more than an interesting quirk of sexuality but had a pragmatic function as a binding force within the societies, whether educationally, militarily, aesthetically, or even morally. For those who seek 'justification' in terms of 'rights' within our otherwise liberal societies today, it would seem to me that they would do well to consider just what history teaches us about the societies where male-youth bonding had a recognised role, even if such institutions could scarcely be replicated in the modern world.

Incidentally, the concept I quoted about 'prevalence' - and which attracted a certain vigorous reaction - was, in its original form, hedged in by qualifications e.g. 'according to historical record', 'probably', 'some researchers'. There really is no need for confrontation, since in any case, apart from the Greeks, the evidence is scanty on either side of the argument. But I do think we are talking about two different things, partly for the reasons given above, but also - perhaps more obviously - because adult homosexual relationships are today solely representative of same-sex intimacy as the modern mind conceives it. We can no more get inside the mind-set of the ancients than they could conceive of our thoughts and values. But we are led by fascination for what is different, and the urge (possibly) to find a link.

An interesting footnote to Percy's thesis reads: The more the complexities of human psychosexuality come to light, the less valid it is to talk about homosexuality in the singular: "while homosexual desires and activities are probably ubiquitous, the specific forms that they assume are intimately shaped by particular sociohistorical contexts. Instead of talking about homosexuality, we should really speak in terms of homosexualities, plural, for there are may variations on the teme of same-sex relations" (Bagemihl, 1999). Domniqencore (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The pragmatic approach of the Greeks to pederasty is certainly worth exploring. Another interesting aspect we might work on is an "evolutionary tree" for pederasty. It seems to have started out in Minoan times and to have functioned for a millennium or more in a kind of steady state, as you might expect from a conservative insular society. Then it was imported to the mainland, initially in a pure state (archaic period), which in the large, cosmopolitan cities quickly began to degenerate into abusive and mercantile forms. Out of that you have the condemnation of sexual pederasty seen in Plato and Aristotle, and the eventual clarification of the two streams (pure/impure dikaios/hybris), as can be seen in Aeschines and Xenophon(?). Haiduc (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly want to learn more about this approach. Interestingly - re Xenophon - Prof Percy included a brief ref at the end of his Summary intro:

“It seems to me that something must also be said about the love of boys; for this too has a bearing on education.” 	Xenophon

A simple statement, but one that contains a world. Domniqencore (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

deletions

 * Paul Michaut is reporting, and the article reports what he reports - not as fact but as his report. It may or may not be "true". Removal is simply censorship.
 * Renaissance: well, that there were homoerotic age-differentiated relationships among artists and member of the literati is hardly news. I can't comment on all the cases. Leonardo is well documented, and Michelangelo is generally accepted.
 * The Wilde story is clearly important, as it illustrates the explicit examination of the issue.

In any case it is clear that you are just trying to delete anything you can think of. Paul B (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, this is getting silly. There is an objection to the word "putative", so I change it to "imagined", to which no objection is made. It is reverted again with an utterly irrelevant edit summary. This is not editing, it is warring and is wholly unacceptable. Paul B (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. You reverted my edit before I had a chance to finish my own. Your very aggressive and accusatory tone from the moment you entered this dialogue has been alarming and uncalled for.  I removed the Shakespeare theory because the editor who added it appears to be more interested in promoting a tenuous theory regarding Shakespeare. Changing a word may deviate the meaning of the content from the editors original intent but doesn't make it correct.

Regarding the 19th century entry, to say the article is simply reporting what someone says, regardless of whether it is true is a flawed rationale for its inclusion. The article should be including what we know about pederasty and its history, not a non-notable outsider's non-notable views of a culture's practice which lay readers could easily mistaken for fact.

Another editor has mentioned concerns regarding the Renaissance paragraph, which I fully share and was the reason for my edit.--Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh, Now the excuse for removing the Shakespeare passage is so bizarre I can't even understand what is being implied. The passage says that this was the first openly published story about a pederastic relationship. The edit summary now invents a wholly new "reason" for removing it "Removing this text is a response to an earlier editor who has several times tried to push stretched version of the Oxford theory." What on earth does this mean? There is nothing about the "Oxford theory" in the passage (if by that is meant the the theory that the Earl of Oxford was the author of Shakespeare's plays). It has no relationship whatever to "the Oxford theory". It is simply about the fact that the story is culturally significant in the history of the topic of this article. It is not about pushing any theory about Shakespeare. Paul B (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Renaissance section, I agree that it is simplistic. The solution is to improve it not to eliminate it. The material on Paul Michaut seems legitimate. He is only "non notable" in your view. The notability of reports from travellers does not derive from them (as primary sources) but from their use in secondary sources. As far as I can see you have no justification whatever for removing the Shakespeare sentence, very little for removing the quotation from Michaut, and the section on Renaissance attitudes should have been improved. Paul B (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What's with your persistently rude tone, right from the get-go? I can only hope you don't talk to your mother with that mouth. THAT is what's truly bizarre and something which you have repeatedly failed to address. My rationale for the exclusion of this text has been entirely consistently and internally coherent. I've mentioned "fringe theory". Here's something I wrote earlier relating to this issue "There was a debate on [the inclusion of] Shakespeare and at the end of it, someone mentioned the reference doesn't even mention pederasty. I looked through the history and soon found the reference which I checked out and confirmed myself." The person who included the bit on Shakespeare tried to push a fringe theory with a citation which makes no reference to this theory (basically a "fake" citation).--Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What mouth? The rudeness is coming from you. The passage is about the cultural significance of Wilde's story. It is not pushing any "fringe theory" about Shakespeare, whether that be any supposed relationship with a boy actor or the "Oxford theory". The only "theory" being presented is theory that this is a culturally significant publication in the history of literature about pederasty. It's not about Shakespeare. It's about Wilde. Paul B (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have any background in sociology or anthropology or historical ethnographies, it would be immediately clear that the Michaut entry has got to go. For one thing, and to simplify things, despite their good intentions (or because of the lack of it) people back then were less culturally sensitive than they are now. Nowadays we usually mention these historical reports to say "isn't it interesting how people saw this culture in the olde days?" I can't assume you have this background so your misunderstanding is understandable. Nevertheless your argument for its inclusion being that it is a report of a report and its factual accuracy (or inaccuracy) is of no relevance to the article is fatally flawed. --Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact my expertise is in 19th century cultural history, a subject on which I have published several books. To simplify things, the phrase "people back then were less culturally sensitive than they are now" isn't very meaningful. In any case, you missed the central point. It is a primary source and is identified as such. Its cultural significance is to be judged by secondary sources, but it is legitimate to include a notable report which is identified as notable in the secondary source. Paul B (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also welcome new input. It's honestly hard for me to imagine any meaningful discourse with someone who is so suspicious, accusatory, and belligerent the moment he enters the door. It's really puzzling since we've had no previous communication. It's almost like the edits under discussion were a personal affront to you. Your rationale for the inclusion of Michaut is hopelessly flawed which should be immediately obvious. If you can't accept that and if you maintain your unpleasant tone I cannot see how I can convince you of the Shakespeare edit. --Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are beligerent. Your editing is aggressive deletionism supported by misleading edit summaries. You are not, once more, I see responding to the central point about the purpose of the Wilde section. Paul B (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have conflated intellectual disagreements with personal ones. This must be the explanation for your belligerent tone from the start which remains inexcusable.

My comments are not misleading but rather yours reflect a misunderstanding of mine.

Also see above comments again.

I see this discussion going nowhere very quickly. Fresh input is welcomed.--Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll jump in, then; Nocturnalsleeper, I'm afraid I don't understand your reasons for removing the material. For instance, you refer to a discussion about Shakespeare, but for the life of me I can't even figure out what discussion you're referring to. Is it in the talk archives somewhere? But Paul makes a cogent point: the material is included because it's important that Wilde wrote a story that openly depicted a pederastic relationship. In other words, it's an important moment in the cultural history of the Victorian period (not the Elizabethan). --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fresh input. Talking with Paul B was getting tiring especially with his consistently aggressive tone straight from the get go. And it was before any communication from me! Unless the edits I did overlap with some of his in the past I cannot for the life of me see what his beef is. Even so not liking your edit doesn't mean I dislike you and vice versa. You mistaken the intellectual argument with the personal argument. I can't see how Wikipedia can function if everyone is allowed to act the way you have.

I can see how my explanation of the Shakespeare thing was confusing since I wasn't able to provide the full story. I was also tired and didn't want to spend a couple hours looking for what I was talking about. I remember coming across it sometime ago and then again in a couple different places. What I provided above was from my own comment to a more experienced editor on a discussion board. But the others for the full story will take sometime to find again since I don't remember just where they are. I need time too find them again which will take a while. I bet one of them is on the Shakespeare if you want to try taking a look yourself in the meantime. Other guesses off the top of my head where to look are Edward de Vere, Henry Wriothesley, and Shakespeare authorship. I'm going to be out of town for a week starting tomorrow unfurtunately but this will be one of my first Wikipedia priorities when I get back.--Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have not addressed the central point and are still arguing about what is or is not true of Shakespeare, not about the purpose of the sentence in this article. You also still have not explained what you mean by "Oxford theory", or why the Shakespeare authorship debates are even relevant to a sentence about a short story that assumes Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Paul B (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

recent edits
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=236023307&oldid=235418429 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=236023744&oldid=236023307

The above controversial edits has been going through a few rounds. So im creating a discussion section for this edit. Lihaas (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection
I've protected the page until such a time as there is substantative discussion here. - brenneman  03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Renaissance paragraphs
I'm concerned about the overall tone and unsourced (and poorly sourced) assertions in these paragraphs:

The Renaissance, inspired by the rediscovery of the philosophy and art of the ancient world, was a fertile time for such relations. Among the luminaries of the time who praised or depicted romantic liaisons with youths were Théophile de Viau, Marsilio Ficino, Benvenuto Cellini, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo.

Homoerotic desire was primarily conceived as an adult's desire for an adolescent, beardless youth. Consequently, pederastic aesthetics influenced art and literature throughout Europe. "The most conventional object of homoerotic desire was the adolescent youth, usually imagined as beardless."[citing Percy]

First, the tone seems overly flowery, implying that pederasty was openly supported by luminaries. It was not. Second, it confuses (with no sourcing) the distinction between artistic depiction of youths and praise of pederasty. Third, the blithely presented laundry list of luminaries who "praise or depict romantic liasons with youths" begs the question about whether they actually did any such thing; consider the shameful inclusion of Marsilio Ficino on this list, a man who devoted his life and works to the understanding and exploration of platonic love which -- I would hope we could all agree -- is not the same thing as pederasty. Fourthly, the entire paragraph seems to be written from a point of view that imposes 21st century attitudes and mores on men who lived, virtually, in a different world from us. It takes, with no sourcing, the positive point of view that any depiction of "beautiful youths" must necessarily be homoerotic in nature.

The only source in the entire introduction is a cite to Percy, a scholar whose work was withdrawn by the publisher and who is, to be frank, under a cloud. Due to his quite public flirtation with academic fraud, I don't consider Percy a reliable source for material of this type. Nandesuka (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose that the existing article be moved to User:Aaron Brenneman/Pederasty, that a stub be created in its place, and that we slowkly and carefully add items for which the is consensus and appropiate sourcing. - brenneman  05:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the passage is written in Haiduc's usual novelettish manner, which is not ideal. However I am confused by your comment that "it confuses (with no sourcing) the distinction between artistic depiction of youths and praise of pederasty". I don't think it does the latter. If it were to do so almost all Renaissance artists who depicted the nude would be included. Only two are mentioned, Michelangelo and Leonardo, both of whom were also prolific writers. Michelangelo's sonnets to his male lover are well known, and Leonardo's relationship to Salai is well documented and noted in every biography. As for Ficino, I know nothing about his personal life, but "platonic love" is not clearly distinguished from "pederasty" either at this time or later for Wilde - or indeed Plato, on which the Symposium is clear. Indeed the Symposium is essentially recommending non-physical romantic love for male youth, which is linked to Socrates's educative activities, and which is always assumed to have an erotic component, or to be intitiated by an erotic impulse which is transmuted. Ficino developed this by stressing that spiritual love also depended on physical love (related to Plotinus's ideas on beauty). This point can be developed and can easily be sourced. This is not an ideal source, but is unlikely to be inaccurate . Others can be found. Paul B (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention Cellini, who, of course, is also at least as well known, if not better known, for his writings than for his art. Cellini is the antitheis of Ficino, since his desires were purely physical, and that point should be made. He was repeatedly accused and convicted of sodomy with boys. Of course he boasts of his many heterosexual liasons too. That's very typical of the Renaissance. Paul B (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've created the most sub-atomic of stubs in my user space, and propose to move that here, and that we either or all agree to behave better.  Ahhh, perhaps even a copy/paste over the current version, with a link to the current placed on the talk page.  (Not a GFDL violation if I do it myself?  Not a violation if the sub-stub is "facts" or I re=phrase them, since facts aren't covered?  Who knows.)  Anyway, we're spending a tremendous amount of time and energy over each little crumb, while as N points out there's an awfeul lot of material too cover.  This approach worked well at Diaper fetishism... any objections? -  brenneman  08:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all convinced that this is a needed step. There are some problems with edit warring, but that can be dealt with through normal means. There are problems with sourcing, but no more so than many other Wikipedia articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you lost me with your suggestion Breneman on technical details. Not sure what the GFDL violation and sub-stub etc means.  I'm sure it's prob a good idea but can you explain or provide some links?--Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, me blathering. Like that's unusual...  The point I was trying to make was that, on the adult baby article there was a group of editors who had a lot of knowledge (and passion) on the subject, but for whom stepping back and looking at citation cooly was proving difficult.  There was also some difficulty there seperating personal politics from article contents: Everyone was either a diaper-loving freak or a fundementalist fascist, depending on whom was asked.


 * There are many parralelles here. I've gotten several e-mails calling me a "fag-bashr" [sic] and I've seen good-faith editors smeared as NAMBLA puppets on the adminstrator's notice board.


 * On the Adult Baby article, cracking our skulls together over the details was not going very far towards solving the more gestalt problems in the article. I'm having a lot of trouble finding it in the history, there's been a lot of moving and merging, but someone (not me) brutally stubby-ised the article and the "warring parties" agreed not to add anything for which there was not rough consent.  I'll keep diggin for some before/after diffs, but the progress was spectacular.


 * I proposed above that we (collectivly) talk more about what this article would look like in the ideal, as opposed to moving the deck chairs as it were. The hope would be that the "short version" would be rapidly fleshed out, and that within (at most) a fortnight we'd have a stable version that everyone will be equally unhappy with.


 * I've edited this article lightly, and related articles heavily. I'm open to debate regarding whether it's appropiate for me to continue the protection, or to serve as the "gatekeepr of consensus" if we decide to move forward in this manner.  But I fear that otherwise we'll continue to fight harder and harder over smaller and smaller stakes.  In the end, we all want the article to be as good as it can be, right?


 * brenneman 03:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving old threads
I've boldly added auto archiving for items older than a month. If other items need to be cleaned off earlier simply cut-and-paste into the latest archive. Banj e b oi   22:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lolicon: some heterosexual men like girls between 10 to 16 years
why is the term pederasty only for men/boy relationships ? also some men look for adolescent girls between 10 and 16 (Lolicon) Why is so the term lolicon not also part of the term pederasty ? GLGermann (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know why, but the standard usage is restricted to males, historically as well as by definition. "Why" is an interesting question. Is it related to homophobia, is it designed to conflate the love of girls with the love of women, or is it simply not a distinction that lovers of women thought of making? Haiduc (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lihaas (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, thank you. Haiduc (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting, yes, and relevant to a proper understanding of the subject which is bedevilled by the limitations and interpretations imposed upon the terminology. May I throw in this proposition:  some 'heterosexual' men like boys between 10 and 16, i.e. they are (not uncommonly) heterosexual with adults, but attracted to adolescent boys even if they do not express this attraction sexually (possibly for legal reasons, or inhibition, or sublimation).  Historically, the sexually versatile male is clearly identifiable:  he was not restricted by definitions or identity in the same way as his modern counterpart who is expected to 'fit' a type or 'psychological profile', and as a result can suffer unnecessary conflict and self-doubt, occasionally assuaged by the convenient label, bisexual.  The article itself is also bedevilled and indeed (more recently) vitiated by those who seek to impose personal views and prejudices (from the 21st century) on a subject of wide application through the ages.  The historical view is of course essentially amoral and non-manipulatory, and ipso facto sometimes challenging and uncomfortable, and not at all respectful of conventions. Dominique (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit questions
I undid your (Jack-A-Roe) edits and added citation tags. There is no need to wholesale remove stuff, you can ask and wait for citations. If it doesn't happen then you can remove it. Likewise, in many edits you have done the same, why is that same edits warrant wholesale removal?

As for the link, it has historical documentary info. What is compelling to remove it? If you don't want to get to the main page for advocacy we can link to the history. Lihaas (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If you want the information to stay in the article, you must provide references to support the information and its relationship to the topic of pederasty.


 * The unsourced information has been in the article for years. There have been many discussions on this page indicating lack of sources, so people who are interested in finding the sources for that material have had plenty of chance to do so.  If you think the information can be sourced, why don't you do some research and prove it?


 * Some of the information that was removed links to other articles, stating that they are part of the so-called pederastic tradition, for example Sufism and dervishes - but neither of those articles even mentions the term, or describes any aspect of the practice. Therefore those statements are not only unreferenced in this article, they are not supported by the content of the other articles. Unless a reference is found, that information can't be used.


 * Some of the information was removed because it is simply off-topic. For example, military sexual violation of children and child prostitution are not part of pederasty as described in this article, those topics are unrelated to any sort of mutual relationship between the participants that is the basis the article.


 * The external link to androphile.org was removed because that website is self-published, ad-supported, does not reveal the names of the authors of the material, and does not state any of its references. You yourself have removed extensive numbers of external links, often without any explanation at all other than that there were "too many" for your taste.  In this case, unlike those many that you have removed, there is a solid list of specific reasons that link can't be used. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh look, yet again we're in revert/rinse/repeat mode here. And again, I restate my clarion call: Why don't we start fresh, and build up this article a little at a time, based on consensus-only edits?  We've certainly got a critical mass of involved editors here now.  Supports/opposes?  Clear concise explanations for why this is a bad idea?  Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? -  brenneman  06:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly support your proposed method. But I should note that my time availability will be unpredictable over the next few months so I don't want to give the impression I can put in a lot of time on it. I would be willing to keep it watchlisted and help when I can. Aside from how much I can do, on a procedural basis, I think your idea to rebuild the article more directly based on sources, with step-by-step consensus would be an excellent approach.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Nandesuka (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Haiduc (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need for this, and what's more, I see far more eagerness to remove material from the article than to build it up. I worry that if we went down to a stub, we'd stay there forever. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand why you'd have formed that opinion, and can only offer my best intentions. I'm open to hearing proposals that provide checks and balances... Some form of sunset clause, for example, where if the article doesn't come up to scratch after xx weeks following "reset" then it goes back to today's version?  Just throwing out ideas here...  brenneman  06:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for verification of source
The following sentence does not seem supported by the reference, so I've removed it from the article and request verification of the source:

"While most Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys, [*] exceptions to the rule were known, some avoiding relations with women, and others rejecting relations with boys." "[*] J.K. Dover, 'Greek Homosexuality, by Kenneth J. Dover; New York; Vintage Books, 1978. ISBN 0674362616"

Google finds this excerpt about "pederasty" in the book:

"...unwillingness to recognize behavioral disctinctions which were of great importance within that culture generates statements to the effect that 'homosexuality' tout court or 'pederasty' was forbidden by law in most Greek citites (Flaceliere, Marrou)."

That appears not to support. Does anyone have a page number and quote from the book to show how it supports the text? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this section demonstrates well a tendency among some of the editors here that I find very frustrating. The first quote that Jack-A-Roe has taken out is uncontroversial for anyone who has a basic knowledge of ancient Greek sexuality; if it appeared in a scholarly source, I'm not even sure it would require citation, because it's part of common knowledge about the topic. Since this is Wikipedia, there probably should be a citation, but this is hardly the kind of thing that needs to be removed from the article pending confirmation.


 * Furthermore, it's not that surprising that the word "pederasty" isn't used that much in Dover's Greek Homosexuality", because he's using "homosexuality" in preference to "pederasty" (many classical scholars follow suit). Nevertheless, the Greeks themselves called it paiderasteia'', and nearly everything Dover talks about is applicable to this article.


 * The second quote is not well cited, but again is a point commonly made. Again, I don't see the urgent need to remove the text from the article and take it to the talk page. I would urge the editor who made these removals to, in his own words, "do some research". I suppose it's easier to take things out than to try and build up the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, let's simplify and just look at the facts. You state it is " uncontroversial for anyone who has a basic knowledge of ancient Greek sexuality" that... "most Greek men engaged in relations with both women and boys,"


 * Since it is uncontroversial, there must be many easily located references that would support that text. Would you please provide one? With proper sourcing, I would remove my objection without delay.


 * I don't question that many ancient Greeks engaged in homosexual behavior; but I wouldn't write that in Wikipedia without a reference, and the word "most" makes it a much stronger claim - especially when the supporting footnote says that it was illegal in "most cities".  It's one thing to leave unsourced material when it does not state the opposite of the footnote, but when the reference and the text disagree, the text should be removed until it can be sourced. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that User:Haiduc reverted the edit I brought here for discussion, with no edit summary or other explanation: .  He's welcome to disagree, but a blanket revert with no discussion is not a helpful form of collaboration. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the footnote (by which I assume you mean the second quote) more carefully. It does not state that homosexuality was illegal in most cities--it states that uninformed views about the nature of ancient Greek sexuality generate erroneous statements that homosexuality was illegal. There's no contradiction.


 * As far as "easily located", this is a relative statement. For me, this requires a trip to the library, which is both time-consuming and inconvenient. May I ask why you aren't performing some of this research yourself? If you have a university library available, I suggest you get a copy of Dover's Greek Homosexuality. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The quoted statement does not include the word "erroneous". But granted, it's a partial statement and it's hard to tell from the fragment what it means.  I am not arguing that the text is wrong, only that it is questionable at this time.  If it's uncontroversial, it must be in more than just that one book.  If only one book makes the statement and no others support it, that's getting into the realm of controversial.   WP:V specifies that the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores material, and specifies inclusion of page numbers when citing from books, so I requested verification of the source..   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, this is a spot where knowledge of the subject helps; there's really no doubt about what the footnote means. Furthermore, if the "one book" that says something is Dover, that wouldn't fall into the realm of controversial; Dover is the standard work on ancient Greek homosexuality. (A web search can establish this last fact easily.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the prior comment I've done some reading on this. I found that it's much more complex than the way it's stated in that sentence in the text, and that while Dover's work certainly occupies a central position, there are multiple interpretations and reviews of it and they don't all agree.  I don't question that male same-sex relations were not unusual in ancient Greece or that they thought about those relations differently than in modern times; but for the qualifier "most", I've not yet found sources supporting that.  If I had, I'd report them, I have nothing against the statement if it's accurate. But there is so much unsourced material in the dozen or so pederasty-related articles, it's necessary to start somewhere in making improvements.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Most" is supportable, from Dover himself, and other sources. There are a few scholars, among them T.K.Hubbard and Giulia Sissa, who argue that the eromenos/erastes relationship was common only among the aristocracy. But this is a minority viewpoint (perhaps prominent that it's worth reporting in this article, and definitely should be mentioned in Pederasty in ancient Greece. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reprotected
I've protected the article again. I'll continue to do so whenever I see the cycle of reversions starting over. - brenneman  03:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but just to be clear - I've made some edits, but none of them were reverts, and I had no intention to revert. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC) PS. Actually, for transparency, after reviewing my edits, I think I did one revert yesterday and discussed it on the talk page - regarding a different part of the article and with a different editor. Anyway, I don't have any problem with the protection; I concur with slowing the process on this article so we can work in a more collaborative way. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think you've made substantial edits to this article. Should you be the one to do the protection? (I am not questioning whether the article should be protected.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a fair question. I'll give my round-a-bout answer, and if there is consensus here that I shouldn't be doing it I'll hand off to another administrator.
 * I don't think there would be disagreement that they way we've been proceding has been slow and painful. I've proposed (as an editor) another way forward.
 * Recently as an adminstrator, when I've seen (via my watchlist) sub-optimal editing w/o commensurate discussion, I've been protecting the article. I've not looked at what state the article is in when doing so.  Use of +sysop rights to "win" content disputes is of course a  very bad thing.  Now that I look, I see that I've locked the article in Haiduc's version... So I'm feeling somewhat safe that I've not done the wrong thing w.r.t. that.  I've also chosen not to edit the article at all since I protected it, only using the talk page.
 * I want the best thing for this article, as we all do. I believe that adminstrator attention is needed to get it.  The advantage is that I'm here, another mop will probably not give the love and attention to this article that it needs.
 * All that being said, I'm nothing if not open to input. Thank you Akhilleus for the opportunity to respond, now it's over to the crowd to decide.
 * brenneman 05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know the article had been unprotected before it was reprotected, otherwise I would have readded the sentence about Wilde's short story which was deleted a week or more ago for unintelligable reasons. The problem is that we do not get useful discussion on this page, for the simple reason that some editors do not seem primarily interested in improving the article but in simply deleting whatever they can. If we could develop genuine debate about how sections on ancient Greece, the Renaissance etc should be properly presented, then we could come up with stable and probably well sourced, informative text. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul Barlow is absolutely right in his comment about "editors" here deleting whatever they possibly can delete. It is blindingly obvious that the purpose is not to inform but too obscure, and that the article is being gutted. These well intentioned editors have gone as far (if not here then in related articles) as to delete discussions of pederastic rape with the nonsensical rationalization that it "does not fit the definition." I cannot imagine a more blatant example of using the letter of the law to pervert the spirit of the law. The whole exercise has descended to the level of an orgy of know-nothing prissiness that serves only as en ego-prop for the editors that have hijacked Wikipedia for their own personal satisfaction. If they did this to any other topic they would be out on their ear by now. Haiduc (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, I must complement you. Your turn of phrase " an orgy of know-nothing prissiness" is one of the funniest insults I've ever seen, congratulations!

However... leaving aside the contentious tone of your comment, and addressing the content, I don't understand what you mean by "delete discussions of pederastic rape with the nonsensical rationalization that it 'does not fit the definition.' " - according to the article, pederasty is a mutually affectionate relationship; or at least, mutually beneficial, in terms of status and mentorship. If that's the definition, then a military victor raping a boy is not "pederasty", it's just rape. Similarly, the purchase of the prostitution services of a youth is not "pederasty", it's just "child prostitution", or simply "prostitution", depending on the age of the prostitute. If "pederastic rape" is included in the definition of "pederasty", then the definition would need to be expanded beyond consensuality. Previously, you've indicated that's not your idea of the definition and that the mutual aspect is central. So, please clarify - what is the definition, as you see it? Thank you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jack, that is sophistry. A topic includes elements which are antinominal to it. A discussion of marriage is incomplete without a look at domestic violence, even though that is certainly not part of the definition of the custom. Likewise, we would not exclude cases of domestic violence merely because they were in the context of cohabiting couples. So let's not use protestations of orthodoxy as a cover for the opinion-driven demolition of an article. Haiduc (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)